The Standard has launched a hyperbolic attack on Ms O'Sullivan for her support for the government's decision on the Crafar farms' bid. It is a little odd. I often disagree with Ms O'Sullivan, but she is usually consistent, and has always taken a pro free-trade and investment line. She is explicit in this, and, therefore the venom in the attack on her seems to me to be that bit manufactured. My own view is that she is defending a particular view of "national interest" (see my post yesterday), one to which I do not subscribe, but it is widely held, even, I must say, in the ranks of Labour. I doubt for, example, that Mr Goff would differ from Ms O'Sullivan's view, if push came to shove.
Redlogix should, perhaps, abstain from red meat for a week or so.
IDLE THOUGHTS OF AN IDLE FELLOW: The Ruminations of Robert Winter
No; of course she isn't. But when did "facts" ever stop The Standard from hyperbole and abuse? Did 26/11/11 teach them nothing?
ReplyDeleteAh, @bevorratung a wonderfully calm and articulate voiding of the hind-brain by you. You give Us great pleasure.
ReplyDeleteMs O'Sullivan's complete lack of hyperbole and abuse is patent; the contrast between her mindlessly strident support of the longevity of "economic rationalism" and '...blind xenophobic nationalism...' is as fine an example of objective analysis as any of Us have seen for a while. And, really, how can the untermensch see this as an insult to their humanity? They have none that We can discern.
Yes, what do We care of majority opinion on this or other matter? It only matters when We wish to mindlessly trumpet Our electoral "majority". And, We agree, the failure of the calendar to teach certain people lessons that We wish to impose on them is both improper and time-consuming. All calendars should be imbued with a Correct ideological historicity.
And Ms O'Sullivan might be accused of being speciously facile (Bless her efforts on Our behalf; but We do worry that such charges would stick) but xenophobic? Never.
Her borrowing of the phrase "economic rationalism" from the Australians (Quiggin, 1997) is proof positive of her Internationalism (although she might need to back-peddle on that as it might appear somewhat "Red"). The demmed Quiggin made the appalling point that economic rationalism had produced nothing of benefit for the people of Australia (Op cit). They seem to have repudiated that ideology for a while. We despise them for that, but, it does mean that the untermensch will migrate there to participate in the benefits that have accrued since the damn' Australians have foresworn one of Our favourite and fun ideas.
We patenly do not agree with this "benefits to the people" collectivism nonsense (amongst other things because of the dilution of benefits to Us) We are, nonetheless, delighted that New Zealand is as mired in Retroism as it is. This allows Honoured Donkeys like O'Sullivan (and yourself) to re-tread discredited ideologies, which, by the by, generate even more benefit for Us. Wonderfully circular in reasoning and impact. We hope that this can continue for as long as We can get away with it. Well done to you for aiding and abetting Us. As someone said of Germany in the 1930s: ...the finest poorhouse in the World..... Something for the majority of New Zealanders to aspire to, We believe.
And Mr Winter, your philosophical musings on "national interest", whilst logically incoherent, give Us great comfort. We must be as One on this matter: the very idea of inclusivity is anathema.
We dislike Edgar Mowrer (1937) intensely for his appalling insights into our psyches and methods but he was accurate in his classifications of political systems: '...fascism which excludes the vast majority from both power and wealth...' (Mowrer, 1937: 116). We know that you, @bevorratung, are helping to move Us closer to this Glorious Realm. Thank You.
Fran O'Sullivan in the article in question notes she is a frequent visitor to China. If she is going to write such blushingly enthusiastic endorsements of economic colonialism from Beijing she needs to be explicit about who funds those trips and why. I detect both in her writings and the utterances of other pro-China lobbyists like Jenny Shipley a worrying element of "Kiwi kaupapa" directed against their fellow New Zealanders.
ReplyDeleteI suspect an "economic rationalist" like Fran holds her patriotism to be a cheap enough concession against the direction they see the wind to be blowing from. Fran imagines our new lords and masters to be from Beijing, and she seems determined to be in on the ground floor with them. I am sure this how collaborators have always thus rationalised their selling out.
Hey Roy......It's PEDAL not peddle..ok?
ReplyDeleteI simply re-assert that Ms O'Sullivan is wedded clearly to a particular view of "national interest" in which our best interests are served by free trade and investment. She has quartered the globe in supprt of this view, including China. I think that she is wrong, but she is, I expect, as "patriotic' from her perspective as others are from theirs. Suddenly vilifying her in the manner of Redlogix was facile.
ReplyDeleteThe "patriotism" idea is in itself interesting - are we patriotic to a particular capitalis, class-based state, or to something else? If the latter is true. what?
Moreover, and here's the rub. my own LP has supported that same free trade and investment model for years. It fulsomely supported it throughout its years in office. I may be staunch pro-Labour, but the whiff of hypocrisy in attacking National for decisions little different from those accepted by Labour is rich. Labour in power loved the special treatment that NZ received in Beijing and the "special relationship" that little old NZ had with nour giant neighbour to the North. Labour pushed the APEC agenda. Labour supported the WTO fulsomely. At what point do we accept that our own side and Ms O'Sullivan sang from the same song-sheet?