Anyone who suggests that there has be a 'rise of the right' in this country is seriously deluded and should be ignored. We now have doctors set to run our border protection!

To have these ideas this bloke must live under a rock, or earn his daily bread from lefty causes.

To actually hold his opinions, he has obviously never looked at the result of recent middle eastern & north African gate crashing by what he probably considers asylum seekers.

Nor could he have looked at the terrorising of citizens of Melbourne & Sydney in particular by African youth gangs.

Perhaps he has no media access under his rock. If he had a bright lawyer should have noticed we pay over a billion dollars a year funding an extreme left wing organisation to spurt bulldust all over the counter.

Sorry I got it wrong. He obviously is most certainly not a "bright" lawyer, he is a very dumb left of Khrushchev lawyer.

Well written piece by the author. We in Australia have managed to stymie the ambitions of the hard right even in the more recent histories of Joh for PM, One Nation and Palmer. Even the demise of Abbott and the failure of Dutton to grab the leadership reins, and the likely election of Labour speak to a sensible center which to a large degree still exists.

That is not to say the threat has been put to bed but for now a collapse into triumphalistic Trumpism seems to have been averted.

Sadly & frighteningly, this bloke is typical of the Left mentality. Why they, added significantly by Labor & the ABC, have become so successful in denouncing common sense is beyond the realm of sense.

Even SR doesn't take it seriously, saying that "we", the Far Left, have "stymied" the right. Barnes is about as perceptive as the doctor who recently described Manus as being like Auschwitz. Don't these people know anything. Haven't they read anything since the 'Little Golden Books'. No, they're probably too young to remember them.

Well, there is little doubt that both major parties have slipped to the right and the once great liberal party has had its core values/socially liberal principles, undermined by the (extreme) hard right. That said, we can't ever go soft on organised criminal, human trafficking. Or the sexual slavery that funds much of it.

Economic migrants hold on to their identifying documentation for the purpose of visas and flying to compliant host counties. Like Indonesia and to a lesser extent, Malaysia? Once they are safe in their compliant host countries, they seem to be able to find the equivalent of a year's salary to pay for a short boat ride to Chrismas Island!?

Refugees on the other hand rarely have the economic means to achieve similar outcomes, and all to often eke out generational accommodation in rat hole refugee camps. And the world now has in excess of fifty million of them.

If we are to take in more undocumented folk? Folk who have quite deliberately and knowingly destroyed their identifying documentation, you know the ones needed to get visas to transit countries!

They first should be obliged to pass covertly deployed, unbeatable, space-age lie detection testing. And if failed three times with three different interviewers, automatically repatriated. No ifs, buts or maybes!
Alan B.

I thought I was going to be in for a dose of trots with this garbage and I was right.

I only get 350 words to refute all this crap and I'm not sure I could do it in less than a thousand.

"Freedom of speech and thought is critical to a well-functioning, liberal democracy. But...."

(That 'But' means you're full of it.
That means you don't support free speech - only YOU are allowed to run down and disparage)

There's no way you could spout all this utter crap anywhere and actually believe it other than learning it from University.

What a pathetic little muppet.

- Give me the same opportunity to refute your bs and I'll do so with ethics and arguments that hold merit, and I'll prove all your crap wrong.

'Mindful that there is no monopoly on truth'
Arguing that there can be multiple truths?

Why don't you going and promote psychosis elsewhere numbnut?

The truth is the truth you idiot.
Sometimes there are many truths or (points of view) and you must look at the bigger picture.

But the big picture is that you lefties are completely batshite crazy.
- Holding the nation hostage with your backwards and deranged ideas.

Oh and in case you aren't aware boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.
Unless there's another gender that has a square-circle shaped genitalia I'm unaware of, that's all there is you dumbass.

Barnes shows how the training of lawyers leads to sickness today. There would be no need for a right if we did not have the godless feminist/Marxist denying the natural order of things and doing their best to destroy this country that has given them so many privileges. One wonders what hope we have as a nation we read such putried nonsense from a 'leading' lawyer. No wonder Trump calls for the draining of the swamp.

Dear AC,

Oh cry me a bloody river.

I'm afraid you are getting called out on this one mate.

Barns' article was 850 words long. You can post 4 times on an article within a 24 hour period. You have 3 left with a limit of 350 words per post giving you a 1050 word platform to "Give me the same opportunity to refute your bs and I'll do so with ethics and arguments that hold merit, and I'll prove all your crap wrong."

No excuses my little chest thumping muppet. Put up or shut up.

Yes but first I have to give a crap.
And there's an army of these nutjubs.

Cut one head off and 2 grow back.

I told you all many times we've sold out to globalism.
There is no 'National' because there's a war against 'nationalists';
- As clearly evidenced by this retards narrative.

I'm not going to waste my time with these carbon copy idiots being pumped out daily with their weird globalist ideas.

I'M NOT REQUIRED TO REPEAT MYSELF EVERY BLOODY TIME ONE OF THESE FOOLS OPEN THEIR TRAPS

I'm Australian (10th+ generation on my Non-Indigenous side + my Great Grandfather was a CO on the Battlefield at Gallipoli so I've earned the right to have my say and if you disagree tough luck), and I support populist politics and I support Nationalism.

"If we are to blunt the populist right."

Why do you want to do that for?
-Don't I have the right to an opinion?
-Don't I have the right to a say?
-Doesn't my vote count you bloody ignoramus?

He's a 'Democracy only works until you reach your destination and then get off' kind of guy.

I's more or less the same as me saying:
"If we off'ed all the lefties life would be great, we wouldn't have to listen to all this backwards rot anymore".

- He wants to disparage against me, and then spin this bullcrap where he comes out clean at the end.

"But there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, being heard, and, on the other, injecting ideas into discourse in a manner that is respectful of others and is mindful that there is no monopoly on truth or what is deemed to be the best for a society."

- Blow it out your backsides, the pair of youse.

Why is there a worry about the apologies of tomorrow-land when there are still issues of today to sort through? Who cares if this harms international reputation that requires an appology? Why shouldn't the first concern be to ensure that you are taking care of your own country well enough to take on the responsibility of opening the gates to refugees.

It's like a caring heart going to an animal shelter and wanting to rescue them all. No doubt this is a good attitude to show a healthy heart, but to actually take in all of the animals of the shelter would only put them in a worse condition because the person adopting them won't have the resources to care for all of them.

This is the problem with the refugee problems in today's world. The need is there, people should be welcoming to the immigrants that come. But that said, all the nations that are doing this are taking in too many refugees with little or no return and resources are being strained.

Sort throughout the issues of today, to make the hopes of tomorrow possible instead of fretting over an apology that holds no value to an international community struggling with the same issues, or making demands that they themselves don't do. An appology to hypocracy is a wasted worry. Better to work on today. Make the crime, the gangs, and the dangers wane off before even working about the days of tomorrow's international community. Shore up jobs and homes for the residents and the foreigners who move in, so that they are taken care of because that is the issues of today. Who cares about reputation in tomorrow's international world. They are fickle people who complain about everything.

"Populism", is what real democracy is all about, my dear Greg Barnes. If your policies are "popular", then a majority of people will vote for you. If you have a problem with "populism" and "majority rules". then your best bet is to immigrate to a country where a minority of elitists like yourself, who think they know what is best for the lowly peasantry, use force to keep their pampered positions while they ruin their own countries with their own no longer "populist" policies.

Your position also connects "populism" with the Right. Not so, old boy. The Left has used "populism" for decades, mainly the tactic appealing for the votes from the unproductive elements in society by saying "Vote for me and I steal the money from the productive people in society and give it to you." That "populism" has worked a treat for the Left, most recently in Venezuela. Well, it worked for a while in Chile and Venezuela, anyway. But sooner or later, your socialist comrades run out of somebody else's money to steal to be "populists" and buy votes.

Next readers, please note the stereotypical compulsive need of our little socialist friend Greg Barnes to think that he and his causes are the epitome of morality. Throughout history, the worst kinds of totalitarians had this puritanical streak of evangelical moralising towards their inferiors. It is a sort of pathology where their need for a positive self image of themselves trumps the idea of any sort of loyalty towards their own society. Pure narcissism.

The only thing that Greg got right was his observation that the entire western world is turning away from his socialist humanitarian causes. This is because the left are now the Establishment, and their policies have been catastrophic to their own communities. Despite the best propagandising efforts of the left wing media and their fake news, people are wising up. Australians only have to look at the shambles in Europe to figure out that you and your lefty causes will destroy their own civilisation.

Don't just say:

A policy discussion based on liberal values would assure Australians that border security does matter yet is not an either/or proposition, that immigration policy has to be informed by values such as fairness, equal treatment, global responsibility, and balancing the interests of sovereignty with the advantages that come to Australia from migration. This would be a policy whereby cruelty and unjustifiable hardship, such as inflicting destitution on asylum seekers, have no place because they are counterproductive and, more importantly, utterly inconsistent with liberal values.

Give us the details of your plan. How specifically would you meet these lofty liberal values? It is so easy to chatter from the sidelines about fairness and equal treatment but you need to give us the details of an asylum seeker plan that would provide these while still preventing an influx of new boat people.

You say that these policies have been chosen because they are populist, but you haven't given us your plan to compare with so we can decide. Just saying it's populist doesn't mean it's good or bad. What is your plan?

Firstly,

The assertion that both major parties are shifting to the right is bollocks, the Labor party has shifted markedly to the left and is particularly under the sway of Sally McManus that wants to "change the rules" back to 1960s type legislation to save the ever shrinking union membership, and to raise taxes left right and center.

Considering that it was Hawke and Keating that started to liberalise the economy that led to 3 decades of rapid growth in GDP and living standards.

The only area that the labor party has notionally moved to the right is on its faux conversion to border control (looking dubious after the latest free pass to detainees.) after killing 1200+ and facing the outrage of the voters.

Similarly in the UK we have Jeremy Corbyn that wants to fleece the rich and nationalize major industries as was done pre Thatcher and nearly bankrupted the country.

There are not many justified phobia but Leftist Sillinessphobia is.

I never did figure out what the TAMPA affair was all about. When parents throw their kids into the water so the nearest boat's crew is morally obliged to scoop them up, how did that make the then Govt bad ? Why does human life blackmail make the Right bad ? When drownings between Indonesia & Australia become weekly old news again will it be the Shorten Govt that is so bad as was Howards ?
Or will the next flotilla head for PNG instead ? After all it is much closer to here than Indonesia & PNG has no resources to accommodate refugees. Whichever way it goes, it'll be Australia's Right taxpayers who will be fleeced again. The Lefties in the public service will just stand there & hold out their hands for humanitarian medals !

Dear Armchair Critic,

Wait a second, you pranced on in here claiming victim status saying “I only get 350 words to refute all this crap and I'm not sure I could do it in less than a thousand.”

When it is rightly pointed out that you had 1050 words at you disposal you then went with a series of pathetic excuses.

Then to top it off you claim to be 10th generation Australian. Hat will need a little more substantiation before you get a pass on that one my friend.

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“I never did figure out what the TAMPA affair was all about. When parents throw their kids into the water so the nearest boat's crew is morally obliged to scoop them up, how did that make the then Govt bad ?”

You can't figure it out because you have a patently bereft understanding of the issue.

Tell me please when did parents throw their children into the water during the Tampa affair?

The article by Greg Barnes indicates how dangerous the extreme left really is- when they can push policies that advance the one percent such as gay politics onto the majority- the majority need to actively attack gay politics as they are not content to live and let live- they want to infiltrate straight communities and destroy our beliefs- through our workplaces, our institutions, and sadly our schools.

That is not to say we should attack gay folk that are happy to keep to themselves.

The extreme left want to destroy our borders making us vulnerable to the chaos outside.

It's interesting that Greg Barnes worked withing the Howard government and seemingly has been turned towards the extreme left- perhaps he is just a "do gooder" Liberalist that is the useful idiot of the Communist era. The Australian Lawyers Alliance appears to be another extreme left front group- astro-turfing- from their apparent one-sided support of immigration and refugees. But it's concerning that Economic Liberals have exposed Socially Liberal proclivities within their ranks in recent times.

The majority need action to reverse the minority dialogue of the extreme left- those with biased extreme left views need to be locked out of policy making and influencing- locked out of schools, workplaces, departments, government- if necessary kicking and screaming- put into gaol.

Greg Barnes is obviously Liberalist (means basically globalist freedom and individualism)- this is a point of view- another point of view is traditionalist or conservative (sometimes associated with the concept of localism and virtue and family).

Greg Barnes appears to be saying that any debate needs to be conducted on Liberalist terms- this sounds like a very self serving approach.

But what is the alternative? Looks like this is a situation where there cannot be compromise- you either believe in virtue or freedom

If you believe in freedom (and Liberalism)

- people can come from any part of the world and settle in your community without restriction.
- There are no property rights (social liberalism)
- Children are taught that there are no limits to sexuality or virtue or values and that these are just opinions.
- There are no female or male jobs or female or male preferences.
- You have to accept every repulsive behavior as acceptable for the principle of freedom.

If you believe in traditional virtue and value you reject the above and believe the below.

- your family and the extended family of your community is more important than other communities and other families.
- By the local community working together sometimes over many generations we can create prosperity to share within the community- but not to waste.
- males and females tend to have different characters and ways of thinking and roles and we need the community to reflect that for peace. Male and females in the kingdom of nature have different roles- it's true for mankind too.
- It's ok to respect that certain people in the community are different but this is different than saying that these people are normal. You should try to get people to work together perhaps through aligning beliefs- but perhaps tradition is a good guide for what works over many generations.
- Tradition can be repressive but so can Liberalism.


All political systems try to protect themselves- Liberalism is no different- that is why they attack Traditionalism- but when Liberals attack traditionalism they attack the people this is what makes them immoral.

What a pity to read disingenuous articles and comments about a person being "left", "right", "conservative", "progressive", "capitalist", "socialist" etc; imposing such a badge is a pejorative device that, because of one expressed view or action, is used to justify placing the person in some notional group with whom he or she may not in reality share other views. In our post-modern era (and later) understanding society recognises that every individual is different. Describing a society, community, tribe, family or person in polarising terms along one or a few dimensions fails to appreciate complexity and diversity.

A simple example: many who know me would call me "conservervative", but understanding my thinking on "social evolution", they appreciate why I voted (in Australia) in favour of same sex marriage in our recent plebiscite.

Similarly, on the matter of immigration, they know why I favour Australia's acceptance of "more" refugees, while understanding my views on constructive efforts towards integration, and the need to stop others (e.g. smugglers) gaming the policy, and even the imperative for more efficient and forward looking infrastructure investment.

I don't expect others to agree or disagree with me - that is the privilege of living in a diverse society. But for those holding simple views on difficult social issues while demonising others who equally simplistically but genuinely may differ, only displays ignorance (or exploits it in others) - whether in civility or an ability to analyse situations and appreciate history.

To recall H L Mencken, "for every complex problem there are simple solutions, and they are always wrong".

cmplxty

how would you describe Trump?

runner

Responding to your question, from what I (an Australian) have read, Mr Trump is someone who I would generally not admire (I don't envisage that I could work for him), although in some respects he seems clever and effective.

More importantly, however, I am intrigued as to the reasons for the large numbers of people who have supported him and continue to do so. Maybe they see in him the best prospects for improving the economy, their employment prospects, their businesses, national security, reducing waste and government, constraining corruption and free-riding, maintaining traditions and social cohesion, offering inspiration ("draining the swamp" and "making America great again" whatever they mean).

This is not to say that he is accomplishing these things or that there will not be unintended perverse outcomes.