Damian O’Conner tells a few home truths about the Labour Party and we’ve got the usual pathetic whinging from the cultural Marxists. Not the least from prominent self professed “right wing” blogger David Farrar who whines piteously that-
“the way he (O’Connor) has gone about expressing it does him little credit.”
Oh wah wah bloody wah.
So O’Connor didn’t bother with a bunch of evasive euphemisms and the usual politically correct bullshit the cultural totalitarians like Farrar dictate, he just came out and said what he wanted to say. O’Connor’s forthrightness is refreshing and I say it does him a lot of credit.
Farrar is another social liberal who thinks that being a free marketer is all he needs to be to classify himself as “right wing”. Here he is prostrating himself to cultural Marxism, trying to control thought and speech flat out like a lizard drinking. These are leftist concepts and like so many other social liberals Mr. Farrar is confused about what party to be in. I think he should be in Labour, like so many of the other usual subjects flitting about the blogosphere thinking the ideals of economic liberalism they subscribe to give them credentials as “right wingers”. Then at least he might have some real means of controlling and limiting what words Damien O’Connor chooses to use.
They also think that buying into homosexual “liberation” propaganda makes them the epitome of liberal compassion and tolerance. While any vile smear can be made against Conservatives on Farrar’s blog, everyone knows that the easiest way to get demerits is to challenge politically correct dictates on homosexuality. In principle, he’s as bad as any damn communist dictator in this regard. Its the San Francisco syndrome, a reference to a city so ruined by the Progressives/ cultural Marxists its got one of the highest departure rates in the US.
Right wingers do not try and control what other people think or say. Our credo is leave people alone while reserving the right to judge, and we do not ever buy into cultural Marxist dictates that originate from Communist Party Central 1949.
Damien O’Connor shows why Labour is out of favour. They fail completely to identify with middle NZ, and appointing a list of queers and communists is no way to repair this deficiency. O’Connor is right, and damn good on him for speaking in such blunt terms. We should be challenging these unrepresentative cultural Marxists and their useful idiots, the anti-liberty arseholes who try and control thought and speech, much more vigorously and much more often.
TrueblueNZ 
25 responses to “David Farrar’s Craven Compulsion To Kowtow To Cultural Marxism”
Spot on comment . And remember some day soon the likes of O’Connors comments could be illegal. Scary.
LikeLike
On this blog Kowtow, people are held accountable to good old NZ culture, not culturally Marxist ruling elite propaganda.
LikeLike
Almost choked when reading DPF’s comment this morning.
Yes O’Connor is right on with his assessment.Now Goff has told him off.What a joke.
DPF seems to make excuses for the rainbow brigade all the time.And as for the gay spokesman, spokesperson? spokesgay?, from Chch he can go jump.
Time to fight back.
LikeLike
Well said, Red.
Right wing posers and social liberals like Farrar make me want to vomit – give me a Damien O’Connor any day. I can’t even be bothered reading Keywiblog anymore it’s become such a sewer of meaningless tripe! I usually only have a look when you highlight something there, Red.
And Kowtow,
“And remember some day soon the likes of O’Connors comments could be illegal. Scary.”
I could just imagine Farrar leading the charge on supporting such legislation were it to come into force too. Just another effing communist!
LikeLike
What I find annoying about my demerits on KB is that unlike some I do not use any derogatory terms to refer to homosexuals. I got mine for pointing out the proven link between homosexuality and paedophilia. David makes a living as a pollster. He is good at statistics. If he know what I said was not true you would think he could make a fool of me by using statistics and logic. The fact he chooses to use demerits rather than logic indicates he does not like to hear statistics that cast homosexuals in a bad light. He has not such concern about Maori.
If homosexual get more political clout I will not just be prevents from pointing the truth on his blog but everywhere in New Zealand as is the case in other countries.
LikeLike
“soon the likes of O’Connors comments could be illegal…” Kowtow, I’d bet that some “redneck” hater like de Bres is already looking to throw some fish and chip clause from the Race Relations Act to bring Damien to book. Some along the lines of “Conduct unbecoming to gaggles” or the like…
@ John
“Time to fight back.” We do, often. Never ever, give in.
LikeLike
So first we’re not to call them homos, and we had to use the much friendlier term “gays”, as if their habits are all rather jolly and cheerful.
Now even “gays” isn’t good enough anymore, and we’re supposed to refrain from using any label whatsoever, while we’re also supposed to pretend that the identity politics that assist them in their political endeavors do not exist. Oh, and by the way, we’re also not supposed to be interested in the moral fortitude of our elected representatives, as these are now matters of ‘privacy’. Next step is that we’re not allowed to question anything at all of the lifestyles of the elites that rule us. We serfs are supposed to labor and toil, while our betters and their coterie of aye sayers entertain themselves in their decadent passions.
LikeLike
That’s right Bez, whilst the cultural elite are free to cast whatever aspersions they choose- “feral inbreds” for example.
LikeLike
Have to agree with comments re the direction KB is taking, although quite a few posters there have also taken DPF to task on this topic. Also noticed today that Jim McLay’s son mentioned the “1 in 10” ratio, now I have every sympathy for McLay Jr as an individual, but sad to see that old line repeated. Someone will have the info, and I’m happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that it is more like 1-2%. Labour rather exceeds this ratio! Slightly off topic, but a recent KB thread on abortion was surprisingly liberal too – one thing that struck me was that there was no mention of adoption as an alternative (or not that I saw). I don’t post there any more either so didn’t bother to throw that in.
LikeLike
Further to Damien O’connor’s “A gaggle of gays” comment, I have come up with some other animal themes and kept the alliteration going:
[I have highlighted my favourites]
Link
LikeLike
jonno1
I’m not surprised at the liberal tone on KB re abortion. Look at what DPF was celebrating there. The leftward swing in National, which he posited was a liberalisation or diversiication in the party.Sadly at least one of the Nat s who voted NO is known to be a big “Catholic” identity in his home city.(He is a list MP though). I’d like to see the Catholic media take that up and to have a look at the other Nat MPs who hold themselves ,like me, to follow the Roman heresy.
OConnor also voted NO on that issue so while he may be showing some balls on homosexuals we know where he stands on abortion.. And while I’m not sure if he is a practising Roman, his heritage is definitly in that direction.
LikeLike
Kowtow, do you have a link as to how the MPs voted?
One good thing about that abortion thread, at least there were a number of prolifers there.
As to the Catholic media, after I wrote a post on Len Browns supposed Catholicity, the NZ Catholic paper had an editorial on simlilar lines. Maybe they just need another push …
LikeLike
Found it! From the blogsite of NRT, who no longer allows coments, courtesy of moi.
LikeLike
lucia,
you got it. Isn’t it interesting how the term Christian Taliban can be thrown around as a perjoritive by these people who pretend to respect the views of “diverse” communities,unless they are traditional or Christian ones?
Whenever leftists etc are called names it becomes “unaccepable” and charges or apologies are never far behind……gag the gaggler.
If there was a “Christian Taliban” there’d be alot more “respect” shown by these progressives.The Taliban and other adherents of the religion of perpetual outrage have proven how shallow the west holds it’s deeply held values.
LikeLike
Your hysteria and mischaracteriation does you no credit at all James.
That is a tactic of the left.
[Sorry Exocet- James can write his deeply insulting and cowardly allegations somewhere else. I don’t go to the trouble of keeping this blog so that trolls like James can write such worthless and pointless comments here. He can take that sort of stuff to Kiwiblog. I think Mr. Farrar is bringing in a rewards system over there for attacks on Conservatives so James should do well.]
LikeLike
No probs Red.
James as a libertarian equates Liberty with Licence. A common failing.
LikeLike
Liberty is not licence Exocet…heard of something called personal responsibility? Bit rich to be criticised by conservatives who claim to support freedom yet would deny it to others.Socialists of the soul describes you perfectly.
LikeLike
Only truth will set you free, James.
LikeLike
James, please go away. You can set up your straw men and demand that we defend them somewhere else. Don’t do it here. Boring schmoring.
LikeLike
Speaking of truth Lucia…when are you going to answer the question I’ve been asking anti-abortionists from Kiwiblog to your own site which is …”How many kids do you have?….and “have you only ever had sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
The silence in return speaks volumes to your hypocrisy…
LikeLike
James, the reference to “hanging people” has always been put in the context of treason, which, IIRC, was still on the books (in its unmodified form) until the early 90s and until then still attracted the death penalty.
And most of us here have no problem with the death penalty for serious crime (eg murder) where there is no doubt. And treason is right up there. Why do you find it acceptable to murder unborn children, but THE DEATH PENALTY not ACCEPTABLE for crimes such as treason?
And regarding your question – “have you only ever had sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?” – the answer is clearly that sex (within marriage) is more than just for the purposes of procreation. As such most conservatives and Christians have no issues with controlling when conception may take place through the use of contraceptives (apart from Catholics for their own strange reasons).
There is a BIG difference between preventing conception through contraception, and murdering the unborn child subsequent to conception. Where for many women abortion has become just another form of ‘contraception’.
LikeLike
James: I have a strong problem with pro-abortionists (especially the frantic ones) talking about hypocrisy, because you are ultimately at least as hypocritical when it comes to the excesses of the practice you defend. For me, the biggest problem with the abortion debate is one of definitions and particularly the absolute refusal by both protagonists and antagonists to engage in debate about how definitions relate to moral and legal values and standards, and how fundamental rights issues overlap when it comes to issues like abortion. Furthermore, both sides in this debate obfuscate, use extreme examples, cast moral aspersions without ground and generally behave like adolescents, thus always sustaining an atmosphere of conflict escalation rather than a desire to seek solutions. I’m afraid all this is a result of the fact that the abortion debate is used as one of the ultimate red herrings to sustain a left v right schism, where it clearly doesn’t belong.
LikeLike
I answered the question on my blog, James; a couple of days ago now.
LikeLike
RedBaiter,
James has never got over being abandoned by me a number of years back, when I used to argue the Libertarian position. Ever since then, he’s been like a jilted puppy.
The thing is, the Libertarian position is crap. Exploring it for long enough showed me that within a couple of years. But James is still a true believer.
LikeLike
Lucia, James has nothing in his arguments other than standard left wing strategy-
1) First he sets up straw men arguments. IOW he provides a summary of what he claims is our POV on some issue, and it is always an extremely distorted and untruthful summary.
2) He then demands that we defend ourselves against these untrue allegations.
I have no time for such cheap unintelligent and boring idiots. Take your worthless crap to Kiwiblog James. Farrar loves your attacks on Conservatives and he will protect you and your lies as he does all the other liars and similar small minded wankers who thrive their.
Don’t waste your time here, it doesn’t wash.
LikeLike