The right-wing political party in Australia has all but disappeared, and the left-wing party faces complaints of being right-wing. What gives?
When spring comes it is time for trees to bud. How do they know it is time? It’s pretty easy really. It’s all about hormones, as usual. Abscisic acid regulates the seasonal timing, signalling when conditions are right to start new growth. This hormone, known as ABA, is a long-term regulator; it monitors temperature and length of day. So when spring comes, days get longer and warmer, so ABA initiates the budding process. But that is not enough. If spring arrives and buds get started, with all the use of energy and resources necessary, and if then there is a cold snap, the buds will die. So a second process, a short-term regulator FT1 is also in play. (Actually the second process is a network of hormones and genes acting to initiate, trigger or suppress other activities, so is more complex.) The two mechanisms act in concert so that buds emerge only when there is a long-term trend to longer and warmer days, plus, there are no short-term disruptions.
Some of this is reminiscent of one of my favourite movies, Being There with Peter Sellers, where the gardener answers the President: “Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?” “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.”
This process of control, having both a short-term and long-term regulation, is common in many effective control mechanisms. Good speed and motor control of electrical or automation mechanisms uses this for instance and even sometimes with a third process. It is also seen in economic control, to prevent radical fiscal decisions just from a temporary blip. Wait to make sure an interest rate change is really necessary.
It is also in government. In the USA for instance in the short-term, 2-year lower house turnaround of all representatives, and the longer term 6-year upper house tenures of senators. Critically, only a third of senators go for re-election each 2 years. It means that if a radical short term lower house election occurs, dramatic change is tempered by the fact that residual politicians from the previous administration are still there to moderate.
This is all well and good for a bicameral parliament. Sometimes the second house is removed, or was never built into the system. That happens when a government resents being slowed down or limited in their power, such as happened in the Queensland State Government when the upper house which was established in 1860 was abolished in 1922. That took some effort. Attempts failed every year between 1915 and 2022, but finally the Labour Government succeeded under Premier Ted Theodore.
Interestingly Theodore later became the state treasurer, and at the onset of the Great Depression, lost his seat; until 2022 the only sitting treasurer to do so. The challenge was the need for sound governance and regulation of economic policy during those times, something requiring exceptional control mechanisms.
Like most democratic countries, Australia is bicameral, and is dominated by two main federal parties, described generally everywhere as liberal and conservative; left wing and right wing respectively. Liberals being regarded as more tolerant and flexible, while conservatives preferring everything to be Old Testament (ignoring that Jesus removed the “eye for an eye” theme that had been there since creation, replacing it with “turn the other cheek”).
Bizarrely, and just to make an easy thing complicated, in Australia the conservative right-wing party is called The Liberal Party of Australia. Australia is founded on an indigenous population and a working-class colonial population. A right-wing party has little chance of taking a majority, so the right-wing in Australia is usually a coalition of the Liberal Party and the Nationals, a similar very conservative party but composed mostly from rural farming and agricultural interests, sometimes called the Country Party and sometimes the National Country Party.
More typically the left-wing party is called the Australian Labour Party. Takes a lot of explaining in conversations in the USA with a Democrat that you never vote Liberal.
There are from time-to-time other parties. There always are, most people are unable to get on with most people. Australia has seen the Green party consistently increase in significance as a minor third party and there are always a handful of independents. In Europe by comparison, in 2026 Denmark with a population of just over 6 million has 12 political parties represented in its parliament. The political system is characterized by a multi-party structure, where no single party has had an outright majority since 1909. Portugal has 19 parties, Sweden 8, Slovenia 48. They mostly fall into left and right groups though. France is impossible to say because parties spring up overnight, and disappear just as quickly. A good guess would be one per person!
Why call an Australian right-wing conservative party “liberal”? During the first 50 years since Federation in 1901, the Labor Party was the most successful Australian party, governing for some fifteen years in total. The Nationalist Party governed for twelve years and The United Australia Party governed for nine years. In fact the world’s first ever Labor Party Prime Minister took office in Australia in 1904, though Labor governed then in minority. However, the first Party to win majority government at an election was the Labor Party in 1910.
Labour was in power from 1943 to 1949 and that pissed Robert Menzies off. Menzies, a conservative, had been in power as Prime minister a couple of times, 1937 and 1940. Had made a name for himself standing up to Churchill over the Japanese threat and the Singapore Strategy, and supporting the Australian forces through the war, then in 1941 he lost and resigned. But politicians never really resign, they just smell that way. In 1944 Menzies merged all non-labour parties in Australia as the Liberal Party.
By 1949, with the Communist “red terror” fanaticism making sway worldwide, the Labour Party was losing support and Menzies’ Liberal Party finally came to power. Menzies was a master communicator, with regular radio broadcasts. He was politically savvy, aware of the Australian blue-collar sentiment against authoritarianism and big business autocracy. His new party was defined as centre-right, in other words moderate. And he used the philosophy of liberalism in choosing a name, intending the party to foster free-thinking and free-enterprise. In other words capitalism and big business, not unlike but not quite the far-right libertarianism of today and unlike the modern meaning of the political word “liberal.” It is impossible to know if he realised the possible deception in the term. He truly thought of his party as liberal compared for instance with the immediate history of European fascism and Nazism that the world had endured.
The world is moving further to the right. According to Factually.co, “Geographically, Europe and the United States dominate the narrative: European examples include Vox’s growth in Spain and violent pre-election unrest in the Netherlands, while the U.S. example centers on Trump’s transnational influence and the death and legacy of high-profile conservative organizers energizing media ecosystems. Local specifics diverge—Spain’s Vox draws younger voters with culture-war themes, the Netherlands saw election-related violence, and Ireland reported emergent far-right organizations exploiting nationalist sentiment—indicating varied local catalysts beneath a broader rightward trend” There is Modi in India, and six EU countries — Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and the Czech Republic — have hard-right parties in government.
Yet in Australia, the Liberal Party of Australian is at an all-time low in opinion polls. Newspoll conducted 5–8 February 2026 from a sample of 1234, had Labor on 33%, One Nation 27%, the Coalition on 18%, the Greens on 12% and “others” on 10% of primary votes.
Since John Howard was Prime Minister of Australia and leader of the Australian Liberal Party, with the germination of his far-right xenophobic immigration policies (“children overboard” and “stop the boats”) not dissimilar to President Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” lies, the party has progressed further right, with the likes of Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and the current unapologetic far-right leader Angus Taylor. To my mind, Howard made it okay to be racist again. Jane Hume, a friend aligned with Taylor, said the party was at risk of “non-existence” and that the leaders of both the Liberal and National parties should be blamed.
The shock in the February polls was the rise of the even further right extremist party One Nation. It could be asked if the policies of the Liberal Party were not conservative enough? There is another factor at play that may be contributing to the failure of the “moderate centre right” politics of the Liberal Party. There is evidence that centre and left parties are also shifting further right. There has been an upheaval caused by the populist behaviour of Trump since his second presidential election. He seems to have opened floodgates everywhere.
Led by Anthony Albanese, the Australian Labour party, with its preponderance of hardline right leaning party members, has promoted policies and legislation that could only be described as belonging to big business. Not in the interests of the working class. Taxation advantages for the wealthy, expansion of mining and fracking, weakened trade union relationships, betrayals of education and healthcare, privatising essential services instead of investing in them and above all decreasing visibility, transparency and accountability.
With an Albanese neoconservative labour party, who needs a moderate, centralist right-wing party?
One can only hope that the controls of a bicameral parliamentary system, with its long-term smoothing out of short-term hiccups, will prevent the country falling into the hands of anarchic self-interests like in America.
66% of voters don’t want Labor, so Labor needs a coalition with a party that 75% don’t want; still not enough, so the coalition is extended with a party that 90% don’t want.
All coalition partners expect some of their unpopular policies to be implemented – so One Nation rises.
Perhaps our electoral system could be improved.
The most recent UK general election is a classic example. The Tories were massively unpopular and ejected in a landslide but a year later the incoming Labor party is less popular than the Tories were. I want to be able to vote Against a candidate/party. Net For votes would be needed to win.
A win by one vote is hardly a margin to implement sweeping changes while a super majority certainly is.
There are lots of interesting details to be discussed/gamed.
“Perhaps our electoral system could be improved.”
A simple majority of one is definitely not a mandate to do anything. Perhaps if a party wins by a low margin, there can be limits applied? To change the American constitution requires a two thirds super majority of both houses for instance. In Australia it takes a double majority, but only a simple majority: the population through a referendum, but also a majority of states.
Like you, I’ve often wondered about a vote against being factored in somehow. I think I remember a friend telling me ancient Roman elections had something like that. And it reminds me a bit of Dutch Auctions, where the auctioneer starts the price high, then gradually decreases it while bidders have to jump in when it reaches a price they want. Intense.
It is definitely sometimes a matter of being forced to pick the best of a bad bunch.
At the best of times, sociopolitically speaking, broad concurrence on any political perspective is usually a made-up or rare and fleeting occurrence. At the worst of times, political sentiment may coagulate sooner or later to a real or made-up majority which will underwrite a course of remedial action (War, epidemics, say). In the West, the mainstream media was long the main tool to shape and interpret public opinion with a view to satisfy the vested interests. This still is the case to a large degree, despite the internet. However, since the demise of the trade unions as a serious political element in the equation and the scattering of the world view held by the public, and other reasons, amongst them the advent of very powerful non-state actors and the rise of neo-communist China, the methods by which the MSM (now almost fully in cahoots with all, or almost all, political parties and all elected independents who are not overtly or covertly working for vested interests) works to influence public opinion have changed, and more emphasis is now on the justification of policies set from on high against known and sometimes vociferous public opinion. NB. Anyone to publish a book on how it really works in the West, behind the scenes, might not live long.
As for the so-called “Liberal” party in Australia as painted out in this short essay by Allan, I, frankly, in a general sense, do not see much in all the political analyses and commentaries. It is like a veritable, seemingly never ending, flood washing over us these days. In the particular here, I see an old-fashioned analysis framed in a new analogous setting. At least, new to me. Allan does not hint at planning or strategic manoeuvring involved in the, possibly temporary, demise of the ,really libertarian, Australian “Liberals”.
My view on this is as follows: Real competition between the major political contenders in the West petered out when the trade union movement was brought on board with the vested interests. There are some European exceptions, but since this is about Australasia we’ll pass that over. The march through the institutions by the Left, which means in fact communism in all its guises, and its sole aim still very much alive meta-politically, has been facilitated to a large degree by the western-based transnational corporate combined interests which have been fully in charge since real opposition from the, mostly centre-right, trade unions ceased. This cooperation between socialist-proto-communist elements in our institutions and the combined international corporate vested interests in control of government has resulted in a transfer of political civic power from the demo to increasingly centralised national and international institutions and various busy-bodies inimical to democracy in a European individual civil rights sense. Democracy can basically mean anything these days, but I mean the one where the citizen as individual is not a slave to whatever a majority decides, or, more to the point, is said by the authorities to have been decided, or ought to have been decided. This idea about democracy rests on a set of principles which I will leave for another time, or for someone else, to enumerate.
Imo, the Australian Liberals are doing a strategic retreat because its movers and shakers know what is coming. How would the people in power know what is coming? Maybe, just maybe, the people who control affairs in Australia from on high, as elsewhere in the West, know because they have facilitated and to a large extent orchestrated that what is coming. From some quarters this may be seen as not credible, incredible even, whereas others would see it as verging on a conspiracy theory. I am not suggesting that everything is planned in advance the way it works out in fact, but that forward thinking and planning is part of the core element of control in these matters.
International high finance, national finance, economics, trade, social policy, education, psychology, political philosophy, etc., etc., hangs together as far as politics in our (post-)modern era is concerned. Few commentators care to take that into account when analysing the state of any nation today. Maybe in the past it was esoteric, thus hidden from the public entirely, but now it is out in the open; politics is no holds barred. There is no thing or way or method, no human activity or means of exerting influence left unused in the struggle to gain and/or maintain power over us and our world.
“This still is the case to a large degree, despite the internet.”
The vested interests of the media have always dogged public opinion and elections I think. With the advent of the Internet, for a brief period it seemed like those interests had been thwarted, but as usual, the rich and powerful now control that too. So genuine sentiment is swamped by sewerage.
And worse, it has become the tool of choice for foreign interference not only in election, but in manipulating what people think they think. This is consistent with your comment, “Maybe, just maybe, the people who control affairs in Australia from on high, as elsewhere in the West, know because they have facilitated and to a large extent orchestrated that what is coming.” So as you say Jacob, the Liberal Party demise may be temporary.
All very nice but I thought Australia had a “Labor Party”
Half way down the blog Peter, between the pics of Theodore and Menzies. Maybe I took too long to get to them?
From the public comments about the Albanese government, I guess the point is that we have a party called the Labour Party, but it is no longer centre left, but neoconservative. No longer serving the labourers of Australia.
And consequently maybe that is helping to make the right wing party less relevant, less needed?
Liebah (sorry, we can’t spell Labour) is not Neo-conservative.
It is a party which believes that government should ru(i)n everything, and its policies are leading to elimination of the middle class and the entrenchment of two classes – the Havenots (in overwhelming majority) and the Elites (howdy, professor, piss off Bogans) who run the show and have all the wealth. Argentina, here we come.
In 2007 the Howard government had eliminated Liebah’s huge debt and had set up a fund to pay for public service retirement obligations. The economy was booming, every second bloke had his company name on his ute. Budgets were in surplus.
That election was a disaster for Australia. We had the (I’m an economic conservative, liar) Rudd, followed by (the don’t wear a blue tie) Gillard and spend spend spend. Then the short lived Abbott government and the disastrous Turncoat (let’s destroy the electricity system so I can get rich) government. Followed by the (lying) Morrison government who committed to the economic ruin of Net Zero.
And now the (lying, I’m not going to change Capital Gains or Negative Gearing, I’m going to reduce immigration to really low levels, I’m going to build squillions of houses, I’m going to spend lots more on Defence over the next hundred years, I love the Chinese government system but stick up for Australia really I do, the CFMEU are good blokes, I’m totally against corruption) marxist Liebah regime.
If you think Government is good, is the best institution for solving problems, then you probably think Liebah is too slow in forcing everyone to its will, and allowing too many people to run businesses and is therefore “right wing”.
If you are really conservative you think governments are dangerous and should be small and limited to Defence, and foreign relations.
That’s what people who are shifting to One Nation believe. Liebah in office expands the power and cost of government. The Coalition in power doesn’t undo all of that and the net result is the infiltration of government into every aspect of everyone’s lives. A plague on both their marxist houses!
It took me a couple of seconds to realise what you were saying with “Liebah” then I laughed. Also when it is sounded out phonetically that is how the word labour sounds to American ears.
There is no doubt about the lies. And no argument from me. In fact the lies in my view have been rampant.
If a party for the wealthy and powerful seek working class votes, they cannot tell you their true agenda. Say what is necessary to get into power, then do what you want. In other words lie. If the Labour Party is a conservative party more and more, the same thing. They just say the same old jargon to get into power, then do what they want. In other words lie.
My main idea in the blog was how things like that are regulated. So lies and deceit and corruption and all the other things that attract certain types to politics, hopefully, eventually get sorted out.
Harold Wilson famously said, “A week is a long time in politics.” But a 2 or a 4 or a 6 year political term is also a short time in the scheme of things. Controls, regulation, governance, all eventually work if they are in place. Getting them out of place is a key signature of autocrats. Removing an upper house, stacking high courts, surrounding with cronies, defying courts and constitutions.
One of your points is about Howard’s successful fiscal policies. One of my points is at what cost.
Labour is definitely not a conservative party. Neither is it liberal or libertarian. The Liberals and the National (Country) parties are also not conservative, liberal or libertarian. The Greens and other coming-up parties other than One Nation are also not conservative, liberal or libertarian. Beginning with One Nation: Small Centre-Right Conservative. The rest, as far as I know, is authoritarian leading to, but never able to fulfill its mission, a globalist autocracy.
Never mind what they say. Conservative government would be social democratic in our neck of the woods. The only party here is One Nation, the least worst and my only option were I to vote.
Labour is delivering authoritarian rule and its cohort of agents and political operatives are in power to do well for themselves and their friends; a few ideologues amongst them, the majority hoping that if it comes off, they will be able to secure another sinecure in the system or retire in comfort somewhere safe (Yes, they really think they will be alright). The Greens: Likewise, but with more ideologues. The National (Country) Party: Run by careerist political operatives and supported by the deluded (Almost to a man/woman/person) about what their world is about-Maybe a few cynical opportunists excepted. Then there are the Bureaucracy, A political party in its own right. That leaves the Liberal Party and its acolytes in politics and business. Authoritarians all, in fact, controlled by a swathe of, overseas vested interests. These (think they) are the elites in Australasia.
Across the ditch, New Zealand First may be equated with One Nation. If these two truly conservative parties were to gain a majority in government, it will be mayhem. The Establishment would not allow them to function (So as to prove that they are unable to govern).
The point I am really making here is as follows: If you would change the reigning order against the interests of the incumbents, it is imperative to know what you’re up against and how it works. Dabbling will get you nowhere beyond what the electorate will choose to put up with in order to effect change against the ruling system. It’s the system, Squires and Squiresses!
As one who is, or was, a troubleshooter (Allan) knows, “The Whole is bigger than the Sum of its parts”. That applies to groups (Groupthink) as well as machines, companies, nations, etc.
If a Whole is functioning well, it delivers productive output over and above its total inputs. Just marginally, it breaks even. If dysfunctional, it will go downhill until a troubleshooter takes charge or it goes broke/is taken over by a competitor or friendly/silly knight. Often a troubleshooter is no help either. Venezuela now has Trump as troubleshooter. It may be on the way to recovery, to become a modern welfare state with a high standard of living for almost all with little crime. Hmm, maybe not.
One cannot beat natural law, much less break it. That’s why capitalism works until it, inevitably, is hijacked by opportunistic and autocratic kleptocrats.
We in the West have not yet taken our social democratic system seriously. By design early on, and also because I refused to be naturalised, I never voted in a political election in my life. It’s absolutely pointless unless the majority wakes up to their responsibility as citizens in what are now almost entirely only nominally democratic countries. No big deal. It’s survival of the fittest.
Geopolitics rules from above in competition with individual ethics from below. Geopolitics has the running of the show due to citizens of the “free” world not thinking properly. It’s a competitive existence, even as we cooperate in many ways. Simple. People get brainwashed from an early age. Very difficult to overcome, even when aware and motivated. But, there is no escape here. All that happens is that some people work their butts off for the community, while the majority lives in a daze or is driven by greed, ot both. Let the next generation pick up the pieces, many people seem to think. The next generation may not pick up the pieces; and who can blame them? It will be a hard lesson to learn, but as I see it:
There is no escape for the Western erstwhile democracies.
Hi Jacob,
It’s not clear to me what or where you think One Nation is in the spectrum. In your first paragraph you deny that they are hard conservative. “Beginning with One Nation: Small Centre-Right Conservative.” But then further down in paragraph four you say, “Across the ditch, New Zealand First may be equated with One Nation. If these two truly conservative parties were to gain a majority in government, it will be mayhem.”
You also say that you would vote for One Nation if you voted (in Australia), which suggests you would vote for mayhem. Is that correct? “The only party here is One Nation, the least worst and my only option were I to vote.”
I like your comment that, “We in the West have not yet taken our social democratic system seriously.” Your comments on Darwinism and what I refer to as the “gestalt” almost deserve a story in their own right. I’m halfway through a new book subtitled “Us and Them” which is not a coincidence.
Yes, I have been thinking outside of the box all my life, and had plenty of time to do so, due to my limited social life. I always wanted to be free. It must be me, but I’ll see if I can elaborate a bit on the points you touch on. One note: If a party which will not do the bidding of the Establishment gets the most votes, they will be boycotted by the Establishment. Amongst other places, that is what happened to Wilders in Holland. Unlikely One Nattion will get a majority, but that is my guess; if One Nation gets in, the Establishment will not allow it to govern.
Interesting that the NSW state conference being held today is facing motions against the same right leaning policies we have been discussing.
NSW premier Chris Minns is considered part of the right faction. His leadership ensures Labor’s Blairite program by suppressing rank-and-file democracy.
In the Guardian today:
‘Fifty-six Labor branches have passed motions to the New South Wales state conference calling for controversial anti-protest legislation to be repealed or reviewed, with the entire left faction backing a motion for two of the laws to be scrapped.
Gambling reform, Aukus and Palestine were also among the top issues in motions submitted by branches to the conference, the last before the March election and which is key in informing policy.
But some Labor members are concerned that the rank and file will not be afforded the opportunity to debate the protest laws after the matter was scheduled second last on the agenda this weekend.
In a press conference on Friday held by civil liberties groups, Labor party member Asrah Sobh labelled it an attempt to “shut down branch members’ voices”.
“The single most submitted issue to state conference was in the social justice and affairs chapter, and that is the right to protest, that is the right to express ourselves in this democratic society,” Sobh said.
“Chris Minns is essentially not listening to his rank and file, which is not OK … because [the party] is the rank and file at the end of the day. The party is not one single man up at the top, and like all happy families, debate is an important part of how things work.”’
These days, I don’t know why people vote for any of the major parties. Control of these parties is such as to make it impossible to have any influence. But, there it is. People make their choice.
Electoral reform is also exceedingly difficult to make worthwhile, because the people in power will only allow a referendum on what they see as being to their advantage, and since they got there by the system that is in place, why would they allow a vote on a system that gives other parties a chance?
With Brexit, David Cameron miscalculated badly. The EU, when it has a referendum result its elite doesn’t like, they just ignore it and make people vote again a year later. That’s super arrogance, and contempt for the people. Yet people fall for it. Unbelievable.
I don’t know what kind of voting system is the answer, but FPtPost is, by and large, probably the least representative of the electorate’s choice.
As for One Nation and New Zealand First. There are some differences, of course. NZ First is in coalition and more likely to favour overseas interests vested in NZ already. Winston wants to have a go. In the unlikely event that he can be PM, he’ll have to do deals with the big boys to make it work.
One nation is more radical, ok, and if in charge would be more uncompromising, I gather. But you never know how parties, new in charge of government, pan out. One cannot believe what they say. It’s only by seeing what they do that one gets to know.
Politics: I don’t see how individuals or small groups can make a difference. Protesting: Although I believe in the right to protest peacefully, it’s difficult when you get a big crowd because you can’t control the misschief makers who will give the cause a bad name, on purpose. No, direction in politics is a matter of the general mood and attitude of a majority versus the Establishment, plus Eyn Sof (The chemistry of the Whole, the combination of the parts, which has an influence in addition to that of the sum of the constituent parts).
What are “FPtPost” and “Eyn Sof” Jacob? Not sure I know those terms.
Good points once again and I will respond maybe tomorrow.
Probably not addressing your points directly, but some thoughts I have harboured a long time.
There are three ways it can go, I think.
You can have a dictator, where no one gets their way. You can have a democracy where the majority gets their way. Or you can have a free for all, anarchy, where everyone gets their way. The last doesn’t work, because some cruel, intolerant pricks, in getting their way will prevent you from getting yours. The first doesn’t work, because few want to live the way of some arrogant, sanctimonious prick who thinks their way is the only way. The middle one doesn’t work, because it leaves the minority frustrated and angry and resentful.
But there is a fourth factor. Built into us is a set of behavioural rules. Every species has them. Each species has its behavioural pattern, determined over a great period of time to be optimal (so far) at the best survival of the species (not the individual). Evolution 101. Some species like polar bears are solitary. Some like humans are herds. We think, feel, behave and believe internally in living together in a certain way. That is because we have the genetics to make us be that way, else we would be dangerous not just to ourselves, but to the herd, and therefore the species.
Now and then a mutant occurs. A member of a herd does not follow the rules, for instance a deer that constantly strays from the group. It is the easy prey. If they all behaved that way, the whole herd would disintegrate and fall prey. So most of us do not kill each other, do not steal, lie, cheat, and so on. It is almost superfluous to have to write them down as a set of commandments.
So, adding that fourth evolutionary herd behaviour of humans to the mix and of the three systems, the democratic one is best (so far).
The point in all of this is a common misconception around democracy. Some people believe it is designed so that you get your way. It is not. It is designed so you get your say. In return for having your say, you get to see what most people want, and you agree to go along with it, for a short period until you get your say again at the next vote. If you think that is unfair, that you should get your way even when you are a minority, you are starting to look like one of those dictators. Those arrogant sanctimonious pricks who want to tell everyone that their way is the only way.
One way out of such a dilemma is to split up. Form a new herd, tribe, group. Separate. All this does is weaken the species. It is how the autocratic governments around the world right now are applying hybrid warfare techniques with their enemies. Causing them to split apart. Weaken them. In such skillful ways sometimes, that the idiots think it is their own idea to split up. Like what Nigel Farage in the UK for my money’s worth, is doing with the UK. Resulting in just today the Celtic parts of the United Kingdom no longer wanting to be united to the kingdom. According to Rory Carroll and Lisa O’Carroll in Belfast, “The rise of Nigel Farage has prompted political leaders across Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to game the unthinkable: the breakup of the United Kingdom.”
Like Russia is doing, like China is doing. Actually China does a different thing. They just take you over, like Tibet or the non-Han ethnic minorities. Forcing them to all be like, act like, think like, talk like, Xi Jinping. Actually Russia does the same thing too. Forcing Ukrainian children captured to become Putin lookalikes.
Actually so does One Nation come to think of it, wants no variety or dissent, everyone to be monocultural whatever that is. I think it is to all have a minimum of 7 love-interests, be red-headed and hate Muslims, Africans and Asians, not all blonde and blue-eyed and Aryan like the Nazis wanted. Interesting that Pauline Hansen has a rich multicultural genetic heritage, with 9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe.
Allan queries “FPtPost” and “Eyn Sof” . To answer Allan, commenting on 4-7-26.
FPTP=First Past the Post,
Eyn Sof= A Jewish term originally, meaning the Infinite. I have heard it used in Holland during my childhood. Basically it denotes an influence beyond our ken. The influence of the Whole apart from the sum of the influence of the constituent parts. It used to be said that sailing ships had/have a mind of their own, which rats can sense, apparently. Hence, rats leaving the ship before it leaves port the last time. This applies equally to situations and group dynamics (The world, the Universe?).
The other post by Allan on politics and the three choices: Dictatorship, democracy and anarchy. My comment here: Complicated and difficult matters such as politics require a philosophical as well as a scientific approach. There is political science being taught at universities. There would be, without a doubt, academies and such like where selected candidates from the elites study politics and everything that is related. It is a huge subject that is almost impossible to put in a nutshell. To answer that comment by Allan would take many volumes. There are already many books on this matter. Maybe AI can give us a distillation of what has been published on politics so far..
It’s nice to see everyone having a good old rant.
Yes John, the conversations often seem to get off the track of the blog, in this case the use of simultaneous long and short term controls, to deeper themes. But it is always stimulating to be forced to think.
“Rant” is interesting. Originally from German “ranzen” to gambol or frolic, which is still the more common use in Scotland. Via Dutch “ranten” to rave, like you mean it I think.