Tasmanian Times


The Far-Left’s Virtuous Obsession and the Rise of the Useful Idiot: The Implications of Angela Nagle’s Analysis for Australia

You cannot fully appreciate the degeneracy of western politics without understanding the consequence that followed from the Left abandoning their traditional labour values. No other ideological shift has been more important in allowing the wet-dream of the far-Right to become a reality.

Angela Nagle has just published a superb analysis of how this came about in the USA ( American Affairs Journal ) and why the globalist-Left, as a ‘useful idiot’, has been the prime enabler of the excesses of the far-Right.

Quite recently, the far-Left has done much to politically weaponise simplistic ‘race-based’ and ‘identity’ narratives coupled with an ‘open-boarders’ ideology that has driven an already alienated working class further to the Right – to the so-called alternative Right.

Playing with the same forces of despair that propelled Donald Trump to power and brought about Brexit, the self-absorbed Left has yet to wake up to how they may well enable a similar outcome in Australia.

At the very least, they may leave a legacy of divisions and lingering fault lines in our society based on group identity, tribalism, class and political opportunism.

By chiding and patronising an already disenfranchised block of voters, those who have not done well from the neoliberal project of globalisation, austerity, deregulation and mass immigration, the loopy-Left has trivialised a hell of a lot of people with genuine grievances.

Perhaps the hardest thing to get your head around is that the Left’s obsession with open boarders, coupled to identity politics and the monotonous drone of “racist, racist, racist …” is not the opposite of the far-Right. It is in fact doing the bidding of the far-Right.

Because the rise of the ‘useful idiots’ of the Left has been a blessing for those hell bent upon the economic exploitation of vulnerable people and breaking the back of unions.

The far-Left supports extreme immigration in spite of the problems it causes the poor and the toxic political fallout that follows. From Nagle’s article, she observes that:

“The transformation of open borders into a “Left” position is a very new phenomenon and runs counter to the history of the organized Left in fundamental ways. Open borders have long been a rallying cry of the business and free market Right … “

This transition has come about because the labour movement and Left has cashed in much of its muscle for what it sees as new vote-winning virtue and a deal with the big end of town that has the bosses rubbing their hands together with glee. Nagle notes:

“There is no getting around the fact that the power of unions relies by definition on their ability to restrict and withdraw the supply of labour, which becomes impossible if an entire workforce can be easily and cheaply replaced. Open borders and mass immigration are a victory for the bosses. And the bosses almost universally support it …”

Oddly, the best friend of the bosses in the crushing of wages and union power has been the far-Left and their harping useful idiots who strut the political stage as virtuous peacocks to provide the ideological smoke. As Nagle says:

“Today’s well-intentioned activists have become the useful idiots of big business. With their adoption of “open borders” advocacy—and a fierce moral absolutism that regards any limit to migration as an unspeakable evil—any criticism of the exploitative system of mass migration is effectively dismissed as blasphemy.”

And this is exactly where The Greens and elements of the ALP’s Left have taken the discourse in Australia.

Cashing in their environmental and labour chips for lily-white virtue much of the Left now yaps at the heels of anyone who wants to have a proper discussion about the consequences of unplanned mass immigration. The discussion about what a sustainable human population might be for Australia is drowned out and diverted by the race-obsessed Left. Heaven forbid that we might have a conversation about abandoning workers or throwing Australian youth and the labour movement under a bus.

Today, the far-Left are the ideological Sirens that lure often exploited immigrants and Australian workers to the rocks as they snarl rabidly at an invisible army of ‘racists’ that they imagine are laying siege to their inner-city cafes and wine bars. In doing so they have provided moral smokescreen for the far-Right’s faux ‘humanitarian’ motivation for mass immigration, that by a happy coincidence keeps wages anaesthetised and creates a timid underclass bribed by the promise of a visa.

A lack of infrastructure and crush-loading of our cities seems to the far-Left as a small price for other to pay for their virtue.

And it really does not seem to bother those of the Left in the least to ignore the concerns of people that are the victims of this, many of whom they like to portray as contemptable racists; or “deplorables” as Mrs Clinton might say.

Do racists exist in Australia? Unquestionably, just as they do in every other nation on earth. But the overwhelming majority of people concerned by unsustainable population growth are not in the least bit interested in skin colour or race.

Importantly, de-humanising your ideological enemy is the first law of propaganda and the far-Left has done a fine hatchet job on those ordinary and often inarticulate and unsophisticated Australians who are the biggest victims of globalisation, but dare to question the caped-crusaders of PC politics.

A recent article in the online site Macrobusiness ties this together and provides an impressive catalogue of rampant human exploitation that has resulted as case studies. It is well worth reading this long and shameful list alongside Nagle’s analysis. Together it highlights the irrationality and confused narrative of the left’s media shrills:

“…‘useful idiots’ across the leftist media constantly argue contradictory positions in defence of both wages and immigration without blinking an eye. Low wages are not a bug in this system, they are feature of it. The immigration-led growth model guarantees wage theft by relying implicitly upon a permanent supply shock that guarantees labour oversupply and by importing more exploitative attitudes to class within ethnic groups.”

Leftist “useful idiots” continue their war on wages


And it’s pretty hard to dismiss the cold hard data that has come from this marriage of convenience, that has allowed a neoliberal population Ponzi scheme to blossom beyond the wildest dreams of the debt-pushing finance industry, corrupt bankers and builders of flammable dog-boxes.

Because here is the 18 year declining GDP per capita, or your share of GDP, ever since the federal government stepped on the mass immigration accelerator in their drive to Big Australia:

And here is your decade of stagnating wages:

Mass immigration may be great for billionaires who own consumer goods and construction corporations, but it’s not so good for those selling their labour or skills. Because the benefits of using mass immigration to stimulate the economy are not shared equally and the use of gross (rather than per capita) GDP by the media mass immigration cheer squad has hidden this dirty little secret. As for the environmental and social costs, no one has even bothered to calculate it.

The Macrobusiness article ends with a salient observation about the Left’s social vandalism in Australia:

“…by abandoning the working classes, youth and environment for open borders the Fake Left risks breeding hatred and contempt from the working classes, pushing them toward right-wing parties, and placing at risk the multicultural consensus.”

Clearly this is happening in Australia in the inner-city electorates where Volvo drivers seeking virtue and absolution for their gentrified existence and banquet of conspicuous consumption play ‘spot the racist’. But it’s just a little bit too easy to smear everyone else as a bigot as you have your coffee brought to you by a low paid foreign backpacker or immigrant forced to work for a pittance.

If anything is truly deplorable it is the extent of such breathtaking hypocrisy.

Nagle offers a warning based on what has brewed up in the USA and we would be well advised to heed it. It is scarcely believable that the labour movement in Australia and The Greens are champions of such a divisive ideology that is almost a complete about-face from their grass roots beginnings that sought to protect workers and the urban and rural environment from population pressure, over-development and loss of amenity.

It is abundantly clear that The Greens are no longer the party of Dr Bob Brown. Those who vote for them out of misty-eyed wistfulness for a time when environmental sustainability was their green light on the hill better be content with being a compliant moth circling an ever dimmer bulb.

The far-left now owns The Greens as a branch office; environment and sustainability is only a shop front for a shrill ideology that says that we can never have too many people in Australia and if you don’t agree with such lunacy you are a racists who can go to hell, or to the alt-Right.

And if Nagle is correct this matters a lot as it will have big consequences.

“By providing inadvertent cover for the ruling elite’s business interests, the Left risks a significant existential crisis, as more and more ordinary people defect to far-Right parties. At this moment of crisis, the stakes are too high to keep getting it wrong.”

And the Left has got this very badly wrong in Australia too. Their useful idiots are driving those with valid concerns about the consequences of the neoliberal scheme of mass immigration into the arms of the growing alternative right. In response they have blocked their path to the Left and turned up the volume of Kumbaya in their Volvo as they sit in a traffic jam they have helped to create with a brain-dead ideology that is in reality all about them.

Dr Anon Gumanam is a well published academic who is sick and tired of the far-Left’s tactic of shaming, hating, de-platforming, virtue signalling and calling everyone a bigot.  Dr Anon is known to the editor.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    January 26, 2019 at 2:42 pm

    The left disappeared with the final defeat of socialism and class politics. Its successors are not just petty bourgeois regime apparatchiks and ‘churchy’ pedagogues and bureaucrats for Indulgence Capitalism, but clichequeens in ideological drag …

  2. max

    January 3, 2019 at 8:52 am

    It has always been thus.

    There has been a brief change in man’s history.

    The Russian Revolution 1917 which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the rise of the Soviet Union threw the frights into a world controlled by the autocracy. In fear of revolution and communism, autocracy allowed the rise of unions, something they have been trying to destroy from day one.

    After the second world war union power was raising the working class above their perceived position. With the poor outcome of communism in Russia and the collapse, the door was open, and once again the brakes could be put on the working class.

    If you look back through history, from 1945 to now, it has only been a short respite from drudgery for the working class. Neoliberalism is raising its ugly head and it is the Liberal party’s mantra. Morrison thinks he is the rightful head of Big Business and the return of autocracy, the new big businesse’s flagship.

    It is not the the cream that rises to the top of a stagnant pond .. it is the scum.

  3. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    December 2, 2018 at 10:05 pm

    To keep using obsolescent terminology like ‘left’ and ‘right’ not only mythologises political discourse, but actually obfuscates its real nature.

    ‘Left’ and ‘right’ have a legitimate nineteenth and twentieth century context of accumulatory stage capital and class struggle which attenuated as distributive capitalism flushed cheap mass produced goods and credit to buy it with, ever further down the economic hierarchy into the working class, that started to be able to buy the products it had traditionally only made for bourgeois markets.

    That all fundamentally shifted as capital started to systematically accelerate the productive apparatus beyond needs and wants into indulgent fantasies. Buyers of mere stuff become consumers of desire and satiating it, as distributive capitalism moved into becoming indulgence capitalism some time in the 1960s as the baby boomers arrived into their adolescence.

    What this did was twofold. Firstly it wiped out class politics to the extent that ‘left’ and ‘right’ became archaisms that were used by people who had no idea of the extent or nature of what had happened to them. Socialists called it ‘false consciousness’ which was the language and admission of defeat, but not an understanding of it.

    Secondly, following from that and far more profoundly, this new form of capitalism systematically shifted the locus of control from the state, economic enterprise and familial organisation to the organism of capital itself, as a self organising and ‘apolitical’ totalitarian entity many orders more powerful and invisible than any of its predecessors. It systematically smashed ‘unnecessary’ means of social reproduction, its infrastructure and authority that would limit or slow down its endless totalitarian demands for control.

    It colonised discourse as it went, converted it into PR/marketspeak, cliches, slogans, aphorisms and keywords, bypassing critical analysis and forcing faith and reason to part company such that reason became rationalisation and faith became blind.

    The story of ‘The Matrix’ is a metaphor for late capitalism where the organism colonises consciousness itself, as it anaesthetises, breaks down, absorbs and digests the entire fabric of life into its ever hungrier and eviscerating maw.

    In this golden gulag* there are no guards or fences. The prisoners cannot bring themselves to leave their charnel house, for they are kept there by visions of paradise brought to them by the proud sponsors. Their escapes always loop back to the gulag. They are enslaved more completely than the slaveries of old because they have been taught to enslave themselves to their ever more compelling desire and fantasy. Their children are taken from them by the Pied Pipers of Cool as seen or heard on .. in ways that dictatorships of the past tried, but failed to complete, thus turning narcissistic adolescence into an infantile plague of truncated and damaged social software.

    The main mechanisms for rolling this systemic indulgence economy and culture was deregulation and privatisation across all sectors of life. The so called left and right were absorbed into the administration of these mega agenda drivers, into regime equivalents of the Church and Crown of the medieval period. Both equally reinforce this regime and the enormous damage it wreaks on everything it touches, whether human social software and the integrity of its governance, the viability of the nation state, and the sustainability of the biosphere.

    And the logical endpoint for such an inanimate neo-organism of which we all the servants is that we will let it gradually substitute life force biology with self replicating artificial intelligence and robotics.

    In the end, capitalism does not need life, and is already teaching us how to discount, distort and destroy its drivers, whether we are talking ecology, our own means of social reproduction, our moral compass, or our existential grounding as a species. The end point of deregulation and privatisation at the expense of the common weal is eventually death.

    With the end of socialism, secular societies have no answer for the future at all, left, right or anything else, unless we can come up with something pretty damned quickly.

    Right now, the only thing that looks even vaguely likely to slow the beast down is a caliphate. And the only reason that one is still there is that Islam was insulated from the worst effects of capitalism by living in its colonial and semi-colonial backwaters for several hundred years, well out of the way. Tiny Islamic urban elites were too small and isolated to have much impact in the rural hinterlands. And when they started to wake up and woke from the colonial sleep they took one look at what had become of powerful secular societies and hated what they saw, just as our own ancestors would do if they could come back from the dead and give us the feedback.

    To speak of ‘left’ and ‘right’ now is a measure of the extent to which the users of those terms are unaware of what has happened since the 1960s .. which should not be surprise, because not many people are. We are the somnambulists now in perhaps the last and greatest totalitarianism of all.

    • Russell

      December 3, 2018 at 7:53 am

      “The prisoners cannot bring themselves to leave their charnel house, for they are kept there by visions of paradise brought to them by the proud sponsors.”

      No different to what is happening today in the ‘real’ world (or is it?) where the “sponsors” are big business and their government lap-dogs.

      We’re just batteries to supply their unquenchable thirsts while the sky burns and the earth is scorched bare.

    • Jack

      December 3, 2018 at 10:10 am

      ‘To speak of ‘left’ and ‘right’ now is a measure of the extent to which the users of those terms are unaware of what has happened since the 1960s’

      I tend to agree with much of this, yet the ‘sound bite’ and ‘goldfish memory’ of the media cycle does not allow for much complexity. It is tribal. People fight for their sector, whether it exists or not, as this is how self-affirmation and membership is created. That the so-called ‘far-left’ can do the bidding and assist the so-called ‘far-right’ means that the political divide is somewhat irrelevant. But like a game of footy the rusted on supporters care not for the immorality and bankrupt ideals of the players, just the entertainment of the game and contest – and in having something to chat about to fill up the hours between matches.

      Where I disagree is that reason and secular democracy has never really been tried. A Caliphate? Why not dig up King Solomon and Julius Caesar instead? Regressive religious dogma or tyrannies sanitised by literature and Hollywood are not an answer to modern humanities confrontation with its primitive and tribal ways – and never will be. We are confronting ourselves.

      • Christopher Eastman-Nagle

        December 8, 2018 at 2:00 pm

        What I am saying Jack, when I refer to ‘caliphates’, is that secular societies under the deregulatory and privatisation aegis of Indulgence Capitalism are now so socially desecured, unstable and infrastructure/software/existentially bankrupted that there isn’t anything left in the can to respond if anything goes really wrong.

        If anything does go wrong and the punters are forced to pull their heads out of the consumer feeding troughs, they will suddenly discover how really denuded they have become. They will desperately search for any kind of vehicle or detritus that looks like it might float in stormy waters, underneath which sharks are known to lurk.

        My best guess is that old fashioned/no compromises fundamentalist religion will clean up, because it will be the last still seaworthy ship left in port to get them out of an existential hinterland that is disintegrating around them.

        Half our wealth is tied up in our existential hinterlands, and it can’t run on empty for long. Socialism was the last secular ‘religion’ and it isn’t there any more. So what do you expect to happen when someone comes along and suggests that your life can be put back together and made whole if you follow the prophet? Peace be upon him (as it were).

        And as that suggestion picks up traction amongst the poor, marginalised and desperate, it will become ever more insistent, until one fine day it’s the official line and everyone is in, whether they like it or not.

        Believe me, and you don’t have to like it, the fundies are very likely to inherit the earth in a post-modern world.

        Here is what a secular version might look like: https://www.writing.com/main/books/entry_id/866723

        • Frank

          January 1, 2019 at 9:03 pm

          You must be one of those moral high ground holding “educated” leftist/socialists to have that level of virtue signalling.

  4. Henning

    December 2, 2018 at 5:05 pm

    For those who attack me on the basis that I question the use of the term ‘far Left’ as used in the anonymous article, you could just google the term. It is here used as a pejorative term akin to ‘reds under the bed’, which in exactly the same way has no connection with anything except meaningless and false labelling.

    Slogans like political correctness and virtue signalling are merely attempts to slap down critics of the ‘broad church of the Right’, as it is called, which I would venture to say is now the ‘narrow church of the Right’, or as Julia Banks has said, ‘the reactionary and regressive Right’, or what many are calling the ‘far Right’, or the ‘hard Right’.

    I’m quite happy to reiterate that the use of the term ‘far Left’ as it used in this article is nonsensical and deliberately misleading, and is also a deeply flawed interpretation of history.

    • Jack

      December 2, 2018 at 7:49 pm

      “Slogans like political correctness and virtue signalling are merely attempts to slap down critics of the ‘broad church of the Right …”

      Really? So people who consider themselves “left leaning” (as I do) who are quite simply sick to death of harping PC politics, whiny grandstanding, the torture of language and evidence and those who see ‘racists under the bed’ belong with the Right do they? Am I in effect just attacking the Left by using imaginary slogans?

      Because I think that’s the main problem identified in the article is it not? QED.

      I’m totally pissed off that the ALP has abandoned workers, but more so that I fail to see anyone attempting to recover these values. Quite the contrary. How can you blame the Right for the failings of the Left to protect their own values and constituency?

      A failure to recognise where this obsession with PC diatribe comes from, and the ALP being a party of neoliberal-lite, or even to recognise that this exists in the Left or turns people off, is probably going to help drive a lot of people to the ‘alt-Right’ until people wake up to the middle ground being abandoned.

      This is central to many people coming to the conclusion that there is no-one worth voting for in any of the three parties.

      • Henning

        December 3, 2018 at 6:24 am

        If you really want to know what I think, maybe you ought to read my book “No Chains to Rust” just published. And it wasn’t me who used the false term ‘far Left’ to describe the ALP, which is ludicrous. The logic of your support for something entitled ‘The Far left’s virtuous obsession blah blah’, and then your diatribe against the ALP is some sort of bizarre contradiction. So what do you want? After all, it was the ALP moving to the Right and shedding its left, as I’ve already said, which is the reality, not its movement to the Left.

        There is no Left in the ALP, there is no ‘liberalism’ in the Liberals, therefore no Left there either, and if you’re ‘so pissed off that the ALP has abandoned workers’ you won’t find that a non-existent Far Left in its ranks was responsible for that.

        The PC diatribe is a concoction of the reactionary right, run by the News Corp lot, speaking of which it was the Lennon Tas ALP and the CFMEU which backed Howard in 2004 and thereby ensured that the ‘battlers’ voted against their own interests in Tas, just as they did in NSW.

        Nor do I understand this fascination with supporting anonymity. Stupid. And I do kick myself for responding to someone who won’t identify themselves, and I won’t be doing it again, so just go buy my book and have a good read, although I doubt you’ll support my rationale for criticising all Tasmanian political parties …

        • Jack

          December 3, 2018 at 9:04 am

          “And it wasn’t me who used the false term ‘far Left’ to describe the ALP.”

          Well, neither have I. Neither did the quotes in this article that has so enraged you apparently. I’m struggling to see your argument when most people finger The Greens as a party colonised by the far left. Even in Nagle’s article she refers to the ‘international Left’. But suggesting that criticism of the far-Left is a contrivance of the Murdoch press is to live in a state of perpetual denial.

          I love first the ‘I’m too busy to comment’ and then the grandstanding on pseudonyms. Some people take risks in participating in discussions and I’ve covered this at length before. Others scratch away erecting structures of self-pleasing discourse to fit their comfortable dinner party ideology and say ‘buy my book’. I have flicked through it actually, and was mighty impressed that you put your name to it .. as all ideas simply must have people who lay claim to them as a form of branding – or just where would we be?

          • spikey

            December 3, 2018 at 12:28 pm

            Would they be the ‘fake greens’ colonising the greens’ party Jack?

            I consider far left, fake green and the variety of other ridiculous stereotypes to be as devoid of relevance, as those that seek to divert blame squarely upon them.

            A political exercise in encouraging the rejection of conservation and humanitarian ideals. Because a wad of greedy little monkeys, like playing master-slave systems.

            Favouring influencing public opinion against those that stand against fascism, over admitting they are petty, greedy, liars who will never admit a smidgen of fault and believe morality to be some hideous contagious disease.

            At any cost, has a price.

  5. Henning

    December 1, 2018 at 5:32 pm

    Far Left? What far Left? What’s left of any kind of Left in the world at large?

    Any part of the Left in Australia in the ALP or the union movement disappeared years ago. The only place that a unionised work force operates in Australia is in the public service, or in a few sectors of retail, construction, mining etc.

    It’s not the Left which has been the problem associated with low wages, the casualisation of labour, the destruction of working conditions, migrant working visas. and the transfer of public funds to the wealthy rather than the needy.

    The problem has been that the Left has been taken out of the labour movement by the neo-liberalism of the Hawke-Keating era, which created a bargain called a ‘social wage’ which saw both Labor and the labour movement give away the right to bargain on equal terms with capital into the future by abandoning central wage fixing and the right to strike.

    It was an agreement based on naivety and hope, which was torn apart by Howard. Howard destroyed both the social wage and the principle of a living wage, and successfully undermined any challenges from what was left of organised labour to fight back, especially in the effective destruction of manufacturing industry across the nation.

    In effect the industrial landscape, in its structures, reverted to the main elements predating the 20th century where ‘freedom of contract’ replaced ‘closed shop’ as the dominant way of driving down wages and conditions.

    Now it’s a mess, but it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the history to blame the Left.

    It is all too easy to blame Hawke and Keating as well, but that is to underestimate the sheer determination of Howard to destroy organised labour wherever it was, even if that meant destroying thousands of jobs, vilifying teachers and health workers and public servants, creating socio-economic inequality and division, dehumanising sectors of society – and perhaps most spectacularly successful of all, getting ‘battlers’ to vote against their own interests.

    Howard was also determined to destroy the last vestiges of ‘liberalism’ within his own party .. which was a magnificent achievement, the key enabler in prosecuting the culture wars, the promotion of the hard-right ‘reactionaries and regressives’ like Dutton and Morrison and the politics of fear.

    Where the labour movement has failed in the last 25 years or so is in its willingness to move to the Right and to shed its Left.

    Much else could be said about the essential flaws in this article, but there is little point in spending more than spare time – recreational time in fact – in doing so, because the article is anonymous for no particular reason, totally unexplained.

    Such bland contempt for readers speaks for itself.

    • Jack

      December 2, 2018 at 12:47 pm

      You ask “what far-left?” Is this wry humour Peter?

      I can’t say that I disagree with your comments about Howard and the way in which the ALP has moved to the Right. To be clear though, the entire Left/Right dichotomy is somewhat redundant and people fall over themselves trying to fit arguments into this old nomenclature. Certainly the move of the ALP to the Right, and the consequences, is pretty much as you say, but has the rise of the preaching and nagging far-Left and PC politics escaped you?

      I also don’t see how your view of Howard’s role and the ALP’s lurch to the right is inconsistent with this article. The far-Left are those who champion open borders, promote mass immigration as a crusade, ignore exploitation and think racism and conspiracy drives western politics that is out to oppress every minority (eg, see the current article on Transgender politics in TT). It seems to me that this has driven the working class in the USA to the alt-Right and the same will happen here for the reasons outlined. Even the ACTU has lost the plot. No one discusses the issue as the ALP’s strategy is to wait for the wheels to fall off the LNP far-Right and then get back to neoliberal-lite. One point in the article seems to be that mass immigration has taken away the ability of the labour movement to organise – yes or no?

      I think the reason why people call them the far-Left is that they are typically associated with cultural Marxism. But would you call Post-Modern ratbags Far-Left? I have no idea. Irrationality is not the preserve of one flavour of politics.

      It always amuses me when people complain about being forced to contribute comments in their spare time, unlike everyone else I suppose, who are making a fortune from it.

    • davies

      December 2, 2018 at 2:10 pm

      So what would you consider to be a far Left policy? And what would a far Left party look like?

  6. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 30, 2018 at 10:42 pm

    My dear Isla, the social libertarian ascendency is no more likely to admit to its bankruptcy than the corporate one is.

    The Tony Abbotts have almost identical regime opposite numbers who hate each other precisely because they are so alike, and share exactly the same deregulatory and privatisation agendas.

    They all hate ‘authoritarian’, ‘obstruction’,’interference’ and yes, ‘repression’, until it comes to their sacred cows and sectional interests .. sorry ‘progress’ and ‘justice’. And one side uses defamation law and money to intimidate its critics into silence and the other uses anti-vilification/discrimination laws to protect its interests or minority clients.

    They are all into power and enforcing its edicts because they are all regime operators who are ultimately servants of Indulgence Capitalism; you know, an economic system that pushes excesses, ideological extremism, and the kind of shonky excuse-making rationalisation that comes with institutional toleration of poor and substandard behaviour .. that keeps ever accelerating over-production and consumption rolling along, even if it means cannibalising life, its infrastructure and nurturance.

    The tobacco and transgender lobbies are all into their own interests at the expense of the security and integrity of the common weal, and any of its legitimate boundaries that get in their way, use exactly the same propaganda PR/marketspeak, have the same deregulatory and privatisation agendas and discount the value of life by either callously hooking people into a death habit or encouraging reproductive self mutilation, particularly in the young and vulnerable, whose lives are already made chaotic enough by broken down social machinery.

  7. Claire Gilmour

    November 30, 2018 at 8:32 pm

    This is a well written article and there is much therein that I agree with.

    But the earth/planet naturally has no borders. It is currently made of country/political/societal/religious borders. The earth is one big circle that anyone should be free to travel around. What is wrong is who is chosen to travel, when and how, and for what reason. What is mostly wrong is Population Growth – the elephant in the room, and not many, especially politicians, want to talk about it, let alone properly acknowledge and deal with it.

    The planet is very small, and a country’s borders cannot lock out what is happening globally.

    Someone has to have the guts to say “Limit human breeding, globally!”

    • Tim Thorne

      December 1, 2018 at 9:30 am

      Agreed. And the best way to limit population growth is to extend the reach of education, especially to women.

      Massive increases in migration are certain. Democracy as we know it cannot survive because it belongs to an economic system which is on the verge of collapse. Perhaps we will get our act together before global climate catastrophe and/or another hot war take their toll, but the odds are not good. Greed and fear are still the most effective tools of the rich and powerful.

      If all of the above categorises me as “far left”, then so be it. It’s like most labels: fairly useless, and it has nothing to do with “identity politics”.

      • Simon Warriner

        December 1, 2018 at 10:22 am

        Tim, Your assessment of democracy seems to be predicated on the way it is currently being misused.

        The party political thing gets in the road of sound decision making every time, and has led to the confusion so well described. We are where we are because of what we have done.

        If the representatives elected by the people stopped choosing sides, and actually represented the full range and scope of their constituents to the parliament, the parliament might be capable of producing something worth paying attention to. If those same representatives stopped making their decisions based on the nonsense they spouted to appeal to the swinging voters, or their benefactors in order to get elected and started making decisions based on evidence, unbiased research, and well founded advice from relevant experts all corralled to the service of the greater common good, we might actually get some of the more intransigent issues like rampant population growth and uncontrolled migration fixed.

        What is required is a changed attitude from the voters. We need to seek out better representatives .. not people who agree with us. That requires less selfishness, from everyone, including the rampant virtues signalers on the left of politics, and the arrogant know it alls on the right.

        I do not know what the answers to humanity’s problems, locally, nationally or internationally actually are, but I do know this. Beating on the back of the head of the axe that is democracy with the rock that is partisan political rivalry will never clear enough of the scrub for anyone to find them. Only the use of honest, sensible people working selflessly without preconceptions will do it. Those people will be Independents, and they can make democracy work to deliver a better world for all.

        • Tim Thorne

          December 1, 2018 at 3:57 pm

          Simon, the problem goes much deeper than party politics. There is no point in electing the finest, most intelligent, honest and compassionate Independents to a representative assembly that has no power.

          More and more democracy is becoming not so much impotent as irrelevant. To the extent that our institutions are successful in stopping the consolidation of power and wealth, then to that extent they are being destroyed or bypassed.

          The best we can hope for is a rebuild, after the inevitable collapse, based on humane and rational principles. As I have said above, it might well be too late, but I believe that that is no reason not to try.

          • Simon Warriner

            December 3, 2018 at 5:00 pm

            Tim, the representative assembly has as much power as it cares to avail itself. That is why it is termed “sovereign risk”. Your premise is bogus, defeatist and silly.

            It bodes poorly for your hope for a rebuild after a collapse. Far better to stand and fight now, and avoid a collapse. I could face my child having done that. Your option, not so much.

          • Jon Sumby

            December 9, 2018 at 10:59 am

            Hmm … ‘collapse’. An interesting topic. Largely theoretical to us as most models place it around 100-150 years away, although global warming is happening sooner, stronger, and faster than most policy positions place it.

            But what is the conception of ‘collapse’? What is ‘collapse’ anyway? How extensive? How extreme? Once only or in sequences? Globally or regionally only? Once ‘collapse’ occurs what is the existence .. post-collapse?

            Another question is this: which is the end game or are these approaching inflexions synergistic:

            Firstly, conventional crude oil production peaked in 2006, hence the current scramble for fracking and gas, however all petrochemical production is expected to peak in the early 2020s;
            Secondly, peak coal is occurring in different areas or has happened, eg the UK peaked in 1913, Germany in 1958, and Australia is expected to peak in the 2040s;
            Thirdly, deadly heat and humidity is expected to rise rapidly with multiday lethal heatwaves expected across equatorial India, Asia, Africa, the Americas by 2050, and by the end of the century Australia north of Gladstone is expected to be uninhabitable. Sea level rise is slower and unstoppable and will top six metres in about 300 years.It is expected to peak at 24 metres in about 800 years and remain at that level for longer than 5,000 years.

            Where (when) does ‘collapse’ happen in these events? How, and how extreme, and what happens afterwards .. are questions being explored by many people. It is a bit of a ‘pick-your-own-adventure’!

            I suspect a decline myself, rather than a convulsive collapse, a falling apart but this view is a minority as most people seem to prefer a Grand mal of a ‘collapse’.

    • Russell

      December 2, 2018 at 8:22 am

      “What is mostly wrong is Population Growth.”

      Agreed Claire, and that’s mostly due to religious beliefs of over-populating to oppose all the other flavours of religion. The far right-wing governments are mainly Christian, with their over-zealous and unsustainable “go forth and multiply” doctrine.

      • Tim Thorne

        December 3, 2018 at 7:29 pm

        Simon, have you looked at what has happened all around the world when representative assemblies have asserted their independence? How much blood is it worth shedding?

        I agree that my hope for a rebuild after capitalism collapses is a tenuous one, but despite the wonderful example given by schoolkids last week, I still fear that climate disaster will arrive before we can collectively get the planet on the right track.

        I consider myself an optimist with no rational basis for my optimism. I guess my attitude could be summed up as “If you don’t fight you don’t win; if you do fight you lose, but keep on fighting.”

        • Simon Warriner

          December 5, 2018 at 3:28 pm

          Max, Iceland?

          You may not have noticed but there is a growing dissatisfaction with those who insist on fiddling with the governments of democratic states for their own ends. That, and a fast growing awareness of the identity of those scumbags.

          There are currently more of us than there are of them. And your hope that this will be the case after the collapse is based on what, precisely?

  8. peter mills

    November 30, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    i’m just an old fashioned lefty.

    After reading all this I fear you will all come around and burn me at the stake.

  9. Isla MacGregor

    November 30, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Well done, Dr Anon Gumanam, in getting straight to the heart of the issues Women Speak Tasmania have been dealing with in the current identity politics fiasco in Tasmania.

    We have been abused as TERFS, transphobes and bigots, but will the neo-liberal left, intersectional ‘feminists’ respond to the evidence we give them – NO!

    Deny, deny, deny, roll out the abuse and keeping trotting out the mantra “they are fearmongering and committing ‘hate speech'”!

  10. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 30, 2018 at 9:09 am

    My namesake and I seem to be on a very similar pages.

    The only difference is that what she calls ‘The Left’, I call social libertarian humanists. Angela calls them ‘useful idiots’ for the corporatocracy, but I suggest they are actually regime apparatchiks who are pillars of Indulgence Capitalism in the same way the medieval church was to the crown.

    They both carry exactly the same deregulation agenda in favour of private and personal interests at the expense of the collective infrastructure they are supposed to be stewarding. They have turned freedom and rights into consumer indulgences that align exactly with way the consumer economy works. Their minoriarian identity politics bolster their legitimacy in the absence of a mass following where moral bluff substitutes for real power. They absolve their trashier clients by creating an absolution ‘industry’ that builds itself around the art of the ‘poor thingist’ excuse. They cannot tell the difference between indulgence and compassion because their ideology is built around indulgence, which means they can no longer discriminate between trashy deregulatory ideological bluff, crib fudge and authentic social infrastructure building. And when challenged, they behave exactly the same way as the church did when confronted by heresy.

    They are every bit as much enemies of the future as their corporate opposite numbers.


    Christopher (and others) … when you are composing text for a TT Comment, please use the word “and” rather than the ampersand, “&”.

    — Moderator

  11. Realist

    November 30, 2018 at 7:17 am

    “Dr Anon Gumanam is a well published academic who is sick and tired of the far-Left’s tactic of shaming, hating, de-platforming, virtue signalling and calling everyone a bigot.”

    Hallelujah, Dr Anon. And it’s not just immigration. Bring up any discussion that goes against far left ideology thinking and the treatment is the same. Reality bites sometimes.

    • Joanna

      December 11, 2018 at 6:40 am

      Agree – the left like to think of themselves as peaceful and tolerant but in fact they are a pack of bigots.

  12. spikey

    November 30, 2018 at 7:14 am

    Christopher, is that you?
    Are you really a doctor?
    I reckon you’re a deliberate homophobic bigot.
    Is Angela a relative?

    (apologies to Dr Gumanam. If you’re not Chris, you should catch-up. You’d love his book ‘The Secular Fundamentalist’. You’re likely to be its biggest and only fan, although I’m not sure it has actually been published. It can be found online)

    • davies

      November 30, 2018 at 9:36 am

      Cue for the virtue signallers …

      Where did you get the homophobic slant to this article?

      A bigot is someone who is intolerant of other viewpoints.

      I think the article overstates the reach of the far-right, but it certainly nails the preoccupations of the left to the clear detriment of the working class.

      • spikey

        December 1, 2018 at 6:30 am

        I hafta admit I got the homophobic slant from Christopher’s many previous rants. I consider anyone who bangs on about the left and right a political tool, a parrot, or fairly mentally disturbed. We are humans, not directions.

        It’s good to see this quality article getting so much support from the usual suspects. If the author stands up in the Comments section, I’ll address some pertinent questions their way.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top