Friday, September 25, 2009

Farewell Sue Mao Bradford

Naturally I can barely concede my joy at this news. Bradford is a Marxist who unashamedly embraces a big violent interfering state that treats the economy as a self-sufficient xenophobic fortress and which has its eyes and hands freely in the homes and bank accounts of everyone, to take what it needs to give to what it wants, and make sure you're being good. What can I say?

Well I do love Not PC's summary of the Greens:

What’s unique about the Greens, of course, is nothing more than their combination of authoritarianism and ludditery – with a a caucus composed almost entirely of the intellectual remnants of the Socialist Workers’ Party they’re little more than a bunch of authoritarians with a marketing wing.

So what has Sue Bradford done that is positive for freedom and prosperity? Let me look back at the times I've referred to her in my posts:

Sue Bradford hates Chinese Workers as she opposed Air New Zealand (mostly state owned which she would consider to be a good thing) buying foreign made uniforms. So she despises trade, wants foreign workers to lose their jobs and is economically illiterate. She'd have NZ pursue a kind of North Korean autarchic self sufficiency no doubt. Didn't stop her flying Air NZ at taxpayers' expense of course. She pushed to make you pay for a Buy NZ Made promotional campaign, that she wouldn't pay for herself of course.

Sue Bradford embracing Cindy Kiro's neo-Stalinist plans to have Big Mother watching over every child, monitoring them all, in case you've been bad parents, rather than focusing on targeting children of parents known to the Police, known to be negligent. She even acknowledged in her press release that "I realise some parents will be horrified by the idea that their children will have regular checkups at key stages of their lives" but it was justified by protecting the kids. Given Sue spent many years gleefully supporting China under the rule of Mao (and drifting away when it started opening up), you can see what her role models are.

Sue Bradford's express belief that nobody should be "forced" to work for a living as she embraced the dole. In other words, why shouldn't everyone just sit on their arses and do nothing and magically food, clothes, electricity, homes, everything you consume will magically appear. Given she long led the self-styled "Unemployed Workers' Union" (quite the oxymoron), you have to wonder how hard she thought anyone should look for a job?

She also demanded the nationalisation of the voluntary sector, by forcing taxpayers to pay for it - which of course, means it is no longer voluntary is it?

Sue Bradford's opposition to Air NZ's efficiency drive which includes cutting staff, she said it wasn't bailed out to become a "mean anti-worker" company. Of course it wouldn't have needed to be bailed out had the likes of Sue and the Greens not rallied wholeheartedly against Singapore Airlines (or any foreign company) increasing its shareholding in the company.

Sue Bradford makes a little news that the SIS was spying on her which a naive reporter thinks it amazing. Hardly a shocker. Trevor Loudon long ago outed her lifelong communism here here and here.

So freedom? Nothing to see here. Prosperity? Nothing to see here.

The truth is that had Sue Bradford's politics had her way some time ago, then none of you would be reading anything other than state approved literature, you'd be working for the state , assuming the People's Republic of Aotearoa had survived the difficult period after 1989. She was a member of the Workers' Communist League in the 1980s after all. Charming really, not that the mainstream media can cope with people having been communists, since the little darlings don't really understand it.

So the Greens and we are all safer without her in Parliament, and this may be a fit of pique at Metiria Turei being selected over her (though Metiria is almost indistinguishable in her views) which of course hardly means the Greens are free of their corrosive, pro-state violence view.

What have others said:

Phil Goff I admire her passion for the causes she fought for, even if I didn’t always agree with everything she said,” Well at least he wasn't fawning.

The Youth Union Movement cheered her on for increasing youth unemployment by raising the youth minimum wage to the same as the adult. Cheerleaders for Marxism as they are. Finsec and NDU share similar sentiments.

Barnados and Plunket has nailed its colours to the mast of an every interfering state, so maybe some wont be donating so much in the future. Plunket of course was set up to be a eugenics organisation (which it never admits).

Tariana Turia and the Maori Party loved her, birds of a feather they are.

The Maritime Union, the most hardened Marxists of the union movement, and most featherbedded (the single biggest reason why the NZ shipping industry has shrunk to what it is) also embrace her because she advocated protectionism.

Might it be time for the government to stop funding her training camp for radicals in Northland?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent points.

My fear is Bradford will be given a job-for-life state appointment by a forgiving (self-loathing?) National government, where she has greater capability to interfere, control, meddle and dictate than when in parliament.

Whilst I would like to believe "ding dong the witch is dead", I fear Ms. Bradford is like a bad case of athlete's foot, it never goes away.

By the way, I'm interested in your views on Plunket being a eugenics organisation. Can you please elaborate?

Cheers
Ford Anglia.

Lindsay said...

I would be interested in an elaboration too.

Opinionated Mummy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Opinionated Mummy said...

Let me try and post my response again.

Don't mean to steal your blog, Liberty Scott, but I have some background on Plunket and eugenics (from Mental Defectives and Sexual Offenders: Report of the Committee of Inquiry Appointed by the Hon. Sir Maui Pomare, K.B.E., C.M.G., Minister of Health. Author: Frederick Truby King).

Plunket was founded in the midst of eugenics fears in NZ in 1907 with its slogan to "help the mothers and save the babies".

To give it some context, its founder, Frederic Truby King was on the NZ Eugenics Board, and was superintendent of an asylum (Seacliff? - I'm not sure) near Dunedin. King, through the Eugenics Board came up with such statements as:

"New Zealand is a young country already exhibiting some of the weaknesses of much older nations, but it is now at the stage where, if its people are wise, they may escape the worst evils of the Old World. It has rightly been decided that this should be not only a 'white man’s country,' but as completely British as possible. We ought to make every effort to keep the stock sturdy and strong, as well as racially pure.

"The Committee are of opinion that the unrestricted multiplication of feeble-minded members of the community is a most serious menace to the future welfare and happiness of the Dominion, and it is of the utmost importance that some means of meeting the peril should be adopted without delay. The position is the more serious because, while the feeble-minded are extraordinarily prolific, there is a growing tendency among the more intellectual classes for the birth-rate to become restricted.

"It is, of course, most essential that they should not be allowed to reproduce their kind, thus further enfeebling and deteriorating the national stock, adding to the burden of the community and to the sum of human misery and degradation. 'To produce but not to reproduce' sums up the best scheme of life for these unfortunates.

"There are many cases of mentally defective girls, liberated from institutions in New Zealand for the purpose of engaging in domestic service or other work, returning afterwards the mothers of illegitimate children, probably also mentally defective. Unless such are to be maintained for years as wards of the State in institutions, should they ever again be allowed their liberty unless they undergo the operation of sterilization?"

Plunket was comprised of zealous nurses (often childless) and committees of mainly upper middle class older women who enjoyed their social duty of raising the funds for the Plunket cause and "telling the breeders of the country what to do" (their words, not mine).

The belief was that inappropriate education of girls, in anything other than domestic skills, used up their energy and could make them unable to breed or breastfeed. From King's observations as superintendent of an asylum, he believed mental degeneration was caused by poor mothering. If women could be taught the "'science" of mothering, the racial decline of the Empire could be halted, and there would be fit soldiers when the inevitable war came.

Plunket popularised the prescriptive ideology of a regime that prescribed avoiding at all costs anything that could lead to moral decline.

Childrearing was essentially training little soldiers.

This is not an opinion of Plunket at all - just a brief background into its original ideology. Plunket these days markets itself as taking a more culturally safe stance!

Anonymous said...

OK Liberty so you don't like Sue Bradford and rip into her as you do with so many others, but long after your blog has gone west people will remember Sue Bradford. She will be remembered for her progressive anti smacking law. Of course it was inevitable that the haters would vilify her and wish her all the worst. Sue's a communist, Sue hates Chinese workers, Sue encouraged us to buy NZ etc etc. I groaned as you rolled out her sins, inviting readers to revile her. But then I brightened up knowing that we would all be the poorer for not having libertarians to point out the shortcomings of others.

libertyscott said...

Anonymous: So what? People often remember politicians, doesn't mean they are special. You might read what I think of the anti-smacking law, I loathe smacking but don't believe in criminalising it.

She put herself out there to tell others what to do, and spend other people's money. She embraced an Orwellian concept to nationalise children, treating all parents as suspects whilst happily encouraging welfare dependency.

You might not like her being criticised, those on the far left have long been blind to the persecution, torture and murder of their opponents in the countries they sympathise about, but it's called freedom.

I'm sure you have never criticised politicians you disagree with, indeed no doubt you think George W Bush has a long list of memorable achievements.

Anonymous said...

So often I'm disappointed when I click on your blog links (and God knows there are enough of them). The link to Sues radical camp site is down and what little information there is doesn't contain the word radical at all. The maritime link has no mention of marxism. The Cindy Kiro link simply takes us to earlier blog entries which in turn take us to even more posts written by yourself. So what we find is that the term neoStalinist is one that you have arbitrarily applied yourself. I could go on but it's Sunday and I should be trimming the lawns and weeding the garden. Anyway what I wanted to point out is that occasionally you do come across as a little paranoid, sort of like that lot who believe the US Government got 9/11 together. Sure there are a few reds under the bed but not nearly as many as you would have us believe and I think their influence minimal. At the end of the day it all has to be seen as all part of the wider body politic. You should be going after the National party. They are the people in the driving seat at the moment not Sue or Cindy or the sailors. Traveled with Pegasus from Nelson a while back and a deckhand told me his wages were only slightly above award.

libertyscott said...

Anonymous: The link was there before. The links don't need to mention Marxism, I was mentioning the causes she pursued. She was economically illiterate and she was supporting the appalling neo-Stalinist proposals by Cindy Kiro to monitor ALL children, making all parents suspects and fearful that some inspector would accuse them of child abuse, if they couldn't defend themselves adequately.

There have been enough ridiculous cases of parents separated from children because an unbalanced social worker figured a photo of someone's infant naked meant it was abuse.

Sue and the Greens per se are not the problem, but they contribute to this appalling belief that the state should forever intrude into people's lives to protect children. The latest nonsense in the UK is that people must be licensed to look after each others' kids for more than 2 hours. Neo-Stalinist? Yes, when you have the state prying into private arrangements between people, when families are subject to regular surveillance. Bradford endorsed this, so the label fits well.

She may have good intentions, but she is a fool, and she cuddled up to a mass murdering regime and then embraced an ideology of sacrifice that has caused the death of tens of millions of people in the last century.

She was a communist, which is as bad as being a nazi - it's just that somehow, people forgive murder when it's being applied to people accused of being class traitors.