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.