Both political extremes should be left right out

LeftRightOut® says:

07:09am | 04/08/11

I’m not sure it’s Evil vs the good guys, Eric… I think it’s more the normal youthful arrogance, thinking they know better than everyone else… so really, it’s an “I’m right, you’re wrong” thing…

And Hildebrand, my name is trademarked!

Kevin says:

07:59am | 04/08/11

As a reformed leftist, you have had to redirect your hate to the evil feminists.

Grumbles says:

08:48am | 04/08/11

This works both ways, you know. The left have, so they seem, moral superiority. The right, well, they just assume they are right and everyone should step aside. And they are just as good at hatred and insult as anyone on the left. Erick is the classic example. Both sides are excellent at trite comments and black and white analysis in a very grey world.

Personally, I think this aritcle is a poor attempt at demonising one side without any attempt at balance.

If you really want to see class and compassion from this whole sorry affair it has come from the left leader of Norway whose words have been healing and spot on. He is what we should all aspire to be. So sad that he is a rare exception. And even sadder that many people have accused him of being weak (mostly from the right because, as Erick said, “Thus, of course, anyone who deviates from the rights position is seen as not simply wrong or misguided, but as an evil person doing evil things. This is one of the roots of the hatred that the right mindset tends to project at others.”)

Ok, so i substituted left with right but you see how easy it is to make bland stupid statments based on your entrenched idealogical view. But, sigh…be it always so it will never change because it takes a person of exception talent to see both sides of an issue and to find compassion for all.

Joel B1 says:

09:25am | 04/08/11

Indeed, and in various bits of psychological/sociological research that I can’t be arsed to reference those of the left type are more likely to steal and cheat.

Because, ironically they feel they are “morally better” than others so have the right to do so.

Ando says:

10:14am | 04/08/11

No doubt there are a lot of hateful lefties. There is a breed that think because they have taken a default moral high ground which requires no sacrifice on their part, that it allows them to behave in a disgusting abusive manner with no guilt.
Moral high ground is also a position that trumps any logic and therefore requires less intelligence and free thought.

Thomas Anderson says:

10:23am | 04/08/11

The bolsheviks who murdered the Russian Tsar and his family were also convinced that they were doing the right thing and anyone who opposed them was evil.

It is easy to fall prey to the Utopian notions of socialism, however when one realises that not everyone will be in agreement with them, one’s natural response is to try and force this agreement. This is especially dangerous when the person intending to force the agreement is backed by many others, as not only does he have a desire to use force, but also the means.

hot tub political machine says:

10:26am | 04/08/11

I agree with you grumbles. When I first read this article I was pretty disappointed. A coffee later and I’ve just realised how deeply offensive it is. The title suggest balance, but then the author simply goes ahead and tells the left part of his audience why he abominates them and wants them to F*** off. Its pretty nasty really.

We as an audience are clearly beneath the author’s contempt. I don’t think we are welcome anymore.

Kassandra says:

11:30am | 04/08/11

Why are people so flat out eager to ascribe peoples’ idiotic beliefs and obnoxious behaviour to their ideology rather than advancing the much more likely alternative that obnoxious idiots are more likely to be attracted to extremist versions of any ideology?

AT says:

11:37am | 04/08/11

I agree with Hot Tubby’s agreement with Grumbles.

The Punch is a most curious entity, what we’re witnessing here (and with increasing regularity across the site) is the odd spectacle of unheralded anonymous posters like Grumbles posting comments that are more accomplished, more cogent, less loaded, better written and more engaging than authors’ original articles.

The only purpose infantile squalid bankrupt writing like this piece seem to serve anymore is to act as a clarion call to the equally close-minded, like Erick and his troupe, to launch their tedious call-and-response routine.

You could be right, Hot Tubby, The Punch may no longer ‘welcome its audience’, but they should feel flattered that people with reasoned intelligent comments to make still pay The Punch the compliment of posting on this site. I wonder if they’re capable of recognising how risible they’ve become? It might be possible for them to recover and renovate The Punch so it doesn’t look so decrepit, but they’ve so debased the notion of a blog it really might be best if they continue disappearing up their own arses.

jack spratt says:

11:40am | 04/08/11

My God, you’re prolix, Ecka.

AdamC says:

12:00pm | 04/08/11

Grumbles, why on earth would you use Erick as a supposed example of a right winger who insults people who disagree with him? It’s simply not the case. Erick is usually very restrained in his approach to his detractors - many of whom have little to add but accusations about his mental health.

marley says:

12:24pm | 04/08/11

@Grumbles - I agree with a lot of what you say (including the one-sideness of this article) but not with your swipe at Erick.  I seldom agree with Erick, and I’ve had a few exchanges with him - and I’ve never known him to resort to personal insult.  We argue, but we argue about ideas and facts, not about each others’ moral character.  There are people on both the left and the right who regularly appear on the Punch, of whom I wouldn’t say the same.

AT says:

12:50pm | 04/08/11

Here, watch:

—AdamC; one of Erick’s bum-boys.—

See? That’s an example of the sort of exchange that flourishes on The Punch. Posting crap like that is terribly diminishing and tawdry, yet is the norm here. It’s remarkable that it seems to be the full-time pursuit of a small mob who post hundreds of such “comments” all over this joint — I wonder if the moderators who unblinkingly post their dispatches take them seriously or have the same level of contempt for them the rest of us do?

Erick says:

12:57pm | 04/08/11

@AdamC - It’s kind of the lefties in this thread to provide examples of the sort of thinking and behaviour I mentioned.

Thomas Anderson says:

01:05pm | 04/08/11

Kassandra, you’re definitely onto something there! We know it’s all cause and effect, the hard part is determining which is which.

andye says:

01:09pm | 04/08/11

@Erick - “Thus, of course, anyone who deviates from a lefty’s position is seen as not simply wrong or misguided, but as an evil person doing evil things. This is one of the roots of the hatred that the leftist mindset tends to project at others.”

Oh, Erick. There are many “conservative commentators” who seem to focus almost entirely on talking about the left. In the USA, this has been the case for a while and it seems we are really picking up pace catching up with this.

Ann Coulter is a regular on Fox News. Here are some of her books:

* Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
* How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).
* Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
* If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.
* Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America
* Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America

Oh, here is Michael Savage, nationally syndicated radio host. He wrote some conservative books:

* Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder.
* The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture.
* The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military.
* The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military

Notice a pattern? Much of populist conservative thought seems to have very little to do with conservatism, and a lot to do with characterising leftists and painting them as traitors.

It is hate speech, pure and simple. It is also big money. Lots of those books are best sellers.

And you have the gall to say that this is something that is part of the “leftist mindset”. Can anyone find as many overtly anti-conservative books or pundits that even approach the sales and popularity of these examples?

Hamish says:

01:12pm | 04/08/11

AT, so why on earth are you posting here? To feel superior to the ‘close-minded’ who you obviously would prefer to denigrate rather than debate? And you call other people ‘infantile’. The mind boggles. Isn’t this article about the left and personal attacks?

Hamish says:

01:14pm | 04/08/11

Oh yeah and I assume using the words infantile in the same post as describing someone as a bum-boy is meant to be funny right? Surely it’s not meant to be taken seriously?

Willie Mac says:

01:15pm | 04/08/11

@ Joel B1,

Or perhaps the lefties are just more honest?

Hamish says:

02:07pm | 04/08/11

AT, my apologies, I think I misread your second post. I guess I should read things more closely. Although it does seem strange to hang out at a site that you don’t like.

AdamC says:

02:18pm | 04/08/11

No, Hamish, you haven’t misread anything. AT is a pseudonym, among many others, sometimes used by a ludicrous, chronic troll, whose core handle is ‘The Badger’, who hangs around the Punch insulting people and generally making an idiot of himself. There is no point trying to engage with him as a rational adult because, at least when at the Punch, he isn’t one.

Bev says:

03:03pm | 04/08/11

andye says:01:09pm | 04/08/11
And you have the gall to say that this is something that is part of the “leftist mindset”. Can anyone find as many overtly anti-conservative books or pundits that even approach the sales and popularity of these examples?
Ever thought that “leftist mindset” and their policies are what is making their views unpopular. People are becoming focused and moving more to the middle from both ends of the spectrum. While many on the left see these publications as extreme many don’t.  Well at least large parts of the publications tally with their own experences.

AT says:

03:52pm | 04/08/11

Hamish, it’s not a matter of ‘hanging out at a site I don’t like’, The Punch is ostensibly an open forum welcoming views and comments both dissenting and approving. This place is more and more looking like the exclusive domain of spivs in ideologically lockstep. It voids it’s position as a “public debate” site.

It’s important, I think, to express one’s disdain more volubly than usual in the face of such PUBLIC partiality. Do and say whatever you want in the privacy of your own sequestered web forum, but if The Punch and it’s peculiar regulars have pretensions of public engagement they should be prepared to accommodate all comers.

AdamC’s 2:18pm post is fairly typical of the standards at The Punch; silly, pointless, irrelevant and inaccurate. If there’s an expectation of having to “like” that to “hang out” here, there really should be a big banner on the front page stating that so adults will know to stay away.

andye says:

03:59pm | 04/08/11

@Bev - So basically, the left shouldnt go around wearing such short skirts, they are really asking for it? Or maybe: if you didn’t talk back I wouldn’t be forced to hit you?

And the middle? How on earth is “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder” anywhere near the middle ground here?

It is all lazy propaganda and has nothing to do with policies. Both sides are guilty of it, and it swings back and forth. The 60s, anyone? The conservatives, between Fox News, various radio and publications just seem to be really quite good at it the last several years.

If @Erick had said “they are both as bad as each other” I would have conceded his point quite easily… but he didn’t. He just generalised about leftists again like this kind of hate is specific to the left.

And yes it is stupid when the left does this as well.

This is about demonising and attacking the people who hold the beliefs you don’t agree with instead of debating those issues. It is about painting the people who hold those beliefs as being ridiculous and irrational. It just enhances the partisan divide without promoting any understanding or middle ground at all. It isn’t about any of the actual issues.

Free speech is free speech and I don’t ever propose changing that… but I will always argue against this lazy hate speech. I know in the past I have been guilty of it myself when I have gotten my back up - but hey, I am trying.

Thomas Anderson says:

04:35pm | 04/08/11

Bev, a book’s popularity is not indicative of its merit in 100% of cases. One only needs to look at Twilight “novels”.

Bev says:

05:13pm | 04/08/11

Thomas Anderson says:04:35pm | 04/08/11

Not what I said. The word parts is there.

LeftOutRight says:

05:20pm | 04/08/11

On another note, @ LeftRightOut® - I don’t think it is? and if it is, it’s definitely not registered.

Bev says:

05:53pm | 04/08/11

andye says:03:59pm | 04/08/11

@Bev - So basically, the left shouldnt go around wearing such short skirts, they are really asking for it? Or maybe: if you didn’t talk back I wouldn’t be forced to hit you?

I presume the first part is a dig at my anti feminist stance. Though very few men or women would see that as a truth including myself. Though feminists have a habit of projecting on all men.

The second ?????????????? So it is your contention we only have right wing thugs perhaps?

andye says:

07:52pm | 04/08/11

@Bev - I do remember your name from here, did we have a feminist argument? It might suprise you to know I’ve had a go at more radical type feminists I know. there are definitely jerks on all sides.

its not like just because I consider myself mostly left (more socially than economically) that i magically agree with everyone on the left, or that i dont find the more extreme ones annoying and condescending.

this isnt just a left problem, though. its more a problem with any partisan extreme.  during the howard/bush years there were leftist people in both countries whining and moaning, calling for impeachment or that some decision was illegal. “illegal war” and all that.

meanwhile I thought invading Afghanistan was the correct decision. Still do. It was everything that came afterwards that made it a bad decision. Iraq? Seriously, guys? way to mess this whole thing up. that’s just what bin laden wanted you to do…

Anyway, that is a bit off topic, but maybe it demonstrates that you shouldn’t throw stereotypes around all the time. An american I used to debate with online once convinced me that I was kinda anti-american. I had thought it was ridiculous, but he convinced me and I conceded and addressed the situation. I think it allowed me to see his perspective more clearly, without the blinkers I was wearing.

what i am really railing against here is the hypocrisy of declaring one side “more angry” or “more smug” or whatever… are we justifying our arguments and beliefs… or justifying our hate and opposition?

It just seems ironic that erick would make all sorts of general statements deriding leftists who are basically very similar to him, just with the opposing viewpoint.

Kevin says:

07:55am | 04/08/11

Well if you embrace the authors flimsy logic, you could look at the behaviour of Declan Stephenson and conclude that “the right” generally engages in thugishness and intimidation.

flocculant says:

12:11pm | 04/08/11

I don’t think we live in a world of extreme views. The vast, vast majority of people keep their views to themselves. It’s disappointing that the loudest shouter (or blogger, or troll) ends up becoming the de facto ambassador for the rest of us. There’s no news in moderate views (ooh, that rhymes!).

Chris L says:

12:39am | 06/08/11

I think you’re on to something there! The moderate view is just not sexy enough to advertise, so all we hear are extreme right/left viewpoints. No wonder we get the wrong impression!

PS Joe, I still hold you in esteem, but will continue to use quotation marks when I refer to you as a “journalist”

marley says:

08:15am | 04/08/11

Have to agree on this one, Mahrat - it seems to me that the extremes at either end of the spectrum are either screaming/sneering at their respective opposites, or wallowing in self-congratulation with their peers - which fortunately leaves the rest of us to ignore the lot of them and get on with our lives.

Thomas Anderson says:

10:27am | 04/08/11

Methinks we need a third major independent political party - someone in the middle.

Bev says:

11:57am | 04/08/11

Most people think as you do. Latest AustraliaSCAN survey.
25 items were nominated

What Australiians thought were important

A good marriage 83%
In control of their lives 82%
happy and successful children 81%
Owning your own home
being debt-free
being fit and healthy

environmental issues didn’t get a look-in and the actions of the greens and government have turned a majority of people away for conservation issues except for inner city elites

Issues they considered important and which the Government should act quickly
the economy 41%
public healthcare 41%
education 30%
violent crime 28%
unemployment 28%
Global warming number 13 of 25 items.

privacy? Just 6% thought it should be a priority, even though the Greens and the Prime Minister have become so fixated on the issue.

Miranda Devine
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/family-focus-is-eluding-the-prime-minister/story-e6frfhqf-1226107717997

TimB says:

07:59am | 04/08/11

And the point of the article is proven.

Way to go Kipling.

Matt says:

08:18am | 04/08/11

Interesting rant Joe.. I guess not everyone has the platform to rant about how lefties and righties displayed such bad behaviour in blaming each other - and then go ahead and hypocritically place all blame on the left…  Lucky you.

The fact that anyone at all places blame politically is a joke, the fact that you write an article stating that and then blame the left is just pathetic.

Rudyard says:

08:22am | 04/08/11

It is unbelievable. Only discovering this piece was meant to be parody would negate its idiocy, but that would make it a catastrophically bad parody.

He accuses the “left” of making the more offensive comments about Norway than the “right”, but doesn’t cite one single example. Not one. He just rattles on in cloudy abstractions — pissweak. Unless Twitter comments have become public debate’s pinnacle?

He does manage to excuse those charming shock jocks — they’re just doing their job, he tells us and redistributes his ideological vaudevillian’s map — apparently his lefty adversaries have moved from Newtown to the Inner West. Pity only those familiar with Sydney’s demography would understand the references and the vast majority of those who do understand it shake the their heads at its immaturity and half-bakedness.

Joe is not Rightarded or Leftarded or even journotarded, just tarded.

Paul says:

09:28am | 04/08/11

Why is there so much glee he was Christian? When the last 10 terror attacks happened Leftys got emotional and pointed out these are deranged people that do not represent Muslims. But know peeps are trying to infer that this man represents Christianity? Hypocrites to the extreme. The Communisit revolution in China killed 50 million people, the russian revolution 100’s of millions. None in the name of religion but Idiology. You see people will always kill and find an exscuse to do so. The left should show a bit more class seeing as they defend muslim terror attacks which account for 99.9 % of terror attacks worldwide.

PTom says:

10:15am | 04/08/11

@Paul,
Nice twist I think you will find that most on the left commend terrorist attacks, we just don’t go blaming a whole religion for their action. At this moment the left is point out how the right are not doing them same about Christianity.

James1 says:

10:24am | 04/08/11

“the russian revolution 100’s of millions”

Really?  At the beginning of the revolution, Russia had a population of around 160 million.  That puts Russia’s current population in the minuses.

Excellent article.  I am glad that I chose to read this one for my daily Punch ration.

fml says:

10:25am | 04/08/11

Paul,

the left doesnt not defend muslim terrorist attacks, the left argues against the lies made up by the right.

Stalin didnt kill 100 million, a more accepted figure is 50-60, and he didnt kill all of them with a gun, it was the result of world war 1 and 2, and also the result of the working conditions and harsh work conditions.

Also 99.9 percent of the worlds terrrorism is the fault of muslims, more lies brought about by cunning right wingers like yourself, eric and SSR.

Matt, Rudyard, spot on.

TimB, I agree Joe has a point when he is arguing the extreme left-wing, not the centre left. The unfortunate thing is he is so blind that he can not see that he himself is one of those extreme right wingers and that he fits in perfectly with his description of the left.

hot tub political machine says:

10:29am | 04/08/11

Nail head hammer Matt

Ando says:

10:35am | 04/08/11

Paul,
No one says he represents Christianity, simply the he was a Christian     ( pls provide a quote to prove different) .  The “glee” comes in watching the media go from religion being the most important factor to religion being irrelevant.

Ando says:

10:50am | 04/08/11

FML,
“Joe is an extreme rightwinger”  I think you better recalibrate your rating system before it embarrasses you further.

fml says:

11:14am | 04/08/11

Ando,

I was going off his characterisation of left-wing and placing him in the same extremity of ideology. I admit the adding of “extreme” is a bit of hyperbole.

Also i am not embarrassed to admit a slight exaggeration, thanks for the concern though.

Bev says:

12:20pm | 04/08/11

fml says:10:25am | 04/08/11

the left doesnt not defend muslim terrorist attacks, the left argues against the lies made up by the right.
No much of the lefts comments attempt to downplay extreme Islam and paint all muslims as peaceful and others as poor misunderstood souls with an axe to grind.

Stalin didnt kill 100 million, a more accepted figure is 50-60, and he didnt kill all of them with a gun, it was the result of world war 1 and 2,

Agreed many died during the war. 30 Million perhaps?

also the result of the working conditions and harsh work conditions.

We know 20 or more million died through engineered collectivization.
Many more died at the beginning of and during the earlier years of the revolution as did many of the millions sent to concentration camps and forced labour in Siberia and other places.  100 million may be too high but 60 million is too low.

Also 99.9 percent of the worlds terrrorism is the fault of muslims, more lies brought about by cunning right wingers like yourself, eric and SSR.

Depends where you set the timeline.  Anarchists and communists were
to the fore before and during world war 1.  The jews were prominent from the 1930’s until 1948.  After this period the absolute majority was and is muslim.

Oh and Chinese communism and Pol Pot accounted for millions. How many nobody accurately knows but the body count is high

Kim hart says:

01:28pm | 04/08/11

ptom claims that the leet commends terrorism. Do you really think terrorism is great or are wor simply illiterate!

PTom says:

04:28pm | 04/08/11

Kim,
At least it is spelt correctly.

EXSERV says:

07:21pm | 04/08/11

He might have a few typing problems but you either don’t know the difference between commend and condemn OR you really do commend terror attacks.
Answer the question.

PTom says:

09:57pm | 04/08/11

@EXSERV One man terrorist is another freedom fighter. You will believe what every you want, it wan’t matter what every I type because the right is right and be damn any who disagree.

Chris L says:

08:51am | 04/08/11

I was hoping after the hung parliament that both sides would learn a lesson about what the public wants from them. I sometimes think that hope is just a waste of time when it comes to politics.

Anti-totalitarian says:

09:49am | 04/08/11

This is why the paradigm needs to move from left/right to libertarian/totalitarian.  No matter how much they try to convince you otherwise this paradigm makes the totalitarians stand out like the proverbial.

I find it surprising that the ‘progressives’ policies would not look out of place in 1930’s Germany.  I can only assume that many are not students of history which also explains why the most shill indulge only in ad hominem and strawman arguements.

fml says:

10:30am | 04/08/11

The right continually show their obvious ignorance in history when they compare Hitler and Nazi germany to the left. Hitler hated the left and communism.

Hitler was a nationalist, pure and simple. Hitler thought the primary threat to germany was communism. Yet people continue to wrongly compare hitler to the left.

As these quotes below demonstrate.

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.  ”
   
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“  In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms.  ”
   
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“  In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defence against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory.  ”
   
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamp

AdamC says:

11:03am | 04/08/11

Fml, there have always been left-wing anti-communists. Opposition to communism alone does not make one right-wing. Nor, indeed, does nationalism. Mao and Ho Chi Minh, for example, were very nationalistic.

Having said that, I don’t think it is especially useful to have that argument about whether Hitler was right or left wing. Without appropriate context, the left and right divide is meaningless.

Hamish says:

11:28am | 04/08/11

AdamC and fml, even the Soviets were very nationalistic when it suited them which was in reality most of the time. As were/are the Chinese communists. Nationalism is common to almost every political ideology in practice (if not strictly in theory as both Marxism and liberal capitalism in their purist sense are anti-nation). The Nazis are generally a mirror to ideology. Lefties think they were right wing while right-wingers believe they were lefties. They don’t really fit with either side’s current definition. Of course, as a right winger I think they were more of the left.

Ryder says:

11:48am | 04/08/11

A thorough reading of as much material as you can manage of what occurred in the 30’s and the real story of the rise of Nationalism slowly emerges.

Time is proving Hitler correct in his assumptions that the left would win if Germany failed in its attempt to stop the march of international globalists.

The subject of Hitler is one many people think they understand but their opinions are always based on the propaganda of the winners. Until you have read in detail the many different positions taken by all involved in this era you have only a partial and usually flawed view of the time.

All we ever hear is he killed all the Jews and tried to take over the world. The real story is far more complex. What would have happened if Churchill had accepted the peace proposition put forward by Hitler that included the removal of troops from Czechoslovakia but not the Sudenland and the peaceful removal of all Jews from the Reich to an internationally recognised homeland? Would the total tragedy of the war have been averted?

The genuine offer of peace carried by Hess to Britain was refused and he died in prison never able to tell his story.

fml says:

12:02pm | 04/08/11

Hamish,

I can see that is the case, Hitler did apply some tenants of socialism, but vehemently opposed marxist socialism, which is what i apply to communists and the left. He did protect private enterprise but at the same time allowed the state to absorb excess profit from private business to fund his war effort.

fml says:

10:38am | 04/08/11

“This has led me to distrust all do-gooders and only respect those people who look after themselves, their families, and their friends first, their community second, and the rest of the world third.”

What like politicians?

PTom says:

10:49am | 04/08/11

So Castro,
Left commit anti-social crimes such as shop lifting what no proof. naughty.

Also anti-social crimes is drunkness and bashing peole in the street which as selfish individual seem more like a right action according to Joe.

Bev says:

12:32pm | 04/08/11

fml says:10:38am | 04/08/11

What like politicians?
No like average people. Go look at the latest AusSCAN survey.

Bev says:

02:42pm | 04/08/11

PTom says:10:49am | 04/08/11

So Castro,
Left commit anti-social crimes such as shop lifting what no proof. naughty.
I don’t know about shop lifting but greens/G20/G8/lefts have caused a lot more damage to public and private property than anyother group.

Also anti-social crimes is drunkness and bashing peole in the street which as selfish individual seem more like a right action according to Joe.
Nobody approves of that left, middle right.

fml says:

03:54pm | 04/08/11

Bev,

“I don’t know about shop lifting but greens/G20/G8/lefts have caused a lot more damage to public and private property than anyother group.”

That is a massive statement, even more so than private enterprise??? pollution, old forrest logging? more than the very groups they are trying to hold accountable for their ways?

Bev says:

05:21pm | 04/08/11

fml says:03:54pm | 04/08/11
Does not give them the right to trash other peoples property or stop people going about their lawful business.  Peaceful assembly not violent assembly and the end never ever justifies the means for anyone no matter who you are or what your beliefs, applies to government or private citizens.

fml says:

05:33pm | 04/08/11

Bev,

Does that apply to the persons in the middle east fighting for democracy?

Bev says:

06:39pm | 04/08/11

fml says:05:33pm | 04/08/11
Does that apply to the persons in the middle east fighting for democracy?
If I recall the majority of the protests were and still are peaceful. Syria comes to mind. Then it is looking like their orginal intentions will be betrayed by those hard liners who wish to introduce full blown sharia law as happened in Iran.

Markus says:

07:36pm | 04/08/11

“Does that apply to the persons in the middle east fighting for democracy?”
Last I checked, Australia was not a declared war zone.

If for some reason any extreme left group in Australia wants it to be, so that they can justify destruction of private property, go ahead and declare war. Just so long as they don’t go crying to the police/government after they get the living s**t kicked out of them.

Chris L says:

09:11am | 04/08/11

I was wondering about that. Of course, it is easier to notice criticism when it’s directed at you, and thus I have noticed the rude and dismissive responses that swarm over any comment that favours a left wing approach, at least on this site.

Obviously Joe is correct in pointing out how feral and abusive members of the left can be, but is wrong to be so dismissive over how equally feral and abusive members of the right can be.

Michael says:

11:28am | 04/08/11

I had a crack at offering a different point of view but it got lost in the ether, it was off the top of my head so i don’t remember what i typed, never mind

Mouse says:

11:28am | 04/08/11

To be perfectly honest iansand, I reckon THAT headline would sell millions of copies! IMO people are getting sick of the vitriol from both sides and wish they would just do the job they are being paid to do and stop trying to out score each other.  Sad isn’t it?

MarK says:

09:42am | 04/08/11

“Norway attacks means two things, the elite have two enemy’s….”

Sigh.

No.

What the Norway attack means in isolation, globally, singularly, socially, politically or whatever other adjectival descriptor you wish to put onto it is this;

There are people that are mentally ill that sometimes think mass killings are the right thing to do and act on this urge.

That is all.

Now because repetition here seems to work…..

The Norway massacre proves really mentally ill people sometimes kill lots of people.

Nothing else can or should be drawn from it.

fml says:

10:36am | 04/08/11

MarK,

Honest question, why is it with muslim terrorism, the ideology is applied to all the muslim population and they are not considered insane, yet with christian fundamentalism, the man is “insane” and acting alone.

I have said before that, one incident should not be extrapolated onto a whole population when talking about muslim fundamentalism, and i have been called a terrorist sympathiser, i am stating the same, that the actions of this man in norway is not inherent in the rest of the christian population, am i now a christian sympathiser?

Hamish says:

10:44am | 04/08/11

fml, there’s no evidence this guy is a Christian fundamentalist at all. In fact, the evidence suggests he’s not religious. He said he wasn’t religious in his manifesto. So the question is irrelevant in this case anyway. His interest in Christianity is in the way it shaped western civilisation. At least, that seems to be the most reasonable conclusion, but it’s hard to know when someone is clearly deranged.

Most (or a large number) of suicide bombers have mental illnesses which has been quite widely covered. The dudes who give them the bombs are a different story though.

AdamC says:

10:53am | 04/08/11

Fml,

Just to assist the rest of us, could you please explain in what respect Anders Breivik was a ‘Christian fundamentalist’?

And, not to pre-empt, MarK, but I think the reason why people like me see islamic extremists as more of a threat than angry, ultra-nationalist Norwegian gunmen is because, on the one hand, there are a lot more of the former than the latter and, on the other, because the Breivik philosophy, including the Breivik methods, do not have any real currency within broader Scandinavian society. This is in contrast to violence-advocating islamists who are actually extremely popular in the Middle East.

By way of example, you may be aware that actively violent islamist terror organisations run Gaza and effectively control Lebanon. In other news, the violence-advocating Muslim Brotherhood is the most popular political party in Egypt and Iran is run by a terrorist-funding, violence advocating, theocratic government. We’re not even into South Asia yet!

Remind me, how many countries is Anders Breivik president of?

You see now why I am a little more concerned about islamic extremism than alleged ‘Christian fundamentalist’ gunmen.

fml says:

11:02am | 04/08/11

Hamish,

He stated he was part of an international christian military order. which he called ““Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici” (“Poor Fellows of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon”), his aim was the christianisation of europe through violent means. His manifesto talks about the knights templar.

How is that not proof that he at the very least considered himself a christian terrorist? You will be able to get me to agree that he is not a christian in the respect that he does not adhere to the humanist aspects of christianity, which is good will to all men.

fml says:

11:22am | 04/08/11

AdamC,

My previous post.

He stated he was part of an international christian military order. which he called ““Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici” (“Poor Fellows of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon”), his aim was the christianisation of europe through violent means. His manifesto talks about the knights templar.

The reason why you are more afraid of islamic terrorism, is because you distance your self, rationalise and overlook acts of christian terrorism. Andreas brevik a classic example, he claims to Christianize Europe, claims to be of a christian military order, but that isnt enough proof for you? We are rarely told of the christian terrorism in africa, yet it exists, i just want a bit of balance, you are more afraid of islamic terrorism because thats all you hear in the media. Then when you get a classic example of christian terrorism, you conveniently overlook and rationalise it. 

I understand that islamic terrorism is a real threat, but to compare it to nationalist Norwegian gunman is naive. It has to be compared to all forms of terrorism, including christian terrorism which this mad man most clearly was. claiming he is not a christian fundamentalist is absurd.

Hamish says:

11:41am | 04/08/11

fml, surely a Christian fundamentalist would be expected to be religious? This guy says he is not religious. As I said, it’s hard to know exactly what the guy believes in as he’s clearly deranged, but fundamentalists would generally say they are religious I would have thought.

Please refer back to my point re Christianity as a cultural influence. My understanding is that he believes in Christian civilisation being superior, not that he is actually religious. A lot of people who aren’t particularly religious also believe this.

AdamC says:

12:49pm | 04/08/11

“I understand that islamic terrorism is a real threat, but to compare it to nationalist Norwegian gunman is naive. It has to be compared to all forms of terrorism, including christian terrorism which this mad man most clearly was. claiming he is not a christian fundamentalist is absurd.”

Leaving aside this issue of whether Breivik is a ‘Christian fundamentalist’, which Hamish blows out of the water below, your reference to ‘all forms of terrorism’ is interesting. The reality, of course, is that terrorism is merely a means of making war or forcing concessions through violence and fear. The issue is not so much how a particular violence-embracing movement or ideology seeks to aggrandis itself but, rather, what impact it could have on our society and how widespread the idoleology is.

In the case of Anders Breivik, it is quite clear that his violence-embracing, intolerant philosophy is extremely marginal, even among the radical nationalist parties of Europe. Breivik is, as far as we can ascertain - and, in spite of some of this claims - just one man. Yes, one man can commit unspeakable and horrific acts of violence, but he cannot seriously damage western society.

Radical islam, whether through terrorism, conventional war, or subversion through muslim immigrant communities, can. Your dismissal of the threat of radical islam as a media concoction is itself a naive fantasy.

fml says:

02:21pm | 04/08/11

AdamC,

“Your dismissal of the threat of radical islam as a media concoction is itself a naive fantasy.”

That would be true if that was indeed what i said, which of course it isnt, i never said it is a media concoction, i said your personal perceived threat of islamic terrorism is directly related to the lack of reporting of christian fundamentalism in the media. No one is saying islamic terrrorism doesnt exist, although the percentages people come up with compared to christian terrorism is vastly over exaggerated.

“Leaving aside this issue of whether Breivik is a ‘Christian fundamentalist’, which Hamish blows out of the water below,” I dont think it does, he is using the same logic that i use for islamic terrorism, which is derided by most on this blog. The claim that he isnt a christian terrorist, when he has himself claimed to be part of christian militant organisations is rationalising his motives to the extreme. He claims to be part of militant christian organisations whose purpose is the christianifcation of europe and that somehow means he is not a christian terrorist? terrorists can have motives beyond religion, but by claiming to be part of a military christian group, kinda means that you are a christian terrorist.

You can argue that he isnt a real christian, but examples like “werd” below are not willing to apply the same logic to any other terrorism.

“The issue is not so much how a particular violence-embracing movement or ideology seeks to aggrandis itself but, rather, what impact it could have on our society and how widespread the idoleology is.” I agree somewhat, if classification isnt important why are happy to do so? What i meant by that statement is that terrorism is in the eyes of many purely an islamic past-time and arguing the validity of anders religious beliefs is furthering that sterotype which is ofcourse untrue, there are terrorists of many faiths.

I also dont like how you used compared the statistical probability of a norwegian gunman to prove the high prevalence of islamic terrorism. Its not logically honest to argue that one lone gunman, proves a higher prevalence of islamic terrorism, when the real picture is seen when you compare islamic vs christian terrorism. The two are not of the same level, I can see that is why people are claiming he is not a christian terrorist, its to try to prove statistically that this was an anomoly as opposed to a movement. He said himself there are more cells similar to his ilk. Now i am not saying that there are not more acts of islamic terrrorism, i am saying people are perceiving islamic terrorism to be vast cause of a majority of terrorists acts as a result of the few reports of christian terrorism in the media and the rationalisation of clear instances of christian terror, such as anders brevik.

AdamC says:

03:43pm | 04/08/11

Fml, I am not sure what your point is, then. I mean, are you arguing that ‘Christian terrorism’ is somehow a threat on a scale similar to that posed by radical islam? If so, what is your basis for this? A single Christian terrorist - if that is even what Breivik is - clearly does not demonstrate an equivalence of threat between Christian and islamic terrorism.

Are you arguing that there are Christianity-inspired terrorist attacks occuring with anything like the frequency or severity of islamist terror attacks? If so, you are just plain wrong.

fml says:

04:30pm | 04/08/11

AdamC,

You illustrate my point exactly, even since the advent of islamic terrorism, has there only been one incident of christian terrorism?? How many have incidents have you viewed through the media? is this the only one? how many people use this as justification that only islamic terrorism exists? or exists to the point where we can justifiably blank over incidents from any other groups with a different affiliation?

“A single Christian terrorist - if that is even what Breivik is - clearly does not demonstrate an equivalence of threat between Christian and islamic terrorism.”

No it doesn’t, I realise there are many acts of christian terrorism, in the US and in Africa, its just we dont hear about these, so people try to claim that i am claiming equivelence, no i am not, i am claiming there is more than one incidence which people either dont, or refuse to see, to skew the actual percentage of occurrence.

“Are you arguing that there are Christianity-inspired terrorist attacks occuring with anything like the frequency or severity of islamist terror attacks? If so, you are just plain wrong.”.
No, i am saying they are much more frequent than the frequency you use as your basis of comparing islamic vs christian terrorism, equal no, but not low enough in frequency to completely ignore, over-ride with rationalisation to justify calling it a “Single christian terrorist” or the “Act of a single norwegian gunman” who was, at the very least in his own mind, acting with some form of religious basis, which can be seen by his militant religious affiliations.

AdamC says:

04:46pm | 04/08/11

Fml, you seem to be splitting hairs here. I never argued Christianity-motivated terrorism doesn’t exist. Notably, Americans who blow up abortion clinics could be considered Christian terrorists. But comparing the two is akin to likening Sydney harbour to a mud puddle in your driveway. They are just different orders of magnitude.

Hamish says:

05:13pm | 04/08/11

Yeah, fml, no one would seriously believe you are as worried about Christian terrorism as Islamic terrorism. This is really the problem with your argument. You may say you are, but everyone would think you are lying, even to yourself.

fml says:

05:38pm | 04/08/11

AdamC,

thats my point, the orders of magnitude is more significant than ‘1’, which was the only number you used when comparing islamic terrorism to christian terrorism, good to see you acknowledge that there forms of christian terrorism. Now its just a numbers game.

Hamish,

In australia i am not worried about either, i am worried about nutjobs/criminals with guns. It is statistically more likely to experience gun crime than any form of terrorism in australia, and for that i am thankful.

Ginger says:

09:55am | 04/08/11

Don’t read News Ltd papers if that’s a problem for you. Easy, fixed.

Joel B1 says:

09:28am | 04/08/11

“m’kay”

Says it all really.

fml says:

10:37am | 04/08/11

Good post TT.

hot tub political machine says:

02:24pm | 04/08/11

There’s this old saying about glass houses and stones that comes to mind when reading this article…..

fml says:

10:41am | 04/08/11

That sounds fairly extreme and goes against the basic tenants of democracy.

Dementer says:

12:55pm | 04/08/11

fml,

why would extremists have a place in a democracy.

they are dangerous and undermine the country

fml says:

01:29pm | 04/08/11

Dementer,

Depends on your definition of extremists. As long as they do not use violence as a means of promoting a political ideology. Then go nuts. Although i suspect you mean anybody who is ideologically opposed to how you align yourself.

Dementer says:

03:33pm | 04/08/11

fml,

I sense you tend not to agree with me.

And if thats the case you would be either a tree hugging hippy who doesnt believe in burning coal. But since you are on the computer one would assume that you have embraced the practise.  or a gun toteing right winger, i suspect you lean to right of the idelogical divide and wont be loaning you a gun…

Timmy says:

04:38pm | 04/08/11

Extremists have a place in democracy because it would require an act of extremism to get rid of them.

fml says:

04:54pm | 04/08/11

I sense that we only have a difference in our meanings of
“have no place in the political landscape in Australia.”
And how that would be achieved. I think it should be decided at the polls. Not just make blanket statements about their existence. On this topic you are about misunderstood as mahmoud ahmedinijad, you get the reference?

Anna C says:

10:21am | 04/08/11

“Joe so your position is left and right are bad but left is worse.”

wonk_arama, what I think Joe is trying to say is that that the right are generally concerned about looking after themselves, their families, friends and community. They see nothing wrong with looking after their own and aspiring for something better.

Whereas the left thinks that it is there job to tell everyone what a of bunch of selfish bastards we all are because we live in a first world country and don’t spend every waking moment thinking about: saving the planet; furry animals losing their habitat; people starving in Africa; refugees; our carbon footprint etc. Well excuse us for living.

Blind Freddy says:

11:22am | 04/08/11

What I think Anna C is trying to say is - right good, left bad. So thoughtful . . . so deep . . .

PTom says:

12:00pm | 04/08/11

Anna C.
So which community first? town, region, state, country, globe.

Anna C says:

12:05pm | 04/08/11

“What I think Anna C is trying to say is - right good, left bad. So thoughtful . . . so deep . . . “

No Blind Freddy, nothing so simplistic as right =good and left = bad. What it means is that the people on the right just want to live their lives, whilst the people on the left want to tell us all how to live our lives. That’s the distinction.

wonk_arama says:

12:47pm | 04/08/11

Anna C I think you’re just proving my point. One side = good, Other side = baaaaad. Speaking in the sort of absolutes you’re using achieves what exactly?  Sure shoring up a stereotype makes us feel good but the only generalisation that’s 100% true, 100% of the time is; never make generalisations. 

One of theses days the extremes at either end are going to realise that there’s a large chunk of Aust society in between them both seeing merit in a little from column A and little from column B while despairing at the pathetic ideological partisan tosh that passes for debate in this country. 

HeatherG says:

11:46am | 09/08/11

Actually, I think Joe was trying to say more like, “in my experience, I’ve been treated more badly by leftist fundamentalists than rightist ones. Both extremists suck but the left have been ruder—in my experience—and I wish they’d stop that so they could actually get more done.”

The “in his experience” is important. He has, he says, been attacked more personally by the lefties who perceive him as right-wing than he has by the righties who perceive him as leftist, and suggests a few reasons why he thinks/believes this is so. He suggests that maybe lefties might like to have a good hard look at that.

He has a point.

TimB says:

10:05am | 04/08/11

Bwecause Kipling, in his initial sentence Joe was talking about “blame” in reference to the Norwegian tragedy. Which he attributed equally to both sides.

The rest of the piece was a general comparison between the the attitudes of people on the Right and Left, and had nothing to do with blaming anyone for what happened in Norway. Yet you still felt that Joe was ‘blaming’ the Left and felt the need to retaliate.

Joe highlights the discrepancy between what Left wingers claim to be and how they actually act in reality. Utterly convinced of their own moral superiority, yet failing to realise that the behaviour they engage in proves that they are nothing of the sort.

And then in your post, you went right out and engaged in the exact kind of behaviour that Joe has highlighted.

Michael says:

11:13am | 04/08/11

Well spotted TimB.

PTom says:

12:08pm | 04/08/11

TimB.
“Utterly convinced of their own moral superiority, yet failing to realise that the behaviour they engage in proves that they are nothing of the sort. “

Seem like many on the right are doing exactly that in their posts today include Joe.

Will says:

03:16pm | 04/08/11

Best post today.

TimB says:

10:06am | 04/08/11

Stalin?

Do we really need to play this game? It’s boring.

RyaN says:

10:34am | 04/08/11

What was Hitlers political party that brought him to power?

MarK says:

10:38am | 04/08/11

Ohhh ohhh can I haz game time too…ummmmm

Pol Pot

Mike says:

12:39pm | 04/08/11

Me too, me too.

Forrest Whitaker

Shooter says:

12:41pm | 04/08/11

Nazism was founded out of the current of the far-right and racist völkisch nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[9] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies, though a majority of scholars hold it to be a far right form of politics.[

RyaN says:

01:35pm | 04/08/11

@Shooter: Bzzzz - “German Workers’ Party ” then became “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”

Regardless of what you say about what “scholars” say, fact is he was a leftie, brought to power by the left who then turned to all out fascism.
Nothing to do with the right other than in the dreams of leftie commie “scholars”.

MarK says:

09:48am | 04/08/11

So you forget Combet in front of posters seeking to murder Howard? Or plays that had Costello murdered? Or union thugs running amok in parliament house? Or Steve Price being spat on at the docks? The list is legion.

Selective memory or what?

I love this bit “campaigning proudly”...nice.

What you can’t shake and what has come to a surprise for a lot of people, most notably the left, is that when blatantly lied to, when stitched up, when treated like fools, the right can actually get vocal and angry.

That is the real issue.

Politicians of the left, the media and the assorted elite are really surprised that the right has decided to protest and use some muscle back in their faces.

The precious flowers think that this is awful. It is hilarious to watch and see the reaction actually. How dare the right actually stand up and have a rally.

Gosh darn it.

Kimberley says:

10:08am | 04/08/11

You refer to people as “arseholes” but seem offended by “Ditch the Witch”.
I loved Abbott standing in front of that sign. Shows he is listening to the majority of the electorate!

RyaN says:

12:13pm | 04/08/11

@Dan Meek: is this you amongst these guys? http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-10/23/content_274795.htm

Matt says:

01:32pm | 04/08/11

MarK, Kimberley and RyaN, you’re not playing by Joe’s rules - don’t make a liar out of him..

hawker says:

12:14pm | 04/08/11

Because those on the right would never think they know what’s best, would they Anna C?

Anna C says:

01:59pm | 04/08/11

Hawker, while I know what is best for me, I do not presume to know what is best for you or anyone else for that matter.

hawker says:

02:17pm | 04/08/11

Can you say the same for most public fugures and commentators from the right? Seems to me they’re not quite as laissez faire as you.

Bev says:

06:29pm | 04/08/11

Possibly Joe is sticking up for his employer. Perhaps there is a different reason.  Just perhaps Joe as have others has seen just how some on the left and the greens have hysterically attacked anybody who disagrees with them including floating the idea of shutting them down.  There has been a shift by a great many people away from leftish views. Being attacked for being a traitor tends to focus your mind and clarify your thoughts and yes most can hold a mix of ideas in their head. Because you disagree on one or more point does not put you in the opposite camp.

MarK says:

10:13am | 04/08/11

Dude the Unabomber was the ultimate leftoid hippie and attempted to kill on a huge scale.

This is one of the most ridiculous generalisations I have ever seen. It is beyond laughable.

Gawd. This post is a keeper. I am literally pissing myself laughing.

(And before I get jumped on again the Unabomber is not representative of all the left blah blah blah. He is just another mentally ill person)

Anna C says:

10:39am | 04/08/11

“Remember Joe - Breivik is an extreme right winger, nothing can change that fact, and no-one from the left would ever repeat what Breivik did, regardless of how extreme they may seem to you.”

Knemon what planet have you been living on? Were you not around in the 1970’s when left wing groups such as the Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhof Gang committed many terrorist acts in Europe?

Only a few weeks ago Interpol reported that in 2010 left wing groups were responsible for 45 attacks in Europe. I think you must be seriously deluded if you think that the left does not commit terrorist acts also.

Shane Stone says:

10:58am | 04/08/11

Stalin, Pot Pol, Che - long list from the left - all butchers and mass murders; the extreme right and left have contrubuted equally to the slaughter of innocents. You just proved Joe’s theory; well done.

RyaN says:

12:14pm | 04/08/11

@Knemon: Mugabe is a loving leftie.. go and visit him, he would love a piece of you.

Knemon says:

12:27pm | 04/08/11

“Gawd. This post is a keeper”

Coming from a respected conservative right-wing Puncher like you MarK…I take that as a compliment. Thank-you.

I stick by what I said…“no-one from the left would ever repeat what Breivik did”

We’re talking about individuals here, not dictators and the like.

MarK says:

01:33pm | 04/08/11

Explain to me how the hell the Unabomber is of the right.

Please.

This is a riot. You really believe this. I just had a thought in the back of mind you might be trolling but no…..you really are caught in an ideological place from which there is no escape.

Unabomber - right wing nut….discuss.

Oh and unlike the shambolic pers I allow anyone to answer either for or against. I am a affirmative action question asker. Free press and all that. Anyone else got a lefty murder they wish to share? Just for fun. Or some from the right?

Let us see if we can explore this “no-one from the left would ever repeat what Breivik did” claim.

Should be a hoot.

PS I am not respected, don’t confuse me with anything I am not.

Mike says:

02:32pm | 04/08/11

Ted Kaczynski was/is an anarchistic technophobe who, while discussing Leftism extensively in his Manifesto, was not a ‘Leftist’ as such. He believed all sides of politics were failing in their current forms and that they were allowing the advancement and use of technology to destroy human society. He believed that we were losing our connection to ourselves and to the Earth on which we live.

Shooter says:

02:39pm | 04/08/11

RyaN were you upset when mugabe took your lands?

Knemon says:

03:17pm | 04/08/11

@ MarK - I’m not sure where you get this idea that Ted Kaczynski is from the left? He referred to himself as an eco-anarchist and he was heavily influenced by Jacques Ellul who was a Christian anarchist. Anarchists seek to diminish or abolish authority of any kind; they are neither left nor right wing.

What Kaczynski did (3 deaths, yes 3 too many) pales in comparison to what Breivik was able to achieve (76 deaths). I will be extremely surprised if ‘anyone’ whether they are left or right wing, can ever ‘repeat’ Breivik’s horrific actions. Emphasising ‘repeat’ as per my original post.

RyaN says:

04:38pm | 04/08/11

@Shooter: nah mate, I was more upset that he and his mates tried to murder myself and my entire family on multiple occasions, the first being when I was just a boy, I can still remember the bullet holes in our car.
Hell he even declared me an “enemy of the state” because of the colour of my skin even though my ancestors had been in Africa going as far back as 1687 having left France for similar reasons where the Roman Catholics were butchering Protestants.

Were you trying to be a smart arse or do you have any idea what it is like to have people with the only intention of wiping you and your family off the face of the earth confronting you?
Do you want gory details of how a friend of mine saw his brother murdered at the age of 12 while closing the gates to the fence around the farm for the night, would that give you a little orgasm would it?
Why not just do a search on “South African farm murders” to see the genocide that is going on there right now as we speak. Perhaps that will give you a little bit of fun?

Shooter says:

06:00pm | 04/08/11

Ryan sorry to hear that. I am a black American who is lucky to live in this country and I am sorry Ryan if I caused any hurt.

Anna C says:

10:54am | 04/08/11

“Oh, So the massacre in Norway was the fault of the left?”

Blind Freddy, no one is denying that the killer was a far right extremist. However it should be said that the left don’t exactly have a spotless record when it comes committing terrorist acts either.

MarK says:

10:36am | 04/08/11

No.

Actually you are wrong. very wrong.

The shooter was a person whose stated politics were of the left. He was not “of the far right”. Nor was he of the far left.

Kudos for linking Palin to something though. You did well.

Shame about your facts being wrong and all but never mind.

Anna C says:

11:02am | 04/08/11

Shooter, I think you are drawing a long bow there. Terrorist acts are comitted by both sides of politics. To pretend othewise is is just plain wrong.

Shooter says:

11:40am | 04/08/11

MarK.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/palin-slammed-over-democrats-target-map-20110110-19kc5.html

Anna C thank you for your comment, It just seems there are crazy people everywhere and it just sucks to ruin someone’s life because of religion, politics or gender. I am right down the centre of the road I think all sides of politics have something to offer but its lunatics that make me think twice about voting for that particular party left, right or straight down the middle.

Ian1 says:

01:21pm | 04/08/11

I feel that someone who has committed an act of terrorism or mass murder has decidedly moved beyond politics into something more akin with mental disorder or fanatacism.  I would hesitate to give any credence to an argument that suggests one or the other side of politics were responsible.  That being said, wars happen, and are often at the bequest of citizenry who can no longer abide atrocities being imposed on a people in the name of politics.  I refuse to believe that all wars are fought over resources.  Can you feel the beating of the drums from the deep though?

MarK says:

01:26pm | 04/08/11

Lol Shooter?

What?

It is exactly what Joe is saying. A leftoid paper used the shooting to link Palin to it.

And you, like a good lemming, have jumped right in over the cliff with them

Who cares? Do you honestly think Palin is asking for people to shoot democrats?

Your insinuation is disgusting. If you believe that to be case then state it.

Seriously what?

I am fully aware of the smear attempt. I laughed when I first heard and I laugh at you now for returning to it. It is a desperate attempt to smear. That is all. read Joe’s piece again. He gets to this in his own convoluted and try hard humour way.

Go google up Jared Lee Loughner. See how many hard far right political views he held genius.

Go on prove he is of “the far right”. Prove it or admit you are wrong in fact.

Here is a fact about him to get you started. He is a declared atheist. That’s right an atheist. Does that mean that atheists are terrorists too? Using your logic they are.

/derision

/scorn

Truly pathetic.

Go do some research and stop smearing. Why not go dig through all of Palins email like the press did. They found nothing. The disappointment was palpable. You could hear the screeches from the atheist feminist mafia in the US from here. The leftoid sisterhood got a right good kick in the fanny when the emails just showed a loving mother, dedicated worker and fair minded individual doing what she thought was right.

Damn the lack of scandal.

Just say it son. You hate Palin. It’s ok to say it you know. You don’t have to grasp at straws and make things up.

Shooter says:

01:58pm | 04/08/11

Leftnoid - MarK you must of been picked on at school. What a nerd

Shooter says:

02:06pm | 04/08/11

MarK your pathetic little nerd.

Hamish says:

02:54pm | 04/08/11

That was impressive MarK. The misguided and ultimately aborted attempt by the left to leverage the tragic shooting of Giffords to smear Palin was a disgrace and simply an attempt to justify irrational hatred. And now they’re doing it again.

andye says:

03:19pm | 04/08/11

@MarK - But your beloved Palin is clearly a dirty commie. She significantly increased taxes on Alaskan Oil companies when they were booming, grabbing a cool extra $6 Billion that year.

Not only that, but Alaskan oil companies must pay every citizen a yearly amount, generally around $2000. She also approved a one-off payment of $1200 to each Alaskan to help with heating bills.

Kind of puts the constant attacks on Labor as being wealth redistributing commies in a new light, don’t it?

Ian1 says:

10:37am | 04/08/11

@Ddoge - “The sooner christians and right wingers accept some level of responsibility for what Breivik did…”

What a ridiculous assertion.  Why don’t you take a poll of all the murders and rapists in prison and find out who they’ve voted for in the past…  collate the data and blame a political spectrum for the insanity of their ‘internal’ locus of control.

Ddoge, you disgust me.

marley says:

10:50am | 04/08/11

I agree with you that hate sells far better than reason or logic, but that applies to both sides of the political spectrum.  There’s plenty of hate on both sides, and not a whole lot of logic or respect for one’s fellows. 

For example, you think Christians and rightists should accept some level of responsibility for Breivik’s actions.  Why?  Mass murder isn’t part of mainstream Christian or conservative thought.  I wouldn’t expect a modern left-wing Australian to take a level of responsibility for Maoists massacring villagers in Assam, so why should someone who believes in Christian values like loving his neighbour, and in small government, be expected to feel guilty over a nutjob killing people for some twisted political reasons of his own? 

Breivik isn’t very different from Timothy McVee or from the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhoff gang of the 1970s - people with a belief in individual violence as a means to make a political statement.  That some were on the right of the spectrum and some on the left, doesn’t make individual conservatives or progressives responsible for their actions any more than it makes your average Muslim responsible for 9/11..

Ddoge says:

11:18am | 04/08/11

Good, as much as most monotheists and far right radicals ‘disgust’ me.

Absolutely those groups need to recognize there are individuals, that given the right level of hate and motivation WILL carry out said attacks.

It’s the same reason fundamentalist Islamists absolutely must recognize the crazed individuals that WILL be inspired to take action out on the rest of civilization in the name of their religion.

The dude wrote a freakin 1k page+ manifesto on his motivations… Only the impressive spin world of the right is that NOT A RED FLAG to his motivations…

It’s not about voting you chump. This is part of the whole problem. This is about religiously inspired extremism influenced by the rise of ultra right nationalism - tea party style.

If Greenpeace were still out there bombing ships, damn right they’d get all the heat that was (and should) be coming to them - just like the fraction of a percent of right wingers like Breivik who massacre people.

Ian1 says:

11:35am | 04/08/11

Ddoge - good to see you’ve alterred your rhetoric. 

As long as you don’t presume the responsibility for said attacks rests with Christians or conservatives, your inflammatory remarks make you out to be less of a chimp.

There’s a vast difference between associating the abhorrent actions of an individual with a political ideology than there is with assigning responsibility for those actions.

LC says:

01:51pm | 04/08/11

The man is a delusional nutter. No-one is accountable, not the left, not the right, not Abott, not Julia, not Bush, not Howard, not The Greens, NOT ANYONE other than himself.

Chris L says:

04:48pm | 04/08/11

Hypocrisy is an artform, Zee. We should admire their work.

Blind Freddy says:

11:36am | 04/08/11

And, according to the same logic, the US are responsible for Islamic terrorism.

Joe writes and sounds like one of the “leftoids” he derides so much.

Dan says:

11:25am | 04/08/11

Shame about the old testament hey…

fml says:

11:27am | 04/08/11

werd,

Absurd. Islamic ideology is taken directly from the koran, tacitly calling all muslims terrorists, this nutjob claims to be a christian, but anyone who reads the bible correctly, i assume, like yourself is a real christian.

I never claimed he was a christian, and if you read my other posts i also say he is not a christian. But the double standards piss me off.

Islamic ideology is taken directly from the koran you claim, but there is no way this guy could take his ideology from the bible.

Warren says:

11:31am | 04/08/11

@werd, Both the Old and New Testaments as well as the Koran contain a range of violent imagery, and can be interpreted in any number of ways, including from an “extremist” perspective.

I don’t see how your definition of a “true Christian” would be any different to that of a “true Muslin” in its desire for peace.

Blind Freddy says:

11:32am | 04/08/11

The Bible has two parts (old and new testament) and you conveniently overlook the first because it pops your little utopian bubble. Pop!

Anna C says:

12:45pm | 04/08/11

I think the reason werd is making a distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament is because unlike the Koran, the New Testament has been rewritten and reinterpreted over the centuries and much of the bad bits (but not all - like the gay hating crap etc) have been taken out over that time. I wouldn’t have thought that too many Christians today actually follow the teachings in the Old Testament anymore apart from may be psycho Christian living in the deep South in America. But I could be wrong?   

The Koran however is not allowed to be re-written because it is supposedly written by the ‘hand of God’ and is therefore considered perfect. Even though it was written centuries ago no one is allowed to update it, on pain of death.   

Regardless, you will always find both Christian and Muslim extremists, who insist on reading the words in the Bible and Koran as the literal truth and use it to justify committing violent acts.  It all just goes to show that the world would probably be a much better and safer place without religion.

fml says:

01:31pm | 04/08/11

Anna C,

Is that the real you??

“Regardless, you will always find both Christian and Muslim extremists, who insist on reading the words in the Bible and Koran as the literal truth and use it to justify committing violent acts”

I whole heartedly agree.

Dan says:

01:32pm | 04/08/11

@Anna C

That’s completely absurd. You’re applying one set of criteria to Muslims, and a totally different set to Christians.

You’re judging Islam on every word in the Koran, as though it is to be taken literally. And then, when the ugly moments in the Bible are pointed out, saying Christians are allowed to ‘pick and choose’.

And who has the authority to re-write the Bible exactly? It hasn’t been re-written, just translated. Who is given that God-like power?

Even hypothetically accepting your argument on the Koran, why not the same criticism of the Jews? The Torah is taken in it’s original Hebrew, and many of those six books contain some fairly horrific instructions. Do you consider Judaism equally silly?

Anna C says:

02:40pm | 04/08/11

Dan the Bible has been translated/reinterpreted many times over the centuries: 
*Septuagint - 250 A.D.
*Vulgate- 400 A.D.
*Council of Carthage in 400 A.D.
*Luther’s German Bible- 1534 A.D.
*King James Version- 1611 A.D.
Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D.
New International Version- 1960’s & 70’s A.D.

The reason why I mentioned the Koran is because I was responding to fml’s comment. I didn’t mention the Torah because the subject was not brought up.

Oh and yes I do think all religions are stupid and that is why I treat them and their followers with the contempt they deserve.

Johnny atheos says:

02:57pm | 04/08/11

Anna C@ Makes some very good points.

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” Isaac Asimov

This goes double for the The Koran which is much more violent.

Timmy says:

04:55pm | 04/08/11

@Anna

The current translations are not re-translations. You appear to imply that these translation work in some sort of chain, one being used to create the next. This is not the case. When someone comes up with a “new” translation in this day and age, they are generally going back to a plethora of manuscripts (in the original languages) that in some cases date back around 80AD.

In regards to the Christian understanding of the Old Testament, you really need to develop and understanding of the OT in the context of the NT before you start using the OT as a tool to attack those who say that in general violent acts are contrary to Christian teaching.

If you are going to develop an argument against someone it is a good idea to ensure that you accurately represent their position before offering critique.

George says:

11:42am | 04/08/11

I find there’s a lot of truth to that. For instance at uni. The people who are most keen on multi-culturalism are the lefty arts students. But the immigrants don’t do arts. They usually do stuff like computer science. Maybe if those who are so vocal about multi-culturalism and “racism” actually had to put up with the downsides of multi culti it they’d get more respect.

But at the moment I’m on the left’s side, because the right isn’t really right in the old fashioned sense anymore. They’re neo liberals which imo is a fuedalistic and radical stance. They pretend to be on side with Australians and they aren’t.

The left were ugly and feral when Howard was in, now the right are.

Chris L says:

10:45am | 05/08/11

Don’t worry Andye, it looks like the right wingers are taking the article just as seriously as the left wingers. If it was a joke it seems to have been a misfire, which is unusual for Joe.

Will says:

04:41pm | 04/08/11

I agree Nick. Brendan O’Neill did his best but was disappointing. His attempt to compare criticism of Murdoch with anti-semitism was a massive stretch and frankly, just lame. He also compared what he called Julia Gillard’s “war on carbon” to the British Government’s “war on Murdoch”... equally pathetic and irrelevant. Unfortunately for Brendan and News Ltd, any valid points he made during that discussion (and there were a few) were significantly diluted by these sorts of stupid comments.

Now, I don’t usually mind Joe’s articles and in general I think he seems like a pretty good bloke which is why I was disappointed to read (in this article) how sensitive he can be when someone criticises something (or someone) he believes in. No one was “screaming” at Brendan O’Neill.

Granted, Stephen Mayne trounced him in most of the arguments they had but he did so articulately and there was no screaming or personal abuse. For Joe to describe that discussion as “unfair, impolite, intemperate and excruciatingly uncomfortable” demonstrates a level of hypocrisy and a preciousness that is not becoming of a journalist, particularly one as irreverent as our Joe.

And before anyone gets upset about me calling Joe irreverent, that is not an insult. That’s just his style and I think Joe would consider it a compliment.

PTom says:

12:45pm | 04/08/11

No one does fanatic more then a convert.
How about “stop the boats”, “great big new tax” and “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” does that must make the Abbott lefties too but that can’t be true can it.

I guess the Rightist like you can now take the moral high ground like Joe and preach about how wrong and bad the left is.

Dan says:

01:26pm | 04/08/11

How on Earth can you blame the left for the GFC? How do you figure regulation the problem, and de-regulation the solution? I’m sorry but I think you’ve got this all a little backwards.

And I’m sorry, but PTom has a point…every time I hear Tony Abbott in just about any context, the Coalition’s intellectual high-ground disappears.

fml says:

04:02pm | 04/08/11

” it is certainly well argued and powerfully reasoned”

It is nothing of the sort. He fits in nicely to his own logic. Something i atleast hope he is aware of.

Rick says:

05:13pm | 04/08/11

Knowlage is Knowing that a tomatoe is a fruit.
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Bev says:

02:19pm | 04/08/11

The beauty of this particular soap box though is its obvious commitment to free speech in that both our opinions get aired regardless of whether they are Right, Left or actually correct…

I will endorse that statement.

Ian1 says:

01:00pm | 04/08/11

Hear, hear.  It’s funny too, that what is deemed left or right often includes whatever policy is flavour of the month and any policy which isn’t of party lines is considered the opposite.  It’s the rational mind which includes the common sense necessary to look past the political spin and assess the parties on their record of action or failings, not their rhetoric.  Imagine it, how-to-vote Labor helpers handing out sheets preferencing the Greens, all the while advocating the most right-wing asylum seeker policy to be bandied around.  The mind boggles.

fml says:

05:26pm | 04/08/11

What is it with you righties, always with the treason and the hanging, its not the 17th century.

Steve says:

01:46pm | 04/08/11

John. The article is titled “both political extremes should be left right out”

hot tub political machine says:

02:19pm | 04/08/11

As such its one of the most deceitful article titles I’ve ever seen. Title basically says both extremes are bad. Article is a long description of why the left are far worse than the right.

john taylor says:

02:46pm | 04/08/11

True Steve, but Joe turned it into a lefty bash.  The heading was misleading.  It should have been:  ‘both political extremes should be left right out - but the lefties are worserer than the righties”  in the fair and balanced tradition that is the hallmark of the News Ltd hack

Steve says:

03:24pm | 04/08/11

John. Right wing extremism is plain for all to see. when you hear a shock jock you hear it for what it is. Right wing extremists are guileless and don’t need to be endlessly discussed. They are upfront about their agenda.

Left wing extremists have more guile and use the greens as a cover to promote their agenda. The left have recruited those of low self esteem who need to be on the high moral ground for no other reason than the view that is offered from that lofty ground. Left wing extremists are harder to identify and their agenda is harder to distinguish. Many left wing extremists are not even aware they are extremists.

john taylor says:

06:00pm | 04/08/11

Oh Steve - those sneaky lefties…..life must be so hard for you.  As for low self esteem - the atypical tactic of the right is to find people who are afraid of something and then tell them who is to blame for it….works on the terrified bogans every day of the week.  So if the lefties are sneaky, what does that make the righties?  A pack of dolts?

Steve says:

06:30pm | 04/08/11

Yes John you understand my point. I described right wing extremists as without guile you have described right wing extremists as dolts. I will concede to your description.

hot tub political machine says:

01:56pm | 04/08/11

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…...I think I know what you mean Michael

john taylor says:

03:17pm | 04/08/11

Hahahaha

The right being the default? 

What next?  The Chosen People.

Get your hands off it.

Rick says:

04:39pm | 04/08/11

you get old you get scared,in a trap you’ve been snared. Like the old woman that deadlocks the door and burns to death when the house catches fire.Too scared of the outside world.

fml says:

05:16pm | 04/08/11

Correct me if i am wrong, but didnt human civilisation begin with the advent of agriculture and the movement from independent tribes to a community based system?

The thing is if everybody cared only about themselves and their offspring we would still be hunters and gatherers fighting tribal wars, i cant believe you say this with a straight face without appreciating that your apathy to the community was only made possible with the advent of domestication. Its domestication which allowed specialisation so we didnt have to go out and hunt all day, and with specialisation came, art, law, politics and advances in science. Think about that for a second.

Rick says:

05:08pm | 04/08/11

Cant wait

Rick says:

04:49pm | 04/08/11

You should move out if you don’t want your mother telling you to eat your vegies.

john taylor says:

03:29pm | 04/08/11

Probably as many as the lefties who get blind drunk on Australia Day, wrap flags around themselves and tell persons of brown skin to kiss the flag or get beaten up.  Probably also as many as the lefties who get blind drunk on ANZAC day and do the whole OI Oi Oi thing at the RSL - or maybe as many lefties make the ‘pilgrimage’ to Gallipoli and get blind drunk and party on in Anzac Cove and sleep on the gravesites…....and how many lefties encouraged it?  How many lefties advocate torpedoing refugee boats coming to Christmas Island.  How many lefties said “serve you right” when the boat foundered with a loss of lives?  How many lefties said children were thrown overboard?  How many lefties said it was OK to detail a man without trial and that is was OK to charge him with an offence made up retrospectively and how many lefties had full knowledge that at the same time as advocating a war against his people, Hussein was being paid bribes by AWB?

Bev says:

04:17pm | 04/08/11

john taylor says:03:29pm | 04/08/11

Australia day? Many on the left are to busy calling it invasion day and calling for it to be banned. Most families and others I know have quiet celibrations and I you can cannot claim only the right gets drunk, the young yes but there are people from across the spectrum involved.

There were wrongs on both sides at Cronulla.  How did it get started? Simple Australians got very tired of gangs muslim youths arriving at the beach, insulting harassing and slagging off at Australian girls.  When their complaints fell on PC deaf ears things wound up. PC also covered up the groups of muslim youth who arrived in cats after the riots and proceeded to beat up a lot of people.

Have you been to an RSL club on Anzac day? I call BS.

Agree with children overboard.

David Hicks is an idiot convicted out of his own mouth and if not caught when he was probably would have gone on to kill allied troops as have many who were released without trial.

The AWB scandal had nothing to do with right /left or government for that matter.

MarK says:

04:27pm | 04/08/11

Probably as many as the right did. Actually, hang on, more.

Given the ages of most the demographics would suggest they were more likely “left” voters than Liberals.

Oh, and the same number of left wing commentators encouraged this as right wing commentators. None.

Rick says:

04:53pm | 04/08/11

Your only pissed at Hick’s because his book sold more copies than Howard’s

Rick says:

05:06pm | 04/08/11

rapping a flag around yourself is Nationalist=rightwing no? or are they lefties becuase they drink and swear a lot?

2GB listener says:

05:25pm | 04/08/11

Actually Mark, ACMA (our national broadcasting regulator) found that Alan Jones did indeed broadcast material likely to encourage violence and vilify people of Middle Eastern descent in the lead-up to the Cronulla riots.

So that’s at least one for the right.

john taylor says:

05:56pm | 04/08/11

Yes Bev - I have - being a former serviceman and the behaviour of so called patriots on ANZAC Day utterly disgusts me.  I don’t march anymore because I cannot stand the faux nationalism and the polticisation and trivialisation of what ought be a solemn day of reflection.  It disgusted me over 20 years ago when I was still in uniform.  It disgusts me still.  Australia Day leaves me cold for pretty much the same reasons - tinpot flag waving and signifying nothing.  Amazing you people try to justify Cronulla - however you respond, doing it with a violent mob egged on by rancid radio broadcasters is unjustified.  As for PC - get off the grass lady.  IF more of you on the conservative side had better manners PC would cease to exist.;

David Hicks may have been an idiot, but I tell you what, he would have admitted to shooting Kennedy to get out of Gitmo - and his US Marine Corps lawyer showed a damn sight more regard for the Aussie principle of a fair go than many Aussies - most of them on the right.  Never mind the rule of law - he was left to rot because he had not broken any Australian law and the Americans hadn’t thought a law up yet - if China etc had done something similar to an Australian would you protest?

As for AWB - ICB on your comment - that is just typical lack of responsibility from a conservative.

Bev says:

07:40pm | 04/08/11

@john taylor   Whoa don’t do a fuffer valve please or a clacker valve for that matter.

Have you got a daughter?  If your daughter and her friends had been subject to the level of abuse from muslim youth at her school and your complaints were ignore because of PC you would be possibly feel very different. We changed her school (as did others) but why should we have to? I can understand the Cronulla sentiment.  It could have been nipped in the bud but wasn’t because complaints were ignored. Yes it got over the top on BOTH sides.

We are normally traveling on Anzac day but attend the local dawn service when we can and sometimes attend the local RSL in the locality (don’t see oi oi oi oi there). I will admit that many RSL clubs have caught the poker bug and have moved from their original purpose.

We don’t say grace at xmas dinner but we do bow our heads for 1 minute and remember our troops serving overseas and expect anyone at the table to do the same.

Yes I do see the left attempting to trash and ridicule both Australia day and Anzac day and Australia’s history.  Maybe there is a kick back from this and hey when did the young these days not use any excuse to have a piss up.  it does not mean they are not searching for a sense of our history as I get the feeling they are. Just different to our memory and sense of our past.

Anna C says:

03:12pm | 04/08/11

I totally agree with you Johnny atheos. From my experience the left doesn’t seem to have a sense of humour. You can’t take the piss out of them without them getting all huffy. The right seems to have no problem laughing at themselves.

fml says:

05:01pm | 04/08/11

Hahahahahahahahahhahaha you guys crack me up.

Chris L says:

01:40pm | 05/08/11

@Anna - or maybe the right just don’t know how to be funny. When it comes to possessing wit they seem to only get half way.

Ben81 says:

08:20pm | 04/08/11

Lots of people assumed it was islamic extremists at first, big deal.  Plenty of their groups even had to be convinced not to take credit for it.  Next time something happens like this I’d probably assume the same thing too, and yes even after noting the event from 1995 you mention.

Daryl says:

09:07pm | 04/08/11

Jonesy, I’m worried that I have to share the road with people who have the same logic capabilities and intelligence that you have displayed here. You do know how a spelling checker works?

Helen says:

04:17pm | 05/08/11

Oh great. Calls for violent elimination of political opponents (because of course it’s completely unreasonable for a Green politician to be *voted in* - the trickery!!), in a thread about people who call for the violent elimination of political opponents.

Mankind says:

08:08pm | 04/08/11

I agree with what you’ve said here.

Although on point 6. I think that the right have more media outlets that are biased towards them simply because conservatives own most of them.

I’m always amused by right wingers who spout on about left wing conspiracies in the MSM given who predominately owns the MSM.

Chris says:

07:09am | 05/08/11

Mankind, the proliferation of those newspapers might also be explained by the fact that the general public is inherently conservative in nature. Hence the demand for conservative publications.

hot tub political machine says:

09:45am | 05/08/11

What demand? Sales of the Oz are now just above 100,000. That’s a bloody poor demand in a Nation this size. I can’t really think of any Australian paper that doesn’t run at a loss. Good thing for Rupert is he owns all those TV stations too which actually make a profit.

Zeg says:

12:49pm | 05/08/11

Read again Will but this time do it without your rose coloured glasses on.

Will says:

03:44pm | 05/08/11

Actually Zeggy, the term rose coloured glasses refers to a situation where someone views something in a light that is more favourable than one would objectively view the same thing (in this case, Joe’s dribble).

Fortunately for you, I worked in a front bar when I was young where I learnt to understand (but not speak) Tosser so I think I know what you’re getting at.

I think you are suggesting that I have been unfairly critical of the article which is the exact opposite of viewing something with rose coloured glasses.

Not too bright are you tiger. Carry on.

AT says:

12:03pm | 05/08/11

Only the headline said “extremism - left and right - diffuses our understanding…”, Joe did not. Joe presented a poorly thought out, piddling, stream-of-stilted-consciousness polemic which reads like the surly riposte of a discombobulated uni student avenging some personal affront. Whatever the motivation was for this piece, it is crap

In just one sentence, stephen, (“The definition of extremism is a narrowing at both ends.”)  you’ve written with more insight and made a more engaging and intriguing point than Joe managed in his entire article. This piece is so bad, it’s insulting — it doesn’t merit defending, posters haven’t been severe enough.

stephen says:

05:04pm | 05/08/11

I like his articles a lot.
He does write in ‘stream of consciousness’ style.
This is a form of improvization, and improvization is not about something ; it simply is.
It’s a clear style, and you can hardly lie whilst writing it.

stephen says:

04:57pm | 06/08/11

Define ‘Zionism’.
Christopher Hitchens is inaccurate, so let’s see what you can do ?

And the far-right of Europe are faecing their nappies, gagged, trussed and waiting to save the whole conglomerate from a dump.