Et lite utdrag fra Daily Telegraph om Drillo Olsen i dag
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac1601715957616&rtmo=lnbPSwHt&atmo=7FlQ
AnAt&pg=/et/00/5/7/sfgwim07.html):
"Let us address a couple of myths about Wimbledon and their decline. First,
Egil Olsen, who left the club after last Sunday's defeat at Bradford, was
never a Marxist. Like many of his age in the late Sixties, he went on
demonstrations, but the earnest Norwegian was less enamoured of Karl Marx's
notions than those of Mao Tse-Tung. Before long Olsen became, by his own
admission, little more than an "armchair socialist"."
I Telegraphs verden er det mindre fali' bare å ha vært maoist enn å ha
vært marxist. Jeg lurer på hvorfor? Mao har vel hundretusener av liv
på samvittigheten mens Marx meg bekjent ikke har ett eneste. Men den
konservative avisa foretrekker altså den brutale herskeren. Kanskje
noen i AKP kan kaste lys over hvorfor?
Videre må vi glede oss over at RV ikke fikk oppstilt en lenestolssosialist
på lista si.
Karsten Johansen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 10:25:38 MET DST