Father Of Nightmares

By   /   June 28, 2018  /   76 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, is asked to leave the Little Red Hen restaurant in Virginia and liberal America cheers. But then the awful thought strikes them. What if Trump’s supporters decide to do something similar?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP is the Father of Nightmares. The logic of his administration is indistinguishable now from the logic of dreams: his White House minions prey to the same abrupt shifts of mood; the same lightning-fast transitions from elation to dread. America itself has become the prisoner of its President’s vagrant fancies: a place where trust and treachery grapple like celebrity wrestlers in front of a television audience of millions. The whole country teeters precariously on a narrow ledge of sanity while POTUS, gargantuan and grinning, bids it step out into the abyss.

Unwitting and unprepared, America and the world have been propelled back through time to the era of kings and emperors. Accustomed to living in a world from which the habits of obedience and obeisance have long been banished, the realisation that they are now as frightened and vulnerable as any of the inhabitants of those luckless nations on the margins of civilisation has come as quite a shock. Presidential pique can now upend lives as easily as presidential beneficence can redeem them. The world’s leaders have been reduced to mere courtiers in the planet-sized Versailles the USA has built for them.

How to respond when American foreign policy is driven by presidential whim? When international trade is reduced to a pile of chips in a testosterone-fuelled game of Texas hold-em? What to do when old allies are treated like the hired help and brutal dictators are treated to “The Donald’s” best real-estate advice? When the 400-year-old Westphalian System of sovereign states pursuing their national self-interest rationally and predictably is impatiently tossed aside? When did it become okay for the leader of the world’s “indispensable” nation to behave like a Mafia don?

It’s worse for those ordinary Americans who have yet to succumb to the fever-dream that is Trumpism. Americans with college degrees and what were once considered to be good manners. Americans who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution and regard the Bible as a collection of moral metaphors. Americans who won’t have handguns anywhere near their children. Americans who read. For these Americans every heavy footfall in the public square sounds as close as their front door. They would call the Police if they weren’t so terrified that it’s the thud of policemen’s boots that woke them.

The true horror of Trump’s nightmares is that the people in them, the people doing the most monstrous things, don’t even know they’re monsters. Those Texas cops and border guards carrying the children away from their parents. Those minimum-wage workers in the camp canteens, dishing out the detainees’ food with friendly smiles. If asked, they would swear on a stack of Bibles that they are the good guys in their President’s movie. Except that it doesn’t pay to ask that sort of question, does it? Not unless the questioner wants to see the look of easy familiarity disappear from their eyes. Not unless he or she wants to see it replaced in an instant with the cold, gun-metal glare of hostility that Trump’s supporters reserve for his enemies.

That’s when the panic sets in. Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, is asked to leave the Little Red Hen restaurant in Virginia and liberal America cheers. But then the awful thought strikes them. What if Trump’s supporters decide to do something similar?

“How hard is it to imagine,” asks the Washington Post’s editorial writer, “people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families?” And that’s the thing, isn’t it? Knowing that whatever peaceful little protest the sort of Americans who watch The Handmaid’s Tale might make against Trump, can be answered in an instant by bearded men with bulging beer-guts toting pump-action shotguns and wearing “Make America Great Again” baseball caps to hide their male pattern baldness.

The Father of Nightmares has sired too many nightmarish children.

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

76 Comments

  1. esoteric pineapples says:

    All propped up by corporate money

    • Archonblatter says:

      Not forgetting ‘ Machines of Loving Grace.’
      As for ‘The whole country teeters precariously on a narrow ledge of sanity while POTUS, gargantuan and grinning, bids it step out into the abyss.’ All this means is that life is imitating art so while everything appears to be disintegrating what is taking place is the ultimate fusion of all and everything streaming like a mighty river into the digital dream. The Power of Nightmares indeed. Pa Ubu up from the bottomless pit meets Lilith in a Mexican takeaway. They are outcast and forgo tortillas but ultimately, does anything change?
      What is there to choose between ‘presidential whim’ and The Plan for the New American Century?

  2. The Masked Moa says:

    The only thing that has happened is that the smooth veneer of the covert sociopath (Obama) has been replaced with the overt psychopath of Trump. Americans exterminated 10’s of millions of native indians and has been on a bloody path both covertly and overtly ever since to achieve world domination. America is like a cult with their megalomaniacal patriotism and its blood thirsty its our way or the highway attitude. It is a totalitarian police state designed to ensure the ruling elite are safe from any consequences of their actions.

    When we look back at the coming new american civil war it will seem obvious that it happened except after all the deaths and destruction nothing will be won, nothing will change and nothing will be for the better no matter who claims to win. Except of course the ruling elite will then have full spectrum control over all aspects of life in the interests of peace because the people cant be trusted.

    All because people refuse to agree to disagree in a civil manner. A nation built on continual war and bloodshed will only ever create a bitter harvest that ends in its destruction from within.

  3. David Stone says:

    How long do you think America can continue running a massive trade deficit with virtually all the rest of the world Chris ? What he is trying to do is remedy for America the worst effects of neoliberal globalisation. I thought you would have approved. The profits from US corporations setting up in China go to the 0.01% of Americans, the deficit is carried by the many who’s jobs are hence in jeopardy . So the traditional trading partners on the winning side of the trade imbalance might have to be disappointed , if not now then when the big apple is finally discovered to be rotten at the core.
    And do you really disapprove of trying to normalise relations with North Korea? This seems a strange position for you to take too.
    And much as Mr Trump may have wished to have sired the entire deplorable brood he did not. He may not even be one of them.
    D J S

    • Andrew says:

      You’re correct David

      Contrary to what esoteric pineapples said above, Trump is actually a threat to the corporates and their lobbyists. He funded his own election campaign, so he is not beholden to them.

      Much of the outrage we see in the US media (and slavishly repeated in NZ as the gospel truth) is contrived. Much of it is hate mongering rhetoric with no substance behind it. It is designed to attack Trump in any way possible – just because he’s bad for business.

      Reducing the flow of illegal immigrants that have for decades undermined labour rates and conditions of employment in the USA.

      Slamming the door on dumped Chinese products opens the door for Pittsburgh to restart steel production. (It has)

      Making the Germans pay their share of NATO is going to force the Germans to make more tanks and planes and US war machine will get fewer fat contracts. The last thing they need is peace in Korea!

      I think Trump has barely started!

  4. let me be frank says:

    an eloquent way of saying ‘what goes around comes around’

  5. Andy says:

    The left have made their own bed and now have to lie in it. The American Left declared war on its citizens decades ago, and have been wearing the fabric of civil society away with its divisive identity politics.

    The Alt Right, which I have no truck with, are a mirror image of the Identity Politics of the Left.

    I fear for Civil War and when Maxine Waters makes comments about banning Trump supporters from society, without censure, she is fanning the flames.
    Civil discourse is needed, right now, before it all blows up

    • Civil discourse is needed, right now, before it all blows up

      Just out of curiosity, Andy, what is your opinion on the gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, – who tried to order a wedding cake Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, in 2012? The shop-owner, Jack Phillips, refused to provide a service to them, citing “religious reasons”.

      Ref: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/06/court-rules-against-gay-couple-who-were-refused-wedding-cake.html

      What’s your ‘take’ on that?

      • Andy says:

        My ‘take’ on that is firstly that the Christian Baker was asked to create a specific piece of art that went against his religious principles, and the Supreme Court backed up this view point.
        I don’t go into a Halal butcher expecting the Muslim to sell me ham or bacon.

        Secondly, the gay couple took the baker to court, in what appears to be a vindictive case of harassment, which so often seems to be the case for the LBGTGIQQ+ “community”. They could have gone to any other baker and asked for their gay cake there. Dave Rubin, himself a gay man who is married to a man, has said that he doesn’t have a problem with a Christian baker refusing to bake him a cake. He would go to another baker. It is hardly the same as refusing service to a black man

        The Christian Baker hasn’t refused to sell any of his products based on a person’s ethnicity, sexuality or any other form of identity. He refused to make a creation specifically for an event that didn’t fit with his religious affiliation. I would expect a Jewish baker to .sell a bagel to a Muslim. I wouldn’t expect a Muslim to demand that a Jew bake a cake celebrating Al Quds day which depicted a Rabbi hanging from a lamppost

        Does that answer your question?

        • So it’s ok to deny service based on “religious principles”?

          That’s not what the US Supreme Court ruled on. They cited freedom of expression.

          You’re using quite a bit of sophistry to justify denial of one service, while condemning the other.

          This is where the entire debate collapases, Andy, and you’ve illustrated it nicely. According to you (and others on the Right), you can justify denial of service based on your beliefs.

          But you don’t extend that same right to others you disagree with.

          • Andy says:

            Well, I have politely put my case forward, and I thank you for the opportunity to put that forward.

            Perhaps you could tell me if these people should be forced to perform a service by the State even though it goes against their religious principles:

            (1) A Lesbian demands that a Moslem barber cuts her hair, even though it goes against his religious principles
            (2) A moslem first responder refuses to put a man in a recovery position, based on religious grounds.
            (3) A moslem man stops his wife shaking a Swedish doctors hand, based on religious grounds.
            (4) A rock band refuses to play in a State because that state has banned transgender people from using bathrooms corresponding to their gender expression.

            All these are real life cases that I cite, yet no one in the media or the left bats an eyelid. It always to me seems to be the Christians and Conservatives that get targeted.

            Brendan Eich, former CTO (?) of Mozilla and creator of Javascript, was hounded by activists because he donated around $6000 to a “traditional marriage” campaign. He lost his job as a result. A Northern Ireland baker was taken to court because they refused to bake a bake for the pro-same sex marriage campaign. This wasn’t even for a wedding, it was for a political campaign.

            The “tolerance” of the left seems remarkably one sided. The baker in the original case you cited has stated he doesn’t refuse service to gay couples.

            What would be your position if the government decided to lower the age of consent to 12 (in line with Mexico) and government and activists started hounding parents that weren’t cool with this? It’s not like we’d get any say in this is it.?

            • The baker in the original case you cited has stated he doesn’t refuse service to gay couples.

              Eh?!

              He did indeed refuse to make their wedding cake. That is what the Supreme Court case was centered around.

              • Andy says:

                He doesn’t refuse to serve gay couples in general. He just refused to make a bespoke article

                This is the nub of the issue

                • You are splitting hairs, Andy.

                  But I think you’ve illustrated the double standards surrounding both instances.

                  Thank you for responding to my questions.

                  • Damocles says:

                    I think all civilised societies allow freedom of religion and permit various exceptions in the case of sincere religious belief, whether its Sikhs wearing hats, or conscientious objectors serving in the military.

                    Do you call these “double standards” and oppose them?

                    • Mjolnir says:

                      its double standards when those beliefs are applied unfairly based on religious abuse. i dont caree what you believe in, but when it affects me, i care very, very much.

                      keep your belief in invisible deities to yourself. just like i keep mine to myself.

                    • Andy says:

                      In the case of the baker, he was keeping his beliefs to himself. He wasn’t forcing his views on anyone. However, the gay couple were very keen to force their views on the baker and the rest of society by involving the legal system

                      There are many injustices in the world. Someone not baking you a cake causing hurt feelings is pretty far down the list in my opinion.

                    • That’s nonsense, Andy. He forced his views by denying a service. How would you react if someone denied you service in a restaurant and asked you to leave because… oh… wait…

                    • Damocles says:

                      @Frank – so do you think the restaurant was wrong in asking Sanders to leave? Would you support her in a legal suit against them?

                      I think there’s a major distinction between the two cases – one was denied service due to religious beliefs, the other was political. It’s one thing to deny service due to political differences, but quite another to force people to break their sincere religious beliefs, even though they seem crazy to non-believers.

                      This cannot not be an excuse for religious oppression, but for trivial things like baking a cake, it’s ridiculous.

                    • You fail to explain why there is “a major distinction between the two cases” because “one was denied service due to religious beliefs, the other was political”. Are you giving more weight to religious beliefs?

                      Sorry, that doesn’t wash. You may believe in supernatural deities, others don’t.

                      And last time I looked, the US policy was to separate church-from-state.

                      And things like discrimination may seem trivial to you – until you’re confronted with it yourself. Gays, lesbians, and trans-gender people still have to endure discrimination. When bigotry cloaks itself in a veneer of “religious belief”, it suddenly becomes ‘ok’? I think not.

                      Otherwise you can get away with any prejudice you see fit.

                      And that’s not ok.

                    • Damocles says:

                      @Frank – you fail to state whether you support the restaurant’s right to refuse service to Sanders or not.

                      I have no religion, but I have no problem with someone refusing to bake me a cake due to their sincere religious belief that they will face eternal damnation if they do. I’ll think they’re nuts, but their belief is genuine.

                      I would more strongly object to someone refusing to bake me a cake because they disagree with my beliefs about healthcare say. They face no perceived consequences in making my cake.

                      Last time I checked, the US Constitution guaranteed the right to practice their religion, and express their political beliefs – can you spot the difference now?

                    • Isn’t it interesting how more and more religion is used as a ‘cloak’ with which to express bigotry? In no other area of social/human interaction is bigotry accepted – but that seems to go out the window when personal “religious” beliefs are invoked.

                      It’s amazing slavery was every abolished. You know, the same slavery found acceptable in the Bible.

                      And let’s not go to stoning adulterers, homosexuals, “witches”, etc.

                      Sorry, but religion is something best kept to oneself. Not expressed socially to the detriment of others.

                    • Damocles says:

                      @Frank – I’m always amazed at people criticising religions for bigotry when the biggest killers in history have all been atheists, and mostly from the far left of politics.

                  • Gary says:

                    Your the one splitting hairs, and you didnt answer HIS questions.

            • Mjolnir says:

              So it’s ok for people to discrimnate on religious grounds, Andy, but not for political reasons? I don’t think the US constutiton makes that distinction.

              Face it, Andy, your mates on thd Right got dished up a dose of discrimination and you’re screaming because it doesn’t feel nice and hurts your sense of entitlement.

              Suck it up. This is what it feels like to be a minority.

              • Andy says:

                First of all, I am not screaming about anything. Secondly, how do you know I am not part of a “minority”?

                Thirdly, why lump me in with this group called “the right”?

                What you don’t seem to realise is that there are very many people who believe in the principles of the US Constitution (based on Judeo-Christianity) which emphasis rights to life liberty and happiness that are not tied to identity groups

                • Mjolnir says:

                  Because you are a right winger.

                  • Andy says:

                    “Because you are a right winger.”

                    Because I don’t like identity Politics. I don’t like violence. I don’t like terrorism. I don’t like rape.
                    I don’t like lots of things.

                    I also like lots of things. I rejoice in, for example, the beautiful country of NZ that I have been granted the right to live in. I rejoice in the wonderful people I meet every day. I rejoice in the silent, unrewarded kindness I see in society, almost everyday

                    • Mjolnir says:

                      That’s nice. But you’re still a rightbwinger.

                    • Andy says:

                      Define “right winger” and its relevance to this discussion

                    • Mjolnir says:

                      Andy, you have a willingness to differentiate based on your political beliefs . you’re fine with discrimnination if it supports your beliefs, not rear up in righteous anger if it is aganst your views. i think that’s fairly clear by your own admissions. th Right were outraged by the Red Hen incident but supported the refusal of a religious bigot to deny service to a gay couple. There, i’ve spelled it out for you. it’s called double standards and you’re soaking in it!!

                    • Andy says:

                      There is a distinction. He is not “forcing” his views. The gay couple forced their views on the baker by taking there case to the Supreme Court. They expect everyone to bake them a gay cake, because it’s their “right” to have a gay cake.

                      Is it a lesbian’s “right” to have a male Muslim barber give her a boy haircut? Actually know, the Canadian courts found in favour of the Muslim barber. So you do need to know your intersectionality quite well in these cases.

                      Also, no one was that upset that Sarah Sanders got booted out of a restaurant. I think it was a bit off colour for the restaurant owner to organise a mob to harass her when she went to another restaurant over the road. But, it appears, it is a “right” for leftists to harass and intimidate conservative women. Do you notice how it is often women they go for? I guess they like easy targets, like women and Christians

                    • Andy says:

                      I’m not getting angry about anything. The Red Hen can do what it wants. No one gives a shit.

      • Nitrium Nitrium says:

        I’ll chime in. Anyone should have the right to deny service to someone (or a company) for whatever reason they choose (including sex, race, religion, homophobia etc) – choice (freedom of expression) is a basic human right, being forced to do otherwise is imo a form of slavery. For example, a church is under no obligation to allow me as an atheist to enter their property. A movie director is under no obligation to consider a man for a female role. The All Blacks are under no obligation to allow female players on the team. A Maori tribe is under no obligation to allow me on their sacred grounds.
        The flip side is that this works both ways, i.e. if you choose to deny someone your business, don’t be surprised if you lose business due to rapid loss of goodwill from the public. Indeed, this is exactly what Lexington business district is finding out the hard way:
        http://video.foxnews.com/v/5802047887001/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

        • If I understand your post correctly, Nitrium, you extend that right equally to both the cake maker in Colorado and the restaurant owners in Virginia, without differentiation?

        • Andy says:

          Loss of goodwill depends on whether the actions were taken from a civil stance or one of vindictiveness

          I don’t think the gay couple who pursued the baker based on “hurty feelings” have done the LBGT movement any favours. They have just reinforced the stereotype that they are the vindictive bullies in this scenario

          • That doesn’t address my point, Andy. You’re justifying the initial action by the cake maker, whilst decrying a similar action by the restaurateurs.

            You can chime “vindictiveness” for subsequent actions all you like. It’s difficult to see any difference except an artificial one you (and others) are creating.

            Does freedom of expression cover both situations or not?

            • Andy says:

              I have actually answered you point in a long comment that hasn’t appeared and is maybe stuck in moderation.

              In either case, I don’t give a stuff if a restaurant wants to turf out a senior member of the White House. I don’t want to eat in a restaurant that is owned by a cousin of Meryl Streep who has not only given Roman Polansky a standing ovation, but has referred to Harvey Weinstein as “God”. If the restaurant had served Sanders, none of this would be public information.

            • Andy says:

              Yes it does. I am not complaining about the restaurant’s actions. I am, however, complaining about Maxine Waters words, where she is basically inciting Civil War in the USA

              • I am, however, complaining about Maxine Waters words

                But… isn’t that the freedom of speech that you advocate and staunchly support, Andy?

                • Andy says:

                  Maxine Waters is a representative of the Democratic Party. She is telling her constituents that they should refuse service to Trump staff and supporters.

                  No one is commenting on this.
                  Whilst it is her personal right to free speech, she has some responsibility as a public servant, in my view, not to spread hatred in the USA

                  Many people voted for Trump, for many reasons. Blacks, hispanics, women, gays, and all sorts of other identity groups that the left are so keen on.

                  The American Left are freaking out because they need 85% of the black vote to have any chance of future re-election (according to Bill Whittle).

                  • Whilst it is her personal right to free speech, she has some responsibility as a public servant, in my view, not to spread hatred in the USA

                    Do you realise the irony of that comment, Andy?

                    • Andy says:

                      Yes I do.

                      However, I don’t think President Trump is urging his supporters to boycott Liberals

                    • However, I don’t think President Trump is urging his supporters to boycott Liberals

                      Your faith in Trump appears misguided, Andy;

                      U.S. President Donald Trump urged a boycott of CNN on Wednesday, ramping up his fight against the television network as his administration fights AT&T Inc’s deal to buy CNN’s owner Time Warner Inc.

                      […]

                      “Great, and we should boycott Fake News CNN. Dealing with them is a total waste of time!,” Trump wrote in a Twitter post.

                      ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cnn/trump-calls-for-boycott-of-television-network-cnn-tweet-idUSKBN1DT1XU

                      President Trump on Sunday called for football fans to boycott N.F.L. games unless the league fires or suspends players who refuse to stand for the national anthem, saying that players must “stop disrespecting our flag and country.”

                      “If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our country, you will see change take place fast,” Mr. Trump wrote, on the second weekend morning in a row in which he vented over the issue on social media. “Fire or suspend!”

                      ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/politics/trump-calls-for-boycott-if-nfl-doesnt-crack-down-on-anthem-protests.html

                      And here are a few other things (thus far) that Trump has called boycotts for:

                      Apple

                      Italy

                      Scotland

                      Glenfiddich (Whiskey)

                      HBO

                      Macy’s

                      Rolling Stone

                      Megyn Kelly

                      Mexico

                      Chinese products

                      ref: https://medium.com/@GoAngelo/list-all-the-things-donald-trump-has-called-on-people-to-boycott-19a70da9c368

                    • Mjolnir says:

                      You’re a clever bugger, Frank. You used Andy to prove a point, didn’t you? He walked staight into it.

                    • Andy says:

                      Trump wants to boycott Scotland? I hadn’t heard that one! Pretty funny considering he owns golf courses there

                      OK you got me there Frank!

                      I admit it, I was “pwned”

                      EDIT:

                      I would like to add that urging people to boycott CNN or other organisations isn’t quite the same as targeting individuals. In case you think I am a Trump sycophant I am not. he is a highly flawed character with some very dubious business ethics. However he is the elected POTUS and so far his administration (which is not just the POTUS) is doing good things from an economic perspective

                    • Andy says:

                      Trump hardly needs to call for the boycott of CNN. It is doing a pretty good job at destroying itself all by itself

            • Michael Wynd says:

              Frank

              The Supreme Court decision was based on the actions of the Colorado Human Rights organisation who refused to acknowledge the baker’s religious beliefs. It had nothing to do with what cake he baked. I will note that the baker also does not bake Halloween cakes which shows to me that he is being consistent in his beliefs. The Red Hen and the baker both have the right to refuse business but run the risk of that decision effecting their business. In the latter case, it seems that the baker was legally abused by the human rights system in Colorado which is where the Supreme Court came in.

              • Mjolnir says:

                ” In the latter case, it seems that the baker was legally abused by the human rights system in Colorado which is where the Supreme Court came in.”

                Why is testing an issue in Court “legal abuse”? isn’t that the place to test it? Far better then violence and the rule of the jungle.
                Anyway, in the Red Hen case, it seems the abuse emanated from the White House. how is abuse from a demagogue any better?

          • Mjolnir says:

            ‘They have just reinforced the stereotype that they are the vindictive bullies in this scenario”

            Its disturbing that you see fighting back against prejudice as “bullying”, Andy. In effect, you side with bigottry and their right to be bigotted? That’s a low bar if those are your principles.

            • Andy says:

              Recent polls in the uK show that the majority of Muslims (i.e > 50%) find homosexuality an unacceptable lifestyle.

              Do you therefore conclude that “most Muslims are bigots”, or does your moral grandstanding only apply to Christians?

            • Andy says:

              If a gay couple travels 200 miles to find a Christian baker that won’t bake them a gay cake or a gay pizza, then takes that baker to court, who do you think is the vindictive party in this case?.

              Anyway, personally I find pizza at a wedding, gay or otherwise, to be an affront to human decency

  6. Sanctuary says:

    The Confederates have been back for a while. Now, the Yankees are stirring.

  7. Sam Sam says:

    California about to shut down the Internet. Wants to police emails, text, social media for fake news>>> https://youtu.be/pw4DUzQ-yUk

    My comment: Hollywood execs trying to deny they’ve all got pornhub subscriptions and every one knows they scared shitless about falling sales.

  8. Andy says:

    “Cultural Marxism is marching into all areas of our lives”
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/105037574/cultural-marxism-is-marching-into-all-areas-of-our-lives

    I find it quite remarkable to see this on “Stuff” today, which I had long since given up on as anti-intellectual trash

    • Sam Sam says:

      Ok Real Talk Andy:

      Why does The U.S Supreme Court use d=c/s and r=c/e? Why the division? Wouldn’t multiplication work just as well (you can change the calculation for c to make it work)? In fact, you can transmit c=k/(c+sc) and do multiplication instead. Y’know?

    • Johnnybg says:

      As you said, remarkable to see an article like this in stuff. Proof that the pendulum maybe moving again. This piece sure hits the nail on the head; it will be a red rag to the bigoted bulls that you’ve been locking horns with on this blog-site which, in my honest opinion, is a totally pointless exercise & a complete waste of time & energy.

      This neo-marxist-identity politics process, which has its roots in the 60’s, has now totally subverted the long standing liberal, left leaning traditions within our western civilisation. This process has also elevated the rights of the individual over & above that of the collective to such an extent, that we now live in an extremely individualistic (atomised) society. This is why today’s left is in total disarray & is really just a loose alliance of trendy, faux left & somewhat fanatical splinter groups devoid of a unifying ideology.

      This situation has enabled the rise of neo-liberalism ~ corporatism ~ the wholesale appropriation/privatisation of the commons ~ the perpetuation of party political democracy which has proved to be totally ineffectual when it comes to addressing the enormous challenges that threaten the survival of our species ~ a social media warrior/hero class ~ apathy & political radicalism, rightest identity politics & the re-emergence of nationalism.

      The salvation of our our nation from the nightmarish globalisation quagmire we’ve been sucked into will not be achieved by perpetuating the progressive liberal/neo-liberal agenda. But such things as solidarity for the greater good ~ a radical unifying vision ~ inspirational & exemplary leadership ~ real transformational politics & a long term transitional action plan, may help us get there. I’m an unashamed patriotic, radical red/green New Zealander who dreams of a new post-globalistion world, & I believe the best in world to unilaterally begin this localisation process is right here in NZ.

      • Johnnybg says:

        Forgot to mention that this unholy, soul destroying alliance of neo-Marxists – liberals – identity politico’s – neo-liberals & libertarians have broken the back of our nation & severely weakened the moral our people. It will take a revolutionary army of steely kiwi patriots to reverse this process & take our country back from the local/foreign forces that have brought our nation to its knees.

      • Andy says:

        Johnnybg – Even though you state that you are a “radical red/green New Zealander” I find myself in agreement with most of your very insightful comment.

        This is why, I believe, we need to ditch the labels and the toxic identity politics and carve out our own independent vision for the future.

        Well said Sir

        • Johnnybg says:

          Thanks Andy for your supportive comment. You’re right about the labeling, a bad habit of mine as my views are quite eclectic. You’re also spot on about the urgent need for the shaping of an independent, unifying vision for nations future. I also believe that the only way we’ll be able to transcend the toxic divide & conquer antics of the ‘unholy alliance’ is too; take action to bring about the eventual installation of a broad based, non-partisan, national unity or salvation government. Such a vision will play a crucial role in this onward & upward process.

    • Draco T Bastard says:

      It has combined Marxist-style political totalitarianism – brutal suppression of dissent and absolute obeisance to the party – with a largely unfettered capitalist-style economy.

      Yeah – didn’t bother reading past there. He obviously doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about.

      • Johnnybg says:

        Truth hurt’s don’t it. Closed mind switches off. Got a better analysis or some good, visionary go forward ideas?

        • Sam Sam says:

          It’s amazing watching normies undress multiple layers of fragility when confronted with cold, hard, real talk.

  9. Siobhan says:

    oooh yes..another article about Trump and thingy getting kicked out of a restaurant (i think that’s been covered twice this week). Now we’re even worried about Trump supporters behaving like Democrat Party supporters. Only with trucker caps on. And they probably don’t even watch ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ reruns. Imagine that.

    Is there some reason we aren’t talking about Ocasio-Cortez spectacular win and all its ramifications?

    You know..some hope on the horizon.

    I for one have been reveling in the image of Nancy Pelosi screaming in blind rage into her pillow.

  10. Off white says:

    The simple answer to the dilemma is this:

    It’s perfectly ok if the left do it.

    • Sam Sam says:

      Simple? Real liberals and conservitves don’t actually care what any one says or does, just don’t expect to cry wolf and have (US) cops show up every time. Police have one setting only, full retard. It’s a great responsibility so I suggest every one use emergency services wisely.

      The only ones that seek to control thought and ideas are the alt left and alt right extremists.

  11. Richard Christie says:

    Anybody who blatantly and repeatedly lies to my face abdicates all rights to civility in my response to them.

    That right of mine is non negotiable. It does not necessitate that I will be uncivil in response but means they have no right to complain if I am.

    And Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a serial liar.

    It seems others fell the same way as me, good for them.

    • Andy says:

      Boycotting supporters of politicians based on their perceived truthfulness will provide pretty thin gruel for your social life

    • Andy says:

      Obama lied about Benghazi and the Iran Deal. Mrs Clinton lied about, well just about everything.

      Did anyone boycott them? No, we paid $30,000 for Obama’s golfing holiday in NZ and we gave several million of NZ tax money to the Clinton foundation.

      I have principles, if you don’t like them, well I have others ( Groucho Marx)

  12. “”When did it become okay for the leader of the world’s “indispensable” nation to behave like a Mafia don?”” asks Chris.

    When the world is being run as a swamp of psychopath murderers and paedophiles. That is when: Make America clean again, the Don!

  13. Ronald Reagan: ‘If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism’.

    And Trump is no liberal …

  14. Archonblatter says:

    I’m so reminded of the poem ‘The Frivolous Cake’ written in 1990 by Mervyn Peake. I was fortunate to hear it sung recently as a local composer has set this to music for mezzo soprano and instrumental ensemble. A freckled and frivolous cake is pursued by a knife across a pointless sea. ‘ Or any lugubrious lake there was / in a manner emphatic and free.’
    Love it seems, cannot live without cake even though the sea is unrelentingly pointless.
    I believe any respectable baker, candle stick maker, wall paper designer or tomb stone maker has the right to decline an order for a product depicting phallic emblems, busty substances or vaginal meanderings if these items offend religious sensibilities whether these be Druidic, Rastafarian, Rosicrucian, Coptic, Gnostic or neo Platonist.
    This is essential to a free capitalist financial system amd can only pave the way for legitimate pornographic bakers etc., to set up specialist businesses.
    One simply has to see the greater implications in the grand and utterly pointless overall scheme of things.
    Previous remarks about cake or no cake led to the French revolution, so cake is a dangerous incendiary unlike the Nato bombing of Serbia or Libya which are merely every day banalities not to be protested by any one of the dozens of genders now available.
    The sea, once brimming with riches and strangeness, curiosities absurdities, eccentricities and terrors is fast becoming lifeless, dreary, empty, uniformly dull, ugly and hopeless. That is to say, pointless as Mervyn Peake pointed out.