Tuesday 30 April 2024

Winding Back The Hands Of History’s Clock.

Holding On To The Present: The moment a political movement arises that attacks the whole idea of social progress, and announces its intention to wind back the hands of History’s clock, then democracy, along with its unwritten rules, is in mortal danger.

IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in acknowledgement of electoral victory: “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders.” On the face of it, the pledge is a strange one. Why would any political leader govern in ways that advantaged the huge number of citizens who’d cast their votes against her party? Surely, in a nation governed by political parties, strengthening one’s own, and advantaging its most loyal supporters, would be the two top priorities?

That so many political leaders reiterate the “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders” pledge is attributable to what might be called the unwritten rules of democratic politics. A government which ruled in open defiance of all but its own voters would very swiftly unite the rest of the country against it. Worse still, when such a government fell (which would likely be sooner rather than later) its replacement would have no compunction about following its predecessor’s example.

Very quickly, general elections would come to be feared by all sides. Failure to win could mean impoverishment, discrimination, even persecution, for the members and followers of the losing parties. The irresistible temptation, upon winning a general election, would be to make damn sure there wasn’t another one, or, at least, not one conducted freely and fairly. At best, the result would be an Hungarian-style “illiberal democracy”. At worst, outright tyranny.

“We’ll govern for all New Zealanders”, preserves at least the fiction that partisanship ceases when the last vote is counted, and that, henceforward, the election winner/s will govern in the “national interest”. Crude partisanship is banished to the sidelines, right up until the electoral term is set to expire.

In this fiction, the incoming government will be seconded by the public service, whose role, at least theoretically, is to preserve the inviolability of such key state institutions as the judiciary, the armed forces and the police, as well as ensuring the continuity of the state’s day-to-day administrative entities and services.

In reality, the public service serves the interests of the party, or parties, that have just won, or been returned, to power. It advances the new/re-elected government’s policy agenda, offering advice, and doing everything within its power to protect its ministers from their own arrogance, inexperience and/or stupidity. In other words, they are the government’s best friend, right up until the moment it is no longer the government. Very much a case of “The King is dead. Long live the King!”

“We’ll govern for all New Zealanders” is also a pledge to refrain from undoing everything the outgoing government has done whilst in office. Aside from one or two highly symbolic revocations and repeals, the new government is expected to retain those legislated reforms which were well-signalled, widely discussed and debated, and properly passed through all the required parliamentary stages.

Failure to be bound by this unwritten democratic rule is tantamount to repudiating democracy itself. If every attempt at reform is to be ruthlessly undone by the reformers’ successors, then democracy itself will be reduced to little more than a triennial search-and-destroy mission.

The whole utility and, ultimately, the very possibility of meaningful reform will be undermined, to the point where, once again, people begin to ask what democracy is good for.

If every attempt to improve society is countermanded by those who benefit most directly from its defects, then people will begin to insist that a more permanent method be found for negating their advantages. Understandable, but a “people’s tyranny” is still a tyranny.

“We’ll govern for all New Zealanders” is, at its core, a bi-partisan affirmation that the whole point of a democratic system is to make possible the steady advance of the general welfare. Parties of the Left will do their best to speed up that advance. Parties of the Right will attempt to slow the pace. But underlying and informing both Left and Right is a belief that history moves forwards, not backwards. The moment a political movement arises that attacks the whole idea of social progress, and announces its intention to wind back the hands of History’s clock, then democracy, along with its unwritten rules, is in mortal danger.

Is this where New Zealand presently stands? Have New Zealanders elected themselves a government determined to wind back the hands of History’s clock? There are some who insist that a narrow majority of New Zealanders have done precisely this. That the National-Act-NZ First Coalition Government has demonstrated not the slightest intention of governing for all New Zealanders. That it is a government for farmers, landlords, road-builders, mining companies – and the rest of the country be damned!

Or, in the colourful language of The Daily Blog editor, Martyn Bradbury: “This Hard-Right, racist, climate-change-denying, beneficiary-bashing Government.”

Others would argue that the only reason the incoming government felt obliged to wind back the hands of History’s clock is because their predecessors had pushed them too far forward. That, in spite of her promise to govern for all New Zealanders, Jacinda Ardern had allowed elements within Labour’s caucus to promote policies and pass legislation that caused a great many of her fellow citizens to feel disoriented, disliked, and even disinherited. Many Non-Māori New Zealanders felt robbed of what they considered their birthright – the country their European ancestors had built, and the European religious and political beliefs that animated its institutions.

The most precious of these Pakeha taonga is representative democracy. From the election of the Liberal Government in 1891 to the election of the First Labour Government in 1935, the Second in 1957 and the Third in 1972, New Zealanders took pride in their country’s designation as the “social laboratory of the world”. Sure, there were periods of conservative consolidation, when the clock’s hands slowed considerably, but, for the most part, it recorded the steady advance of New Zealand’s socially progressive hours. Not even the years of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia could halt its hands entirely.

What happened to so derange the operation of History’s clock remains a matter of heated debate. Beyond dispute, however, is that at some point between 2017 and 2023 its machinery was over-wound to a degree that gave rise to an unprecedented level of social unease. Changes, uncalled for and ill-explained, came in rapid succession. Too quickly to be either understood, accepted, or forgiven. Political polarisation worsened until there was only one statement that all but the Labour Government’s most ardent followers could agree upon: the politicians in the Beehive are not governing for all New Zealanders.

Entirely predictably, the breaking of one unwritten rule, led swiftly to the breaking of another. And, now, the critical motivational spring of this country’s historical clock – its hitherto unshakeable belief in democracy and the social progress it makes possible – is on the point of failing altogether.

But, if Christopher Luxon’s Government shows no sign of pausing in its reactionary backward lurching, then neither does Chris Hipkins’ Labour Party demonstrate the slightest indication of understanding how close they came to breaking the precious democratic mechanism, nor how urgent is the need for its repair.

Democracy, once lost, is not easily recovered.

If ever there was a time for both Left and Right to declare: “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders” – and mean it – then that time is now.

This essay was originally posted on The Democracy Project website on Monday, 29 April 2024.


Tom Hunter said...

“This Hard-Right, racist, climate-change-denying, beneficiary-bashing Government.”

You forgot his other favourite in that mix: "Romper Stomper".

Anyhoo, aside The Screaming Beard there's also the fact that the argument of this post - that we can't wind back the history clock's hands - contradicts that oft-expressed angry desires of the commentariat here with regard to Rogernomics.

I've lost track of the number of commentators over the years at Bowalley Road, The Daily Blog, The Standard and other leftist sites in NZ, who very, very much have wanted to wind back those hands to the time before 1984. Hell, you just had a post on Glide Time the other day that dripped with nostalgia for that time.

All sounds a bit "reactionary" to me! ;)

Wayne Mapp said...

Five items posted all at once! But I think this one is the most important of the five.

I have thought a lot about the nature of mandates that each government has. In my view it is not to act as partisan elected dictators for each term of three years.

There are three elements to understanding the nature of the democratic mandate so that it strengthens democracy rather than weakens it. Importantly, these give citizens some level of surety about their government, whether or not they voted for them. That their rights and property won't be arbitrarily trodden over.

First, it is essential to respect the institutions of democracy and that includes not demonising your opponents. Of course there is the political contest, but not everything one does should be compared to how terrible the other side are.

Second, some considerable care needs to be given about what should be retained from the previous government. Clearly not everything, but also not going out of way the way to repeal everything. In part this is about the future. In due course the other side will win. You don't want to set up a pattern where they do to you what you did to them. So quite a lot of legislative initiatives have to be of things that the other side will accept, even if somewhat reluctantly. I would put my 90 day bill into that category. I specifically chose 90 days because I thought it would be a period that Labour could tolerate, even if not like.

Third, it is essential that there are some individuals in Cabinet who can work constructively with the other side. There are some things that have to be done which last well beyond the term of one's own government. James Shaw and Todd Muller understood this in respect of climate change policy. My particular interest of defence policy is another, given that defence purchases and defence relationships last for many decades. It is not yet obvious who these people are within the current government and opposition. But I am sure they will emerge. I certainly hope they do.

Alias said...

"Many Non-Māori New Zealanders felt robbed of what they considered their birthright – the country their European ancestors had invaded, subjugated the native people, and the European religious and political beliefs that animated its institutions........."

There Chris FIFY...

Larry Mitchell said...

Unshakeable belief in democracy is NOT broken Chris.

Our democratic processes here in Godzone actually and positively thrive on the cut and thrust of competing versions of " their!" "notions of Democracy".

And these tensions we conduct in a civilized society ... this IS NOT present day Russia ... et al

Hand around the chill pills and write about stuff that is not just eyeball grabbing bait.

Say try a topic like... Auckland Roxxs ... the rest Suxx. Just kidding sorta.

The Barron said...

"We'll govern for foreign interest, big donors and self promotion" has a more honest ring.

DS said...

The most precious of these Pakeha taonga is representative democracy. From the election of the Liberal Government in 1891 to the election of the First Labour Government in 1935, the Second in 1957 and the Third in 1972, New Zealanders took pride in their country’s designation as the “social laboratory of the world”. Sure, there were periods of conservative consolidation, when the clock’s hands slowed considerably, but, for the most part, it recorded the steady advance of New Zealand’s socially progressive hours. Not even the years of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia could halt its hands entirely.

Reeks of Whig History.

(History does not have a direction, and insofar as it does, New Zealand has been regressing for forty years now).

"Governing for all people" does not mean bipartisanship. We are not the USA. It means that every three years a Government gets to impose its vision upon the country, on the condition they filter that vision through the wider national interest. Parties differ in vision, and thus elections have consequences.

Even if you think the Ardern Government was somehow radical (it wasn't. It was a profoundly do-nothing government), our system most certainly permits radical governments. If National had won 1938, it would have been entirely within its rights to undo Labour's 1935-1938 policies. Meanwhile, Margaret Thatcher in Britain gleefully tore up decades of political consensus after 1979 - but had she lost in 1983 or 1987, Britain would have gone in an altogether different direction. One democratically justified.

Jonzie said...

Here's the problem Chris. Govern for !all New Zealanders' is not possible at this time. There is no such thing. There are 'some' New Zealanders and then there are 'other ' New Zealanders. Activists, even The Maori Party for example, openly stoke that fire. We have not defined that concept of 'all'. Can you please explain who qualifies, or is even allowed to be a 'New Zealander' these days - so we can ask a govt to govern for all of 'us'.

David Stone said...

If a government could pass legislation that ws holistic and coordinated that really maximised the efficiency of our economy without destroying the environment then there is no reason why it should be advantageous to any group mor than another. If properly managed it will be to everyone's advantage ; not to one group at the expense of another. I would even argue that if a significant minority is disadvantaged then the whole is disadvantaged either financially or socially. And I don't think we have made steady progress in this regard at all. I think that though dollar values may be far greater today than they were while I was growing up that we had a fairer more optimistic and affluent society , and a more cohesive one than we have now by a considerable margin. .


Brendan McNeill said...


What has been lost in New Zealand over the last 50 years, and more rapidly over the last few decades, is a shared understanding of the ‘common good’. Sure, both major parties of the time had a different approach to achieving the desired outcomes, but there was general consensus around what the ‘common good’ looked like.

That’s not the case today. We have become atomised at one level and tribalised at another. Atomised in that we have been told over and over again that individual autonomy and unrestrained personal choice are the highest of human aspirations. The only limitation being ‘doing no harm’ to others. Doing no harm is a very anaemic admonition compared to the virtue of ‘doing good’ to others that it has replaced, and is incapable of managing the heavy lifting needed to build a cohesive society.

The tribalism probably needs no further explanation, but 50 years ago we were a much more family and community based culture where there was localism but not tribalism. That cultural cohesion has vanished and In its place we have identity politics, where the victimhood hierarchy operates daily to confer privilege and to cancel the ‘oppressor’.

Consequently politics has become a ‘high stakes game’ where winner takes all, where mercy is neither sought nor given. In other words it’s a brutal contest. At this stage the only ‘deaths’ are policy based and we can hope it stays that way for a long time to come, but I note in Mexico in the lead up to their forthcoming election they have had 30 candidates murdered, 77 others threatened and 11 kidnapped.


Of course we are not Mexicans, at least not yet.

The Barron said...

... and the clocks were striking thirteen.

Luxon had a brief crocodile tear interview response in which he compared his his hassle of making decisions that destroy the life and well-being of people and their families, with the actual experience he has confined those citizens to.

"It's not easy when you've have people losing their jobs in the public service, it's not easy, right. I know its tough for those individuals, but its not easy for a government to actually drive through that programme as well. Its not easy to actually put sanctions on beneficiaries not holding their obligations on Jobseeker benefit. Its not easy to evict unruly tenants out of KO. So, I get all that, right." - Luxon

The thing is that T.I.N.A. has been discredited and debunked. The neo-liberal (neo as in its been tried and failed in the past, leading to depression in the 1890s and 1930s) agenda has been rejected as a successful economic programme, austerity as a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, and trickle down as a right-wing fantasy.

Luxon has been captured by the same international theorists that sidled up to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. Because Luxon refuses to acknowledge history, the people of NZ are expected to repeat it. Hopefully, having seen the 1980s and 90s, this time we fight back.

Little Keith said...

"We will govern for all New Zealanders", said queen of the empty cliche, J Ardern. I wondered what that meant on election night, 2020.

By 2023 the answer was crystal clear. It meant Tuku Morgan strutting around, flexing his new found unelected muscles controlling the northern 3 Waters empire. What that idiot knew about anything other than top shelf underwear, paid for by the taxpayer, has never been discovered.

It meant the slow end of one person one vote to overcome Willie's tyranny of democracy problem. A once possible future Labour leader, Kieran McAnulty, soil himself in that stench.

It meant te reo everything, regardless of how important the message being communicated was.

It meant the Te Tiriti, no matter how ridiculous, had to be comprehensively linked to everything.

It meant 30 km/hr city and town speed limits because the woke hate cars and even more, hate freedom of movement.

It meant rising crime and lack of safety in the streets or malls was acceptable and hand wringing encouraged.

It meant a genuine difference of opinion saw a person, no matter how vital to the country, sacked and cancelled as second class citizens and turned away. So much for "kindness".

It saw any opposition to their health campaign buried and cancelled with those against, ridiculed.

It meant the accelerating decline in our health system, replaced by racial segregation.

Education downgraded to a do it if it feels good pastime.

And it meant spending our countries tomorrows with a uncalculated recklessness not seen before and yet not achieving anything positive.

The clock broke over the past 3 years. It didn't go forward, it went insanely haywire. If rebooting and resets are needed to recalibrate and start at something solid, then so be it.

It's as if Bradbury missed the last 3 years!

Chris Trotter said...

To: Sumsuch.

Be aware, Sumsuch, that your comments are automatically deleted.

I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time.

Jonzie said...

Bradbury proudly called himself hashtagJacindaForever. That tells you everything.

David George said...

Does even the concept of "all New Zealanders" as a political (and social?) ideal even exist anymore? You'd be hard pressed to find it within academia, education, media and political parties where group identity (tribal, racial, cultural, gender etc.) trump the individual and the nation hands down.

As Brendan puts it "What has been lost in New Zealand over the last 50 years, and more rapidly over the last few decades, is a shared understanding of the ‘common good’" Why? Are we, perhaps, in thrall to some highly toxic ideas, infected with idea pathogens that are, at best, half answers and explanations for the human condition?

Critical Theory (essentially a rebranding of Marx's efforts to provide the moral justification for envy, resentment and hate) is metastasising in God's own.

David George said...

Though we've largely abandoned our Christian faith we've generally held to it's core beliefs, one of which, laid down very early in the bible, is the insistence that we are individually, and inevitably, responsible for our lives; that indulging in envy, resentment and hate are evil, bad for us and for everyone.

You can't live forever on the fumes of faith; we are now seeing what happens when even the core beliefs are abandoned. We're becoming Cain and Able, the hostile brothers. Good luck with that.

For Cain, Abel is the ideal that judges him and, instead of pursuing him, he kills him because of his ignorance and aggression. He killed the opportunity to develop, therefore determining for himself a miserable life. And his sin is not great solely because of his act, but because the act was preceded with active thought. How much hate needs to be present in a being to kill his own brother and ideal?

From a lecture I attended in Auckland. Cain and Able, 12 minutes. https://youtu.be/6bHX5W55Fdw

Tom Hunter said...

... trickle down as a right-wing fantasy.

Actually it is a Left-Wing fantasy and fiercely clung to because it fits so well with Marxist descriptions of capitalist economies, with all that nonsense about labour wages being ground down to zero as capitalists fight over dwindling profits - to the extent that the Toiling Masses will have non choice but to rise up and overthrow the system. scientific certainty and all that.

In fact there has never even been an economic paper written by any economist that advocated "trickle down" economics. And the reason they haven't is that it's a nonsense in a capitalist economy.

The real theory of trickle down is actually advocated by the interventionists and socialists. They think that if we tax everyone and give money to the government, it will eventually come trickling down to the middle class and the poor.

Shane McDowall said...

Margaret Thatcher would probably have been a one term prime minister if it were not for the Falklands Conflict.

Maggie should have erected a huge bronze statue in central London to thank General Leopoldo Galtieri for being so stupid as to think Britain would not - or could not - fight to retake the Falklands.

On a wave of patriotism Thatcher scored a resounding electoral victory when she should have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Shane McDowall said...

The trickle down of "trickle down" economics is the rich pissing on everyone else.

In 1984 the New Zealand economy was screwed, largely due to overseas forces as opposed to the incompetent micromanaging of Robert Muldoon.

Muldoon was not responsible for the oil shocks or the gradual loss of our UK market. And, unlike Australia, we could not just keep digging holes to keep our heads above water.

Anyone thinks Labour's superannuation scheme would have survived the years of Douglas and Richardson thereby providing us with a war chest is a dreamer.

Unfortunately, Roger Douglas and his cronies and successors chose the horseshit espoused by Milton Friedman.

The Barron said...

20 May the report on tainted blood will come out in Britain. This should rip open the absolute evil of Thatcher and her government. This is the Post Office scandal on steroids.
Thousands of people dead or disabled and an estimated compensation of £22 Billion, which Sunak will almost definitely leave for the next government.
The inhumanity of the Thatcher regime is very evident in the Luxon government.

The Barron said...

David, I think your Peterson derived view of Christianity takes almost the complete opposite meaning that the writers of the Bible wanted to transfer to their small post-exilic Judean audience [and probably not popularized until the Hasmonean era]. Best to let biblical scholar Dan McClennan take over regarding Peterson -

Data over Dogma - Episode 25 (September 24, 2023), "A Beatitude Adjustment for Jordan Peterson"

Responding to Jordan Peterson on Sin, Sports & Worship

Responding to Jordan Peterson’s Claims that the Bible Doesn’t Subordinate Women

Correcting @JordanBPeterson Regarding “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”

On the claim by @JordanBPeterson that “there is nothing Christian about social justice”

The first hyperlinked book? @JordanBPeterson

Cain and Abel is, of course, a parable to explain the triumph of agricultural herding over pastoralism.

Tommy, I welcome your confirmation that trickle down does not work, but the rest is at best curious. Well I am sure he is not a source you follow, but Robert Reich in the Guardian says it better than I can -


Tom Hunter said...

Capitalists Sincerely Want You To Be Rich. He uses as examples Berard Arnault (Louis Vuitton, etc) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon):

So, do the two capitalist bastards want everyone to be rich? Sure they do, in fact, they’re praying that it happens. Which does give something of a problem for that idea that the capitalists want to keep the poor poor. For you get to be a rich capitalist by selling things to people and the poor don’t have any money. So, you get richer as a capitalist if you’re a capitalist in a world full of richer people.

Capitalists sincerely want you to be rich. Because that means there’s more money they can bastard out of you, obviously. Which is a bit of a problem for that Marxist claim that the capitalists want others to be poor, isn’t it?

David George said...

Chris "A government which ruled in open defiance of all but its own voters would very swiftly unite the rest of the country against it."

Yes, but they still keep doing it and expecting a different result.

"One of the hallmarks of our woke, technocratic ruling class is that they increasingly define themselves against their own citizenry. Leaders today draw their moral authority not from the democratic endorsement of their electorates but from their ability to rise above the throng, to oppose our supposedly backward values. Skim-read the resignation speeches of Sturgeon, Yousaf and Varadkar and you’ll find them all peppered with rueful references to ‘populism’, ‘polarisation’ and the supposed ‘toxicity’ of contemporary discourse. Voters are forever the implied villains of the piece, for refusing to just shut up and let the adults get on with governing."

"The new authoritarianism is far from defeated. It is a feature, not a bug, of our technocratic ruling class. Worse than that, it is what gives our leaders meaning. The conviction that they are saving the world from a climate Armageddon, that they are the protectors of all those supposedly easily offended minorities, that they must censor and re-educate the masses for our own good, has provided moral purpose to an otherwise simpleminded and disorientated elite. It won’t be easy to dislodge this stuff. But as one political leader after another exits the stage, having shredded their authority with voters, we see that the common sense of the demos remains our greatest defence against the insanity of the elites – if only we can find better ways to channel it. If there is hope, it lies in the masses. Always."

David George said...

Tell me, Barron, did you actually watch those video clips; were you so impressed that you felt the need to put them up on Bowalley Road; to put your "name" to them?

The theory that Cain's murder of Able is merely, "of course", a consequence of the value of different methods of food production is woefully inadequate. Perhaps there's an intent there; an attempt to provide justification for envy, resentment, hate and, ultimately, murder? Hitler's Jews, or Stalin's Kulaks, or Pol Pot's intellectuals, are Cain and Able on a more industrial scale but with the same evil at their heart. It's a true story.

DS said...

Capitalists sincerely want you to be rich. Because that means there’s more money they can bastard out of you, obviously. Which is a bit of a problem for that Marxist claim that the capitalists want others to be poor, isn’t it?

Capitalists sincerely want consumers to be rich. They also want to pay their workers the absolute minimum, not train them, and work them into the ground.

This causes problems if the consumers are also the workers, but then twenty-first century capitalists are a good deal less smart than the capitalists of the Henry Ford era.

The Barron said...

It was because Yahwism was a blood sacrifice religion, and remained so in Judea until the destruction of the temple in 70AD, and remains so to this day with the Samaritans. This was no different than other Canaanite religions, or Phoenician .
Yes, I have watched all the Dan McClellan posted and more which is clear that all claims of biblical interpretation are used to project the interpreter's power position, having cherry picked doctrine. To enable this, there is a fear and avoidance of engaging with the meaning of the original writers . Shame, because it excludes respect of the literature and the people.

D'Esterre said...

"...the country their European ancestors had invaded, subjugated the native people..."

That's not so. There was no invasion or subjugation. There were waves of settlers, beginning with the whalers and sealers in the late 18th century. And the intermarriage which has marked relations between Maori and settlers began at that time. It continues to this day. I'm part of an old pakeha family. There are Maori in our family tree, though I'm not of Maori descent. I'm guessing that there won't be many old pakeha families which don't have Maori connections.

The subjugation to which you refer can be found in pre-Treaty times, when tribes violently invaded and subjugated one another. The most recent example is what happened in the Chatham Islands.

Anonymous said...

Having just heard releases from Treasury, deficit worsening OECD, and another on Kiwisaver, where it told of the NZ Economy was slowing and our debt is more than double before Labour took power.

It the clock has to be turned back then so be it. I am honestly struggling to think of anything good Labour did during it's tenure. There is only a legacy of damage, be it economic or race related.And no, locking us the shit down for months was anything but good!

Little Keith said...

It appears we are running low on natural gas. Shane Jones makes no secret of it, we have less and less to assist in generating electricity. An industrial fuel, clean burning and far less polluting than coal, it has been left to whither and die off by Labour and Greens decision to ban gas and oil exploration.

Why? It was a aulturistic moment. They were being forward thinking, saving the planet, creating a better future for our children. A legacy moment like Kennedy's Apollo missions, like FDR's public works, like Lincoln, like Attlee. Their tummies got that nourishing warm feeling of goodness, they so crave because doing good is so so addictive. What more proof did they need beyond their fertile naive imaginations.

But what would replace it, you know, to generate a modern basic like electricity? They had NO idea. Hadn't thought about that. Never think ahead. The fairies and unicorns will think of something.

This is modern Labour Green, the modern progressive. Never ever work out anything. Just do something to feed that woke addiction of the warm tummy feeling, that activists hit of a sound bite, a virtue signal. Bathe in the adulation of the moment but never think a nano second beyond that.

NZ's electricity supply is now under threat, one little toe into that world and we are as advanced as South Africa with a terrible reputation that accompanies it, a third world banana republic.

That is the predictable insane legacy of modern progressive politicians. The clock never went forward, it went backwards. This is why we need to rewind the tape 6 years. We lost 6 years. We are 6 years behind the modern non woke advanced world. This, be apparently, was govening for all. Great, isn't it!

Alias said...

"......That's not so. There was no invasion or subjugation."

From Oxford Dictionary

Origin: Latin
past tense: invaded; past participle: invaded
enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.

past tense: subjugated; past participle: subjugated
bring under domination or control

Words have meanings, meanings matter......

D'Esterre said...

Alias: "invade" and "subjugate" are your words, not mine. Nor were they used by Chris Trotter.

Knock yourself out, say I. Feel free to flagellate yourself - and lecture others, some of whose ancestors were the first settlers - but it won't make your claims true.