Ideology is not a dirty word: don’t you believe what you’ve seen or you’ve heard….

Posted on August 16, 2026 by Dan Rowden

It seems to me that over the last, maybe, decade or so, the term Ideologyhas taken on negative connotations, both culturally and politically. That’s unfortunate as ideology is, to my mind at least, an inherently important concept. I mean, what sort of vacuous, disengaged halfwit are you if you don’t function on the basis of some kind of ideology? And the truth is you do even if you don’t understand what it is. But the most important factor here is consciousness. Lots of people operate on the basis on an ideology with which they don’t have any real conscious relationship or even if they have a superficial relationship therewith they’re unable to explain or defend it. And that’s pretty problematic, if not sometimes outright scary. Hello One Nation people.

Of course, instincts are necessary. Instincts are important, but if they’re not governed by reason and an overarching coherent worldview they’re grossly dangerous, because human nature, in the absence of rationality, is a recipe for a disordered mind. Hello, again, One Nation people and sundry Australian MAGA nutjobs ….

It’s important to have a solid grounding in terms of one’s ethical and political perspective. It’s virtually impossible to make coherent and consistent judgements about everyday events without that grounding, even if it’s just a couple of firm ethical principles you can fall back on.

And yes, ideologies can be bad, but so can any number of things, like religious beliefs and pretty much any movement of mind you can think of.

Despite what some people have come to think, the concept of ideology, having been distorted over time, isn’t any kind of mental cage that you get locked into, because that would make it dogma or doctrine. Ideology arising from a rational basis is free and fluid and accommodates the infinite scope of individual thought. As is probably pretty obvious, I’m a Labor Party True Believer. I earnestly support the broad ideology of the Labor Party and of the Labour movement in general. But not without important caveats and near constant disagreement on certain issues. I’m no Labor shill. I’m not a member of the Party because I’m not a joiner. I value my intellectual and ethical independence far too much to ever be such a person. And yes, I apologise for the implication that carries. I don’t necessarily mean it that way. It’s about me, not you.

Having a cultural and political ideology with which you are consciously engaged, is, for me, one of the most important things you can possess as a human being. The contemporary political Zeitgeist is one of cynicism, bordering on nihilism. I mean, we view the Whitlam era in this country with suspicion, as opposed to the cultural esteem that it rightly deserves. How did we get to that place?

Politics, among other things, is about solving problems, improving things. Or, at least it is if you’re not a Tory cunt. But solving cultural problems can’t happen if you don’t have a coherent, solid, lucid, informed basis from which such solutions might arise. Ideology is not a dirty word. In fact, it’s one of the finest, bigly words. All we need to do is create the framework of that ideology on the basis of reason, education, decency, sympathy, empathy – and, you know, all the things that make us something other than shitty human beings

Thanks for visiting left in Limbo. I value your insight, input and company. Please feel free to leave a comment if you feel so inclined.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump is not the problem ….

Posted on August 15, 2026 by Dan Rowden

Donald Trump is clearly deranged. Deeply so. I’ve speculated at some length in previous articles as to the nature and causes of that derangement, but I’m of a mind to think that’s less important than the apparent lack of concern over his discombobulation; at least by persons of a conservative persuasion.

The decent into political and ideological madness by the GOP has been evident and slowly evolving since the emergence of the Tea Party movement in 2009. MAGA represents the ultimate expression of this populist, Xian Nationalist, Libertarian, cretinous movement. Many Americans wonder how it was possible for Trump to be elected, not once, but twice. But, in truth, it was inevitable (well, it may not have been if Democrats weren’t such political birdbrains.)

It’s difficult to conceive of, let alone write about the depth of depravity into which the GOP has plunged. Member after member, the late Lindsey Graham included, have done a political pivot a cat on a tile floor would be proud of and probably make YouTube Short history. The overt toadyism and loathsome bootlicking is unparalleled (in my experience).

Trump is the boil on the arse of American polity, but as is always the case, the superficial abscess carries a dark secret underneath. And no it’s not Staphylococcus aureus but something even more sinister. And if I could think of something Latin and satirical I’d have included it right here. Bite me ….

I get that Trump has, mysteriously, gained such control of the RNC that the organisation may as well not exist. At the same time I don’t fully understand why they tolerate it. Are there no classic, old-school Republicans left anymore? Or have they been so effectively silenced by this new Trump cartel such that they are unable or unwilling to speak or act? One has to ask about Russia at this point ….

As an aside, I wonder how many Americans know Trump was denied a Casino licence in Australia due to his Mafia connections. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/trumps-bid-for-sydney-casino-30-years-ago-rejected-due-to-mafia-connections

The conga-line of conservative cunts who got drunk on the shaken and stirred Martini of Trump opposition, who subsequently spent weeks at a Trump AA session and came away wanting to massage the mushroom, is seemingly endless. Yes, I know that’s a long sentence. It’s worth it.

I mean, we know politics is a broadly cynical exercise, and American politics e$$pecially so, but what American who thinks themselves a good citizen would be remotely comfortable with this situation? I can’t account for the support for Trump, dwindling as it is, other than by way of the somewhat clichéd idea of a Personality Cult. But how does the dynamic of any classic personality cult find its way into the halls of the Capitol? How intellectually cosmetic, how morally superficial, how lacking in principle are elected members of the current GOP? Seriously, Tricky Dicky should be so lucky ….

So, to members of the GOP: the zit at the end of your nose is not the problem; it’s your crappy diet. Donald Trump isn’t the problem with American politics, it’s YOU. Take an education multi. You’ll be fine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

[I’m preserving this article purely for nostalgic reasons, but some of its content remains relevant to contemporary political dynamics – you just have to change the names…]

Posted on August 13, 2026 by Dan Rowden

Reith’s Jocks are Shocking

October 14, 2013

With the Coalition currently embroiled in a complex and revealing expenses scandal, it’s heartening to note that elements of the Mainstream Media are pursuing the stories with some measure of vigour and rigour. It’s always nice to see journalists doing their jobs. It kind of makes you feel as though Santa may be real after all.

Much discussion of the various elements of this scandal has followed both in mainstream and independent media outlets. But I want to focus on a piece of commentary from ex-Howard Government Minister, and for some, Seed of Satan, Peter Reith. His views on MPs claiming expenses are too idiotic and self-serving to warrant serious attention, in my estimation. However, his remark regarding politicians attending the weddings of radio announcers caused me to do a bit of a double-take.

“You’d be a mug if you didn’t go to a shock jock’s wedding if you’re invited.”

Yes, you would, given the importance these denizens of the depths of dialectic depravity seem to have for conservative pollies. What struck me initially was Reith’s casual use of the pejorative term, “shock jock”. He appears to think the epithet is perfectly accurate. You have to wonder, though, why anyone would wish to develop a cosy relationship with someone whose job it is to shock (i.e. offend) people. You’d like to imagine persons of good character and sensibility would tend to remain aloof from such a rancid rabble. What’s that old saying about lying down with dogs? Do we even know what a flea looks like anymore? Also, is it possible that Reith was suggesting that cosying up to these people, becoming part of their social group, is how one avoids becoming a target? Could he have meant “mug” not only in the sense that you’re missing out on a great schmooze opportunity complete with like minded and affluent people, but with the far more sinister implication that you would in fact be harming your own agenda if you did not foster a cosiness with them? Was he suggesting their influence and power is greater than that of a humble pollie? And if so I think that deserves more attention.

Whilst there’s nothing especially rare about politicians exploiting the audiences of various identities in the media, the relationship conservative politicians have with the country’s shock jock fraternity is a curious one. It’s also a rather disconcerting one. Certainly there are some Labor politicians and an occasional braveheart from the “left” of politics that will offer their heads on a platter to these bards of barbed abuse, but generally speaking they provide a podium for the conservative odium. In the general run of things, shock jocks grant conservative politicians a supportive platform from which to peddle their views. Indeed, if I’m to be perfectly candid about it, I think it’s reasonable to say most shock jocks are unashamed and unapologetic mouthpieces for the conservative side of politics. Now, if such radio hacks were apt – or even modestly inclined – to be intelligent, reasonable, honest and balanced persons this wouldn’t be so bad. But of course they are nothing of the sort. They are persons of highly dubious moral and intellectual character who are clearly willing to toss in the garbage any notion of human decency, all in the name of profile and ratings (i.e. money).

I, for one, am made very uncomfortable by the idea that those that purport to represent me sidle up to such squalid sound-biters. I can only imagine how it must feel for those more moderate and sane conservatives who actually voted for the Coalition. Whatever their level of discomfort, it seems however to be insufficient for them to speak out about it or to consider changing their vote. But this relationship is really all about political expedience and it’s truly amazing what that little shoulder devil will cause someone to do. So, as disturbing and nightmare inducing as the relationship between politicians and shock jocks might be, the political expedience is at least easy enough to understand. But what of the relationship with the audiences that these vulgar vocalists have? What’s that all about? We know the shock jock brigade is popular; they tend to have significant audience pulling power.

Why? What’s going on?

There are a number of arguably reasonable explanations for it, but for me the primary one is really quite simple: power. Human beings crave power and control. It’s hard-wired into us. Where and when we can’t establish power and control for ourselves, in the course of our daily lives, we will look to experience it vicariously. We will look for an external source via which to sublimate this particularly strong and primal desire. This is the seminal psychological reward for people who listen to shock jocks – the vicarious experience of power and control.

Shock Jocks get to say most anything they want with relative impunity. They get to treat people and ideas, if not facts, with complete disregard. They get to control the narrative. They get to talk over people, to tell people to shut up, to cut them off then abuse them afterwards – with no risk of consequence and no burden of responsibility. They behave in a manner that the darker and less emotionally secure parts of many of us would like to behave, even if only in some sort of fantasy realm where consequence and responsibility don’t exist. This is all about power and the audience gets to experience that power through the vehicle of the shock jock.

There are also those who get an emotional lift from having their own views and attitudes reinforced and reflected back to them, especially when it’s by someone in an apparent position of power. “If Alan Jones is saying what I think then I must be right!” And then for others it’s just a simple guilty pleasure, like dark chocolate or jam donuts or Baskin Robbins’ pralines and cream… um …

On the flip side of that are people who are a tad addicted to the egotistical high and feelings of superiority that moral indignation grants them. We just love to feel indignant. It’s a very powerful force in the human psyche and we’re all a little prone to it. This is why you have the seeming incongruity of persons from the “left” of politics who also listen to such depravity. Now, some might think “depravity” is a little too strong a word, but I personally find the behaviour and verbal dross of the average shock jock to be literally depraved.

Now, it’s easy to suggest that all of this reflects badly on certain segments of the population, but there are complex psychological forces at play and that has to be taken into consideration in any judgements we might make about these dynamics. The truly disturbing, if not outright frightening aspect of all of this is that these psychological forces are operating at a mostly unconscious level. As in so many facets of life people are not truly consciously aware of the motives and psychological pressures driving their behaviour and mentality. This is what makes so much of the human experience problematic – Father forgive us for we quite literally know not what the hell we do.

This lack of consciousness effectively blinds people, not just to the motives they have for engaging shock jock drivel, but more importantly to the ways in which they are influenced by it. It would be somewhat hyperbolic of me to characterise it as a subtle form of hypnosis, but it’s not that far removed from it. We know that most forms of advertising, for example, rely on the fact that we’re not operating in a fully conscious capacity and are highly suggestible. And it works for that reason. Combine this aspect of human psychology with the aforementioned mental dynamics of the vicarious experience of power and you have a very potent mix. One that Peter Reith believes parliamentarians should exploit and would be mugs for not doing so.

On reflecting on the psychology of the relationship many have with the shock jock clan, I was struck by another interesting “fact” regarding the whole thing. I think it’s fair and accurate to say that shock jocks are almost exclusively inhabitants of the “right wing” of politics (yes, I realise that political designation is an increasingly imprecise and problematic one, but I think we know what is generally intended by it). I’m not aware of anything remotely akin to an Alan Jones or Ray Hadley of the “left”. I’m more than happy to stand corrected on this point, but I think generally speaking there is no equivalent on the left side of the political divide. I puzzled over this, thinking that it would be quite interesting to have a “take-no-prisoners” voice from the left on commercial radio. I don’t believe, however, that it would be possible. I think most Australians have a different set of expectations of the left-wing commentariat and tend to hold them to, and judge them by, a different set of standards. I strongly doubt that a left-wing version of an Alan Jones, Ray Hadley or Howard Sattler would gain any sort of acceptance in Australian society. We just seem to demand a different tenor from our leftists. Rightly or wrongly we associate them with a degree of intellectual weight and integrity that is simply not mirrored in our perceptions of those on the “right”. We have significantly lower expectations of those powerful purveyors of putrescence that creep about the darker regions of the conservative side of politics. And yet Peter Reith, along with many current Coalition parliamentarians, is happy to foster a close association with such people. Apparently they’d otherwise be mugs.


							

	
			

													
						Posted in Uncategorized					
					|
				
				
				Leave a comment

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
One Nation and MAGA.


			

				Posted on August 9, 2026 by Dan Rowden			


					

				

For this article the question at hand is whether One Nation can re-create the political and moral abnormality of the MAGA cult here in Australia. I don’t think they can, not in any true sense, but to whatever degree they can duplicate that horrendous reality presents to us a serious problem for our polity.





America and Australia have quite different political and social realities. We have very different cultural backgrounds, though, as with any ‘western’ nation, there is a degree of coincidence. America is a natural breeding ground for personality cultism, be that in a political context or any other. I’m sure you could name at least 3 celebrities who’ve risen to quite high political status in America (you have 10 seconds to name them or you fail today’s quiz). Their relationship to celebrity is different from ours. While we may love and (perhaps somewhat grudgingly) respect our celebrities, America literally venerates theirs. The reasons for that difference are complex and probably beyond the scope of this article. But, briefly: Americans are deeply fucked-up. Just about every negative aspect of human psychology you could care to mention is rife in American society – paranoia, envy, a pathological need for vicarious experience (e.g. power and influence), kvetching, unconscious and conscious bigotry, jingoism, smugness, cultural elitism (without basis), a love of opinion over knowledge, mindless, and at times fanatical, religiosity. The list is very, very long.





Now, Australia expresses some of those traits, but in my view to a far lesser degree. It’s also largely absent some of them (I’ll leave it up to you to decide which). All of those traits leave America and its population extremely vulnerable to cultism of various kinds. The kind of dynamics we see around Donald Trump and the MAGA movement seem inconceivable in the Australian context. We may variously hold specific politicians in some measure of regard but we also retain a healthy level of scepticism, and that, I think, holds us in good stead politically. Has One Nation and Pauline Hanson changed that aspect of our country? And if so, to what degree?





The polls would suggest a shift has occurred. But does that polling indicate a genuine change in voting intention or just a cathartic expression of broad discontent and restlessness? I’m inclined to the latter.





In a political context, “populism” is defined as: an approach that splits society into two groups: the ordinary, virtuous “people” and a self-serving, corrupt “elite”. It claims to champion the common person against established institutions and can appear across both left-wing and right-wing political spectra.





Now, there’s a certain obvious and automatic attraction to such a notion, because it’s simply true that such a cultural dichotomy exists, at least in some sense and to some degree. But it’s interesting that almost invariably when people on the conservative side of politics TRUMPet this notion they tend to come from the legion of the elite. And Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson are no exceptions. I mean, “drain the swamp” my lilly white arse. I will give Hanson her due in so much as it’s arguably the case she did some real work to earn her station, even if she no longer has any desire (or need) to work to maintain it.





Populist politics usually doesn’t happen organically. In the case of someone like Bernie Sanders it might be quite genuine, but mostly it’s an exercise in the cynical manipulation of those who may be struggling or have a particular axe to grind. It’s easy, if morally and intellectually lazy, to tap into people’s feelings of discontent, deprivation or injustice. To wish to authentically address and alleviate those feelings/realities is an entirely admirable thing, but to exploit them for crass political purposes is just plain villainous.





The powers that be surrounding One Nation have increasingly tapped into the MAGA movement’s strategy of being light on policy detail/substance and big on emotion, political cliché, sentiment, gas-lighting and a general dynamic of appealing to people’s worst and least rational instincts. Sadly, we’re far too prone to this psychological space. A commitment to reason and rational analysis takes effort and comes with an associated degree of responsibility and moral burden. In practise, we have to justify our ideas, but not how we simply feel, right? It’s how I feel – I don’t have to account for that!





Unless there’s been a deep shift in the Australian psyche that I haven’t noticed, I don’t see us losing our collective minds as much as America has. I think our innate, appropriate and useful cynicism will continue to grant us a buffer against the sort of mindless populism and pap that One Nation is offering. I also think our otherwise good natures will also grant us such a buffer against the dark-hardheartedness that One Nation is also promulgating.





I hope I’m not being excessively optimistic. I also hope I’m not giving any impression that the current government ought not be subject to scrutiny and critique, because it most definitively should.





Take care and thanks for reading.






							

	
			

													
						Posted in Uncategorized					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , 				
				|
				
				Leave a comment

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Trump, ADHD and Adderall: a theory


			

				Posted on July 31, 2026 by Dan Rowden			


					

				

The following thoughts have been swanning around my head – like a magpie on steroids – for a while now, so I’ve decided to put them into print, if for no other reason than to free myself of that painful mental burden. But then, is there no way to truly free oneself from the mental millstone that is Donald Trump? I fear not. I strongly suspect there will be a recognised future psychological malady known as PDTS ….





Caveat: the following consists of my personal speculations regarding Donald Trump’s historical and contemporary mental and physical state. I have no medical degrees, in either Fahrenheit or Celsius. I only have eyes (obviously for you) that can see, and a mind that can and will speculate, which I have done significantly here. Feel free to take my musings with a mountain of Maldon. 





Military College 





There are only 2 reasons that I know of to send your teenager to such a College: 1) Familial history of Military service, 2) Cunthood – otherwise technically known as uncontrollably bad behaviour. We know, without contention, which of those options applied to Trump. This is where I will happily assert Trump suffered from undiagnosed (at least back then) ADHD, which in his time was poorly understood and badly diagnosed. We can reasonably and reliably trace a history of “difficult” behaviour and mentality back to his teen years beyond that which you’d expect from a teenager receiving a stipend the equivalent of 2024 – $275000 annually. You’re welcome to misread that as “anally”. AI would never offer that option. Just sayin ….





Trump then just got jobs with his father’s business, got seriously involved with the local mafia and slowly became the lowlife cunt we know him to be. I mean, like his brother, it seems he actually had dreams of doing things other than being caught in the family business (e.g. film school), but unlike his brother, lacked the courage to do so.





ADHD





I’m by no means the first person to suggest Trump suffers from ADHD (and has done since at least his teens). Medical professionals such as Dr John Kruse have argued such, but I came to this view independently and my view contains elements that no medical professional would contemplate articulating publicly.  But the smartarse in me, combined with my deep aversion for this man (which may make me biased) compels me to be more cavalier.  It’s either my aversion or the Power of Christ.  I can’t always tell …





Of course, in the days of Trump’s youth, ADHD wasn’t called that and the understanding of this condition was still developing.  I’m sure, initially, Trump’s difficult behaviour was superficially characterised in those terms – i.e. “difficult”.  In the late 50s and early 60s discipline was the go-to remedy, and no doubt especially so in a household like Trump’s.  





I’ve no idea if Trump was subject to any medical or pharmaceutical intervention during those early days.   It’s entirely possible he was not.  I suspect his parents thought Military College would beat his disorderly arse into submission.  That’s objectively unfortunate given it’s really not possible to control a condition such as ADHD through such behavioural control, and it’s simply cruel to try.  





Adderall





Let’s skip forward a bit since the period previously mentioned contains a lot of unknowns and incompleteness (actually, that’s true of this entire article but shhhhhh ….) 





Adderall was introduced to the public in 1994.  Adderall is an amphetamine/stimulant prescribed for ADHD and Narcolepsy.  It’s also a drug used recreationally as a euphoriant (we’ll circle back to that aspect).  I suspect Trump had been prescribed this drug and has been routinely overusing/abusing it ever since. While there’s no public evidence that Trump was ever prescribed or took this drug it nevertheless makes sense in certain ways.  When taken as prescribed, Adderall is a safe, long-term drug, but there’s no way Donald Trump is the type of person to adhere to what is prescribed, and less so to that which is proscribed.  I’ve little doubt in my bias-addled mind that Trump has long been abusing this drug.  





While there’s no evidence on the public record that Trump has ever used this drug, there are nevertheless public claims to that effect.  Most notably (and arguably exclusively) former staff members such as Noel Casler and Tom Arnold claimed that he used or abused Adderall while filming The Apprentice.  There is no public record of Trump ever denying or refuting their claims and no record of him ever having threatened them with legal action.  Now, in fairness, there are a couple of explanations as to why that may be the case: one is that responding to such claims just increases the level of public attention.  It makes sense to just ignore it.  The other reason is the fact of the legal process of Discovery





We know that Trump is acutely aware of the problem of Discovery, which is why he’s never threatened a single person with legal action that has accused him of being a paedophile (that probably warrants a separate article because it’s a much abused/misused term).  





For me the idea that Trump has historically been prescribed Adderall and has likely abused it, and potentially become addicted, simply gels with what we know of him and what we’ve seen over the last decade.   As I said earlier, Adderall is a euphoriant. We’ve all seen the clips of him at the party with Epstein.  Trump doesn’t drink, so he’s just high on the chance of scoring a few young girls?  That’s not what I see.  Two of the side-effects of this drug are Diarrhea and Insomnia.  Sound familiar?  Is it possible that long term misuse of Adderall can lead to chronic incontinence (which I consider to be an observable reality regrading Trump)?   We know he can’t sleep at night.  Is that because he’s hyped up all the time for some reason or a side-effect?  We know he pathologically craves attention so maybe his social media activity can be explained in those simple terms.  As with everything about Trump, multiple explanations might work and Occam has his Razor stuck on a fucking Escher staircase.  





The sloppiest and least convincing part of my theory (fuck-off with the laughter already!) is the contemporary situation.  It’s my hypothesis that Trump’s recent health and cognitive issues have been caused by his doctors taking him off Adderall and possibly treating him for addiction, hence the MRIs and cognitive tests and obvious intravenous treatments (hand injuries).  His being taken off that drug and put on a non-stimulant for his adult ADHD might also account or his new habit of entering Noddy-Land at every turn.  He can stay awake when he’s speaking because that provides him with endless ego-dopamine, but when anyone else is speaking, it’s Irene Goodnight.  I would argue that feature of his behaviour has become observably worse over the last few months. 





Dementia





Trump’s fairly obvious (I think undeniable) lapse into dementia over the last few years represents a potential spanner in the works for aspects of my theory, though things can be concurrent.  His increased lack of focus and meandering mindfulness may not be a change in his treatment of his ADHD but simply part of the [increasingly rapid] development of his dementia.  This is where I have to fall back on my disclaimer of not being a medical professional or having such credentials of any kind.  I’m just a philosopher with a keen interest in psychology (who at no point in this article entered the realm of a philosophical analysis of Trump’s psychology – bite me).  One of the more obvious signs of his slide into the dark world of dementia is his stark loss of social and language filters.  I appreciate that can be a facet of simple ageing, but this is extreme.  For me Trump represents the embodiment of the Perfect Storm of everything negative about human psychology.  





A lot of people characterise Trump as “embarrassing”. I get that, but it’s not how I see him, even though much of what he says and does may fit that characterisation. I see him more as a pathetic figure whose waggish darkness manifests as projected self-hatred and compelling compensation. I honestly think much of Trump’s motivation stems from a place of hatred for the burdens he’s had to endure (however superficial and self-perceived they may seem to the rest of us) and his desperate need to take out his rewenge on anyone who can’t resist.






							

	
			

													
						Posted in Uncategorized					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , 				
				|
				
				Leave a comment

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
I think we should talk about AI in the context of literature and where it’s leading/leaving us ….


			

				Posted on July 30, 2026 by Dan Rowden			


					

				

This is a short ChatGPT article I generated about Mitch McConnell’s absence from the US Parliament, written with an “Australian” tone. It’s purely illustrative of what this new (and potentially scary) technology is capable. Fuck-me-rone (i.e. do we have to write anything anymore?):





Where the Bloody Hell Is Mitch?





If you’ve been paying even half an eye to American politics lately—and let’s be honest, that’s about all the attention that circus deserves—you might’ve noticed something a bit crook. Senator Mitch McConnell has been conspicuously absent. Not “ducked out for a long lunch” absent. More like “someone’s nicked the bloke entirely” absent.





Now, Washington isn’t exactly overflowing with transparency at the best of times. It’s a town where politicians can vanish into committee rooms for weeks and emerge somehow wealthier, grumpier, and still refusing to answer a straight question. But McConnell’s disappearance has been unusually quiet, and that’s saying something for a man who’s spent decades looking like he’d rather be anywhere else.





Instead of straightforward explanations, we’ve had the usual polished press releases, vague assurances and carefully rehearsed talking points. “He’s recovering.” “He’s resting.” “He’s consulting with doctors.” Fair enough. People get sick. They’re entitled to privacy. But when you’re one of the most powerful politicians in America, prolonged silence naturally gets people asking questions.





That’s where things get weird.





The bloke’s been in politics since dinosaurs roamed Kentucky. He’s survived leadership challenges, impeachment dramas, Trump, and enough political backflips to qualify for the Olympics. Suddenly, he’s nowhere to be seen, and everyone pretends that’s completely normal. Pull the other one—it plays Waltzing Matilda.





Naturally, the internet has done what the internet always does. Every second peanut with a keyboard has cooked up a theory. Secret retirement. Internal party brawls. Health crises. Body doubles. Frozen in a government basement beside Jimmy Hoffa and the Ark of the Covenant. None of it backed by evidence, of course, but when official communication is thinner than supermarket toilet paper during COVID, people fill the gaps with nonsense.





The funniest part isn’t even the speculation. It’s watching American political commentators tiptoe around the subject like they’re trying not to wake an angry magpie. They’ll spend three hours yelling about culture wars but suddenly become monks sworn to silence when one of the Senate’s biggest figures disappears from public view.





Look, nobody’s entitled to a politician’s complete medical file. That’s not the point. But elected officials hold positions of immense responsibility. If someone can’t perform their duties for an extended period, voters deserve a clear and honest explanation. That’s not invasive—it’s basic accountability.





Instead, we’re left squinting through the political fog while spokespeople chuck out carefully sanitised statements that tell us bugger all. It creates the exact environment where rumours thrive, trust evaporates, and every conspiracy cooker gets another day in the sun.





Maybe there’s a perfectly ordinary explanation. Hopefully there is. But pretending prolonged public absence from one of the world’s most important legislative bodies isn’t noteworthy is a bit rich.





Until Americans get something more substantial than “nothing to see here, mate,” the questions won’t stop. And frankly, they shouldn’t. Democracy works best when governments communicate openly—not when they expect everyone to shrug, crack a beer, and ignore the empty chair.





Because whether you love Mitch McConnell or reckon he’s been about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, one thing’s certain: when one of the most powerful senators in America quietly disappears from view, it’s bloody odd.






							

	
			

													
						Posted in Uncategorized					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , 				
				|
				
				Leave a comment

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
The Surge in One Nation Support


			

				Posted on July 11, 2026 by Dan Rowden			


					

				

This was intended to be an audio/video Vlog, but it seems I’m still in the process of having to re-learn how to edit video, so this will have to do for now ….





This undeniable and poll-supported dynamic in Australian politics needs some analysis, to the degree that it’s even objectively or reasonably possible, because such political analysis is notoriously difficult for any country, including ours.





Some pundits have suggested the recent wave of support for One Nation is a reflection of global political trends. The Right is certainly looming large in a number of contexts, but for me this explanation seems a touch clichéd and simplistic. Global politics is seldom a homogeneity. It’s complex. The political pendulum constantly swings, and it swings differently for different countries in different historical moments. In the USA, for example, I think we can fairly say there’s a movement to the Left in progress, and hopefully that will be reflected at the November Mid-Term elections. But is there an identifiable swing of that proverbial political pendulum to the Right happening here in Australia? I’m not sure. If it is, I think it’s marginal.





For me the simplest, almost Occam’s Razor-type explanation for One Nation’s rise in recent polling is the collapse of the Coalition. Those poor, pathetic bastards are really in the proverbial, if not literal, shitter. Labor’s astounding victory at the last election – which we’ve not seen since John Howard laid-waste to a rather hapless Paul Keating – did the Coalition untold damage. Of course I was preeminently pleased by that result because I thoroughly – and openly – dislike conservative ideology, but that result has left something of a hole for the nation’s conservative voters. Sadly, One Nation seems to be, at least to some extent, filling that void.





I honestly can’t hide how utterly horrifying that dynamic is to me. I mean, yeah, the Coalition is in a bad way, but One Nation as an alternative? What the actual fuck are you people thinking? Over the last couple of decades conservative politics and ideology has slid to the Right, but this is simply delirious. I mean, One Nation isn’t even a “conservative” party. It represents the worst reactionary, right-wing populism this country has seen in many decades. John Howard was bad enough in this regard but Pauline Hanson is off-the-charts. She’s literally created one of the ugliest, most detestable cultural movements in this country and while I have to grant her the success of that, I’d much rather she hadn’t, or that so many have bought into the agitprop of at all.





Can you remember a political party that has had to dump so many endorsed candidates because their criminal or ethically dodgy pasts were revealed? No, me neither. Can you remember a political party that’s had so many of their candidates bail on them after using that party to get elected? No, me neither. As an organisation they are almost incapable of inspiring loyalty. One Nation is a fucking joke, in every possible sense. I mean, just look at these policy-hollow cheap-arse grifters: https://shop.onenation.org.au/





I can appreciate that conservative voters need a place to hang their hat and feel politically and culturally relevant, and to feel as though someone on their side of politics has their back, but seriously, this is their only or best option? That’s just downright depressing.





One Nation and their adoption of the MAGA mentality





It’s undeniable that Hanson and One Nation have hung their hat on the populist American MAGA movement (personality cult). How any self-respecting, even superficially intellectually conscious conservative Australian voter could have any truck with that deranged ardour is beyond me. It’s shameful. Now Hanson is sidling up to the likes of Tommy Robinson. Give me a goddamned break. They are now fuelling anti-immigration prejudice in this country of the most ignorant and bigoted kind. I swear we’re only moments away from migrants eating our cats and dogs. If you have a lucid, fact-based argument against our current levels of immigration I’m happy to hear it. If you’re going to spew One Nation talking points and propaganda and pretend you’re a decent human being, you can piss the hell off.





Now, in conclusion, I’m no psephologist and would never claim to have any expertise in that field, so you can take what follows with a Maldon-size grain of salt, but I can’t see One Nation doing especially well at the next federal election, despite the current polling. They might grab another couple of places in the Senate and maybe steal a couple of lower-house seats from the LNP in Queensland, but I don’t see the scope for them to achieve much more than that. So, I would say to Australia’s conservative voters: I know you’re disappointed with the current Coalition’s status and parliamentary performance, which is objectively pretty dismal, but please stick with them, because strong Oppositions are always important for our democracy, and One Nation has exactly zero capacity to perform that role.





Edit: like the stupid person I am, I failed to include an element of this dynamic I think to be important – the media. Our parlous 4th estate has fallen over itself to give Hanson and One Nation publicity and even political credibility – but based on what? A few polls? Hanson as a potential Prime Minister? The fuck? There’s no statistical basis on which such a proposition is other that utterly fatuous.





There has been essentially no analysis of policy, no analysis of the political dynamic in and of itself.  Chasing a headline and promoting controversy is all our battalion of bellicose political-journalist boofheads seem to have in their pseudo-intellectual armoury.  It’s pathetic and embarrassing. More than that, it’s culturally alarming.  Thank Dog for Social Media, where at least some semblance of integrity and genuine concern exists, even if also a fair-share of nonsense and propaganda.  I think by now most of us have learned how to discern the difference.  





What is interesting, however, about the media’s almost total lack of critical analysis of One Nation and its unabashed promotion, is that it seems to be counterproductive.  The polls are already turning.  That political pendulum is already swinging, and I think it’s because the more Hanson and One Nation are granted a place in the consciousness of the voting public, the more that presence makes us uncomfortable.  The more it makes us question our judgements and values.  And so it ought.  I mean, in the fair-dinkum stakes, which I would hope to still be an abiding element of our collective Australian psychology – how can this mob be taken seriously?  There’s simply no identifiable basis for such enthusiasm.  





Thanks for giving me your time.  






							

	
			

													
						Posted in Uncategorized					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , 				
				|
				
				1 Comment

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Donald Trump: Confabulation and Malignant Narcissism


			

				Posted on June 12, 2026 by Dan Rowden			


					

				

The following was written by AI. I’m posting it in that form because, sadly for me, it’s better than anything I could have hoped to have written, but it expresses my personal view regarding Trump’s admix of Confabulation Disorder and Malignant Narcissism. It lacks the personality and passion I might have brought to the article but I most certainly could not have written this: 

 Donald Trump: Confabulation and Malignant Narcissism

Few political figures in modern history have generated as much controversy and psychological speculation as Donald Trump. His communication style, public conduct, and repeated clashes with established facts have prompted commentators, journalists, and mental health professionals to search for explanations that go beyond conventional political analysis. Among the various interpretations proposed, one of the most compelling is that Trump’s behaviour reflects characteristics associated with confabulation and malignant narcissism. While no definitive diagnosis can be made without a formal clinical evaluation, the observable evidence provides a substantial basis for examining this argument. Taken together, the concepts of confabulation and malignant narcissism offer a framework for understanding Trump’s repeated factual distortions, his extraordinary sensitivity to criticism, and his persistent emphasis on self-aggrandisement.





Confabulation is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual produces inaccurate, distorted, or fabricated memories and narratives without necessarily intending to deceive others. Unlike deliberate lying, confabulation involves a degree of self-belief. The person may genuinely accept the false account as true because it fills gaps in memory, resolves cognitive dissonance, or preserves a coherent sense of self. Confabulation is most commonly associated with neurological disorders and certain psychiatric conditions, but the broader concept has also been used to describe situations in which people unconsciously reshape reality to fit their perceptions and emotional needs.

Critics argue that Trump’s public behaviour frequently displays elements consistent with confabulation. Throughout his business and political career, he has made numerous claims that have been contradicted by verifiable evidence. These have included assertions about the size of inauguration crowds, election outcomes, economic achievements, crime statistics, and personal accomplishments. What distinguishes these incidents from ordinary political exaggeration is the persistence with which the claims are repeated. Even after extensive fact-checking and public correction, Trump has often continued to restate versions of the same narratives.

Supporters frequently interpret this behaviour as strategic messaging or political rhetoric. However, critics contend that the pattern appears more consistent with an individual who has become invested in a personally constructed reality. The willingness to repeat demonstrably false statements in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence suggests the possibility that Trump may not simply be attempting to persuade others but may also be persuading himself. If this interpretation is correct, the behaviour resembles confabulation more closely than conventional deception. The distinction matters because a deliberate liar generally understands the truth while choosing to conceal it, whereas a confabulating individual may have difficulty distinguishing between objective reality and a psychologically satisfying narrative.

The second component of this analysis involves narcissism. Narcissistic traits exist on a spectrum and can include self-confidence, ambition, and a desire for recognition. However, when these traits become extreme, they may result in patterns of grandiosity, entitlement, and a constant need for admiration. Trump’s public persona has long been characterised by an emphasis on personal success, superiority, and exceptionalism. He routinely presents himself as uniquely talented, uniquely successful, and uniquely capable of solving problems that others cannot solve.

Numerous examples illustrate this tendency. Trump has frequently described himself in superlative terms, claimed unprecedented achievements, and portrayed criticism of his actions as evidence of bias or incompetence on the part of his opponents. Public disagreements are often framed not as differences of opinion but as personal attacks requiring forceful retaliation. Critics argue that this pattern reveals an unusually strong dependence on maintaining a positive and dominant self-image.





Some observers go further by suggesting that Trump’s behaviour aligns with the concept of malignant narcissism. Although malignant narcissism is not an official diagnosis recognised in major psychiatric diagnostic manuals, it is a concept discussed in psychological literature. It generally refers to a severe form of narcissism characterised by grandiosity, aggression, entitlement, lack of empathy, and an intense need for control and validation. The concept was notably explored by psychoanalyst Erich Fromm and later expanded upon by other theorists interested in destructive forms of narcissistic behaviour.
Those who apply the concept to Trump point to several recurring patterns. First is his tendency to view relationships through the lens of loyalty and personal advantage. Allies are often praised enthusiastically when supportive but criticised harshly when they dissent. Second is his frequent use of personal insults against critics, journalists, political opponents, and even former associates. Third is a communication style that consistently redirects attention toward his own accomplishments, grievances, and perceived mistreatment. These characteristics are often cited as evidence of a personality structure heavily centred on status, dominance, and self-validation.





The most persuasive aspect of this interpretation emerges when confabulation and malignant narcissism are considered together rather than separately. A person with strong narcissistic needs may have a powerful motivation to maintain an image of success, competence, and superiority. Information that threatens that image can create psychological discomfort. Confabulation may then function as a mechanism for resolving that discomfort by generating narratives that protect the individual’s self-concept.

In Trump’s case, critics argue that this dynamic helps explain many of his most controversial public statements. Electoral defeats can be reframed as victories stolen through fraud. Policy failures can be recast as successes obstructed by enemies. Criticism can be interpreted as persecution rather than legitimate disagreement. In each instance, a narrative emerges that preserves personal status and avoids the admission of error or weakness. The resulting worldview remains internally consistent because contradictory evidence is either dismissed or incorporated into the narrative itself.

This perspective also helps explain why factual corrections often appear ineffective. If a statement serves a psychological function beyond communicating information, evidence alone may not be sufficient to change it. The issue is no longer merely whether a claim is true or false but whether abandoning the claim would threaten an individual’s self-image. Under such circumstances, maintaining the narrative may become more important than acknowledging reality.

Of course, there are limitations to this argument. Diagnosing public figures from a distance is inherently problematic. Human behaviour is complex, and political communication often involves strategic exaggeration, branding, and performance. Many behaviours interpreted as signs of confabulation or narcissism could alternatively be understood as deliberate tactics designed to energise supporters, dominate media coverage, or shape public perceptions. Without direct clinical assessment, any psychological interpretation remains speculative.

Nevertheless, the argument retains explanatory value. It offers a coherent framework for understanding patterns that might otherwise appear inconsistent or irrational. Trump’s repeated factual distortions, resistance to correction, focus on personal validation, and aggressive responses to criticism can all be viewed through the combined lens of confabulation and malignant narcissism. Whether this framework is ultimately accepted or rejected, it highlights the role that psychological factors may play in shaping public leadership and political behaviour.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s public conduct provides substantial grounds for considering the possibility that traits associated with confabulation and malignant narcissism influence his behaviour. While definitive diagnosis is neither possible nor appropriate without clinical evaluation, the observable patterns of narrative construction, grandiosity, defensiveness, and self-focus make this interpretation worthy of examination. The combination of these concepts offers a compelling explanation for many of the characteristics that have defined Trump’s public life and contributed to his enduring political controversy.

							

	
			

													
						Posted in Uncategorized					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , , 				
				|
				
				13 Comments

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
2019 Federal Election Response


			

				Posted on May 25, 2019 by Dan Rowden			


					

				


Please note, this is essentially an ethical ‘analysis’ of the campaign and election, not a serious political one.  There is much to flesh-out on that score and with a great deal of luck I may have the time and energy to explore those matters.


Thanks for watching/listening.


 

							

	
			

													
						Posted in Politics, Uncategorized					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , 				
				|
				
				2 Comments

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Left in Limbo goes vlog


			

				Posted on February 28, 2018 by Dan Rowden			


					

				
Left in Limbo has broken out in vlogs.  We hope we can recover, over time.




 

							

	
			

													
						Posted in Politics, Uncategorized					
					|
				
				
				Leave a comment