Donald Trump has won the US presidential election (imagine)!

 An attempt to outline some scenarios, blow by blow, over the next four years under a Trump presidential regime. [Australia may be faced with some very  tough choices]

Thor May
Adelaide, 2016




This page is an initial starter list for discussing the "Trump Wins " topic. The page makes no special claim to quality, and additions are welcome. 




Basic contact links:  

meetup group:

topic suggestions:   

topics already discussed:

comments: Thor May -  

Thor's own websites:

1. articles at  ;

2. personal site: [an ancient site with many byeways]


=>Reading list: go to the end of these notes


Comments on the topic by Thor:

1. Introduction

This topic, 'imagine Trump Wins' is a kind of thought experiment (just what Active Thinkers should be good at). My guess is that Trump will not win the American presidential election, although there are always large elements of uncertainty in (more or less) democratic constituencies. However the social, political and economic forces which made his bid possible will not go away. They are not irrelevant to Australia. Some of them are in play here also. More importantly perhaps, Australia is increasingly the meat in the sandwich between major powers. It is becoming impossible to hide away at the bottom of the world and hope everything works out. Your daily bowl of rice comes courtesy of some difficult global neighbours, especially China. The bouncer at the door of your Australian club is American, and he might be less eager in the future to pick you up off the floor in a fight, especially in a Trump led America. Other neighbours are on edge for the same reason. Japan and South Korea are close to going nuclear ... Australians as a species would rather watch the football than game plan this kind of strategic stuff, and they are mostly poorly informed (Adelaide doesn't even have a credible newspaper of record). Perhaps it is time though to have a go at sorting our options ahead of getting shot at dawn. Draft out your idea of what you think those choices and options might be in a Trumpian world.

2. Starter questions (special reference to Australia)

a) Why and how does it matter to Australians who is president of the United States of America anyway?

Some historians argue futilely (as it seems to me) about whether what they call history is driven by vast impersonal forces beyond anyone’s control, or by dominant leaders, thinkers, inventors etc. Political leaders like to believe that they determine the fate of nations, or even the planet. There are times when they partly do, usually in a crude and brutally ignorant manner, because they happen to be the ones who are playing some of the cards which circumstances have dealt a country, while your local supermarket check-out girl doesn’t have much of a say. Since these political leaders frequently range from inept to mafia-inclined, the “genius” their publicists attribute to a country’s prosperity (or not) is generally overrated. Nevertheless, their influence can be real, and when it comes to the United States of America in the present era, the President has scope to ruin countless lives beyond the borders of the US, or occasionally to uplift them. With a cabal of capable assistants he can do that by overriding the American Congress (which is no palace of enlightenment either), or seducing it, or ignoring it – especially in matters of war and peace, but also in both domestic and international affairs generally.

Over the last century we have seen this process cripple successive South and Central American governments, lead to major wars in East Asia, and devastate the Middle East. The daily news cycle moves on, so present voters and politicians in the West scarcely recall (even if they ever knew any history) that millions of people have been wilfully killed or impoverished for no good reason, and the stage set for heavy blowback such as mass migration by deprived South Americans, and now global terrorism spilling out from the Middle East. In all cases, the depredation would not have been possible without deeply problematic cultural and developmental issues in these source countries, and frequently dubious local leaders, but the United States (with other actors like France, England, the Russian Federation, Japan, Germany, and now China etc) has been willing to exploit rather than assist all too often. Australian administrations have tagged along as ever willing helpers for the United States on the assumption that they are paying protection money in case of future catastrophe.

Should Australians care what America and its President does? Most Australians, like most people everywhere, don’t give a damn unless a missile falls out of the sky and destroys their house. Even then, few of them will have any idea where the missile came from, or why (they will be delivered an invented reason by their domestic government of the day). However Australia as a nation has always felt somewhat insecure in its neighbourhood of utterly different cultures, and conscious of having a fairly small population. The time honoured solution to this dilemma was to sing God Save the King/Queen and kid themselves that England would come to save them. This stratagem failed spectacularly in World War 2, so ever since Australian politicians have been at the beck-and-call of American politicians and their many wars, usually being the first to put their hands up for any coalition of the willing. In this context, if an American President truly does put Australia in a corner where its interests are seriously threatened, then the Canberra crew will have many sleepless nights, not knowing where to turn next.

b) Why and how might Donald Trump’s particular personality and interests impact on the well-being of Australians?

As of this writing (August 2016) the atmosphere in the United States, if we are to believe the news media, is borderline hysterical. Of course ordinary folk are much more involved with their Facebook profile, or getting to the shops when their Chevvy breaks down. Nevertheless, out on the sheeple farm, we get a sense that things aren’t quite what they ought to be. Real wages have been declining, full time permanent jobs are ever harder to find, the Banksters who asset stripped the nation and left tens of millions of working folk without their life savings have gotten off scot free. To fix all this, on some days Trump proposes large scale tax reform to give many low income earners a tax free break, and lowering company taxation to stimulate business (Schmid 2016), as well as protecting American industry from foreign competition. Actually it is hard to know what Trump proposes, since much of his sloganeering is incoherent in delivery, and apt to change by the hour. Even his cornerstone promise to deport millions of immigrants has flipped by recent reports (Blake 2016), but could easily flip any which way again.

This is the core of the problem of predicting anything which might happen in a Trump administration – that it is purely waffle. Large parts of any electorate are no more organized in their own brains, and will vote accordingly, but when push comes to shove in a brutally complex world, the Monday morning after the election, hard answers will be needed. The best we can do is to look at what Trump has done in his past life for a guide, and study the people he surrounds himself with. In both cases, the signs are ominous no matter whether you are a businessman trying to make investment decisions, or an ordinary working schmuck. This is a man who has changed from Republican to Democrat and back again seven times between 1999 and 2012, each time for some momentary advantage (Roberts & Gambino 2016). He has done fund raising for the Clinton political machine in the past, and which he is now claiming to save America from. He has left a long trail of double-crossed business partners in his wake. If you happen to be an Australian, wedged in a tricky global neighbourhood and depending upon American good-will, you would have to guess that Trump would neither know nor care about your interests, and probably cause major harm out of sheer parochial ignorance.

c) Trump has indicated, to widespread American voter approval, that he wishes the American administration to follow an isolationist foreign policy. How might such isolationalism express itself, given that the United States has over 800 foreign military bases, not to speak of its commercial interests and cultural exports?


i) Trade: There is a very strong feeling amongst the general public, not only in the United States but in almost every country engaged in trade, that their governments in collusion with big business are committing something pretty close to treason by betraying national interests through favouring foreigners, and especially by destroying local employment opportunities. It is not hard to find evidence of domestic companies and services losing out to international competition. It is not hard to find examples, some scandalous, of domestic employment opportunities being lost overseas, or local working conditions being undermined. These processes have been going on for decades, and the situation is not improving, especially since multinational companies have almost no national loyalties at all.  However, exporting jobs is only one part of the story. Vast numbers of jobs themselves are either changing beyond recognition, or disappearing altogether with automation (May 2014c; May 2016b).

In spite of the preceding observations, it is almost impossible to have a reasoned public debate about international trade. There are a host of reasons for this difficulty. The first and major reason is that for all but a few enthusiasts, the details of trade processes are boring, boring, boring, and so only understood if at all in terms of slogans. The second big reason (and this is not understood even by the general run of politicians) is that the worldwide webs of trade agreements are not what they appear to be.

Trade agreements are sold politically to populations as a sure-fire way to increase national prosperity by X-billions of dollars in return for “opening up to a bit of competition”.  The actual practice of trade agreements is that national governments continue to find infinite ways to exclude foreign competition which they consider inconvenient. The Chinese administration and companies are quite blatant about this, and excite great outrage (Oxley 2016). South Koreans and Japanese are a little more subtle. United States officials talk out of both sides of their mouths (a heavy dose of pot calling kettle black): a)  the litigation route is popular with Americans, no matter whether a “violation” is justified or not, and so can strangle trade behind a veneer of legal respectability (Perry 2016); b) the US has a long history of blatantly violating trade agreements (not to mention other treaties), and ignoring international rulings (e.g. see Watson 2014).

The pending TPP or Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership involving Pacific rim countries as diverse as Chile, US, Australia, Malaysia etc is a somewhat exotic Trojan horse, differing from your average garden variety of bilateral treaty. It entails some severe intrusions on the legal sovereignty of numerous nations in ways which are only likely to benefit multinational corporations. In national dollar terms, the biggest winner, curiously, is likely to be Vietnam (Martin 2016). So why is President Obama, and his likely successor hanging out for the TPP? The American objective in this case is only partly commercial. It is a strategic power play to hamper Chinese influence. That kind of layering of geopolitics is too subtle for Trump to present to his constituency.

Dissing the TPP is a useful political argument for Trump because it can engage agreement with players who would otherwise want nothing to do with Trump. For that matter, the TPP is not obviously healthy for Australia either. My own guess is that the TPP will (deservedly) fail in implementation, and also that Trump, if elected, would do one of his trademark flip-flops to support it, just as Hillary Clinton will. This is because Trump, like Clinton and Obama, is deeply enmeshed with and dependent upon an American corporate culture which gives no allegiance to the constituency Trump claims to be championing. In the end all of these political figures will push American corporate interests, even at the expense of essential international allies such as the European Union (Neate 2016).  

ii) “Soft Power” and import/export: To the extent which any popular political figure in one country takes an aggressive posture towards the rest of the world, they might undermine whatever influence that country can exercise on the sympathies and purchasing decisions of those excluded people. The extent of that impact and its duration depend a good deal upon local conditions.

During the twelve years I spent in South Korea and China, symbols of the both the United States and Japan periodically became voodoo dolls for various sectors of those populations to stick pins into. Sometimes these actions were instigated, covertly or overtly, by a domestic government to distract attention from their own political problems, and though noisy usually didn’t last long. The same individuals who might boycott an American fast food chain for a week would eagerly apply for American study scholarships and have a detailed knowledge of NBN basketball players (and negligible knowledge of real American social or political conditions).

On the other hand, I have taught significant numbers of Iraqi men who had immigrated to Australia. To a man they had a deep and abiding distaste for the United States, not in any loud fanatical way, but out of bitterness for having their country ruined, and losing eight years of their lives in a hopeless Irani-Iraq war where America cynically played one dictator off against another. That kind of well founded bitterness remains potent in North Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Any incoming American president will find it a heavy handicap in developing relations with these parts of the world.

The global status not only of America, but of “developed” nations in general is evolving rapidly and becoming less important. Because we humans are often more intuitive than coldly logical, such status influences everything from music to sport to the decision of an executive somewhere to buy American rather than, say, an otherwise innovative turnkey computing software system from India. The knowledge base and hardware needed to be a ‘developed’ rather than traditional society is diffusing globally with astonishing speed. Successive generations of technology spread to even the poorest countries, and places which were emphatically “third world” develop oases, then whole regions of industrialization. In general Western populations and their leaders are scarcely aware of these developments, yet as such industrial & commercial oases grow, then link up with dense networks of intercommunications and logistics, the 19th Century kind of gunboat diplomacy played by, say, an American or Russian president might remain grist for the news cycle, be sometimes brutally destructive, but ultimately be of only marginal relevance to huge civilizational changes reaching all the way into African or Indian or Central Asian or South American villages, towns and cities.

Trump, a spruiker from cosmopolitan New York, says to small town white Americans that the United States will retreat to its own wigwam, exclude the foreign importers of $2 nicknacks, not to mention cars and mobile phones, and, um, become rich again. Somewhere in there he has the grain of a decent argument – working class America is hurting, and there needs to be serious efforts to fix that. However, excluding the Chinese, or anyone else, will simply see America locked out of those markets as foreigners turn to substitutes and develop their own consumer economies and own education systems. Neither gunboat diplomacy nor shaky trade agreements will alter that in the end. As an internationalist, Hillary Clinton is more in favour, publicly, of these two latter vehicles of influence than Trump, but is not promising to lock out the world either.

d) Trump has indicated that American allies must do much more to finance their own military protection. What would be the consequences of this for Australia?

America with 4.6% of global population marshals more military firepower than the other nations of the world combined. It is a militarized nation state that has been at war 93% of the time since 1796. American military  electronics, surveillance and logistical capabilities are unmatched. It’s military-industrial complex employs a large percentage of the nation’s engineers and scientists, directly or indirectly. American military manpower has more actual fighting experience than any likely opponent (which is of critical importance in actual wars). Those are the upsides (if militarization is your thing).

On the downside, in the post World War II era, Americans have repeatedly won battles while losing wars. Think Korea (over 3 million dead including 2.5 million civilians, a nation divided to this day), Vietnam (1.3 to 3.9 million dead depending upon whom you ask, embedding ideological communists as the country’s rulers), Cambodia (1 to 3 million dead depending upon whom you ask, genocidal Khmer Rouge installed; not even a war declared in spite of carpet bombing with B52s), Afghanistan and Iraq (still counting the dead. Both countries radicalized. Emergence of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Syrian disintegration, and worldwide plague of terrorism).  There is a frequent American claim that at least they won the Cold War by out-spending the Soviet Union. That’s technically dubious (May 1986), and politically nonsense.  The Soviet Union destroyed itself from within. The lesson seems to be that in the long run you can’t win wars with guns, notwithstanding Mao Zedong’s dictum that power grows out of the barrel of a gun (Mao almost destroyed China, with some estimates of communist era non-natural deaths up to 80 million). 

On the electoral podium, Donald Trump declares that America on his watch is going to get out of the shooting business, or at least get foreigners to pay for the bullets. If only. He doesn’t have the guts and he doesn’t have the means, no matter whether his is called President or dictator. Of the constituency who might vote for him, a hefty percentage have jobs or hope for jobs courtesy of the military-industrial complex. From the highest to the lowest skills levels, wars and their infrastructure are a critical component in the American economy. That desperately needs to change (Istvan 2015) but Trump is not the man to do it. Whatever his motivations, Trump would simply not be allowed to get away with letting the military-industrial complex shrivel, and nothing in his past history suggests that he would seriously try. (It also seems evident that Hillary Clinton will not seriously try).

As for insisting that foreigners be required to pay protection money to keep the American armaments trade in business, well foreigners can do sums too. Japanese, Europeans, even Iranians are perfectly capable of researching and producing their own weapons. Once market share is lost, it will be very hard for the Americans to retrieve it. In other words, what the semi-gift of American armaments buy is American influence in other world capitals. Although you can’t win real wars with guns, you can buy useful friends in the murky corridors of power.

Wouldn’t we all be better off without the grisly trade in wars and the implements of war? Without any question we would be better off. Idealists have been saying that for centuries. It is in the nature of political power everywhere however that a large proportion of those who get to the top of the greasy pole are not especially nice people. They reach those positions mostly by standing on other people’s faces, and therefore assume that this is how the world must work. A good many of them are psychopaths and/or sociopaths. When it comes to dealing with other nations, they work by the same principles. For them, respect and polite words only have meaning if they are underpinned by a potential for coercion. No religion and no ideology has ever changed any of this. The best we can do is to hedge them in with something like the rule of law, some form of democracy and freedom of information.

The leaders of the countries where America has fought its wars for commerce or territory, or ideology have not infrequently been even less savoury characters than the American leaders. Sometimes also too they have been true patriots and heroes to their peoples.

In the deranged logic of national defence and aggression, with its zero sum game plans, the huge continent of Australia with its small population of 24 million cannot aspire to bestride the world like a colossus, even if its leaders wanted to. As with all nations, its best defence is firstly minimising the potential enmity of others by engaging them with trade, pleasing them with unselfish assistance, and fostering networks of personal relationships between the respective populations. The second line of defence is to become costly to attack.

Historically many Australian administrations have been inept and niggardly with the first, ‘soft power’ lines of defence (Newton-Howes 2016), and critically dependent on the United States since World War II for the second, military line of defence. The US partnership has not been entirely altruistic. The loss of Australia to the US global alliance would be a major blow and seriously weaken America’s own position in many ways. It seems unlikely therefore that even a Trump administration would try to walk away from the Australian partnership, especially since Anglophone Australia is an outpost for “Trump’s kind of people”. However a chaotic and incompetent American administration, as Trump’s could easily be, might not only impose politically impossible demands on Australia out of ignorance, but also stumble into international encounters that posed sovereign risks to Australia. Were a vacuum of apparent power, or even ambiguity, to arise with Australia’s strategic position, the PLA and it’s advocates within the Beijing political tangle would be eager to exploit it. China is energetically positioning itself for influence in many areas of Australian policy (e.g. McColl 2016, Uhlmann 2016). There have been suggestions that Australia should move more proactively to foster supplementary strategic alliances in the region, such as with India (Wroe 2016), in addition to existing ties with Japan, Singapore etc. Of course, such initiatives do not find favour with China.


e) Well over 8,000 nuclear warheads are stockpiled in militaries around the world; (as someone remarked, that’s enough to blow up Jupiter). Nevertheless, the number of nuclear actors (and hence accidents) has been contained by non-proliferation treaties, with the United States providing a guaranteed nuclear umbrella for some. If the American nuclear umbrella is curtailed (as implied by Trump’s intentions), especially in North Asia, Japan and South Korea will go nuclear within months. How will this affect Australia’s security and commercial interests?

f) Trump wishes the United States to throw up high trade tariff barriers with other nations so that the US can supposedly prosper internally. It is true that there are severe problems with some trade agreements (especially the proposed TTP – Trans Pacific Trade Partnership, to which China is not invited). Nevertheless trade isolationalism sounds like a re-run of what fed the Great Depression of the 1930s. How can Australia navigate this dilemma?

g) Trump wishes to deport millions of illegal immigrants back to  South America (they support large chunks of the US economy), make life hell for millions of legal immigrants, and choke the inflow of future immigrants. Australia has been a country of mass immigration since 1947. How would wash-back from Trump type policies influence what happens in Australia?

h) There are 1.7 billion Moslems in the world with every shade of character and opinion. They make up 23.4% of the world’s population (Wikipedia 2016). The US makes up 4.6% of the world’s population. Islam at the moment is demonstrating some of the same division and social turbulence that preceded the European Christian Reformation period. Trump’s reaction to this turbulence is to effectively demonize all Muslims, declare war on the religion, and deport Muslims whenever possible. Australia becomes intimately involved in almost all of America’s conflicts, so how should Australian governments and people negotiate Trump-type policies and wars in this environment?

i) Australian jobs, trade and prosperity depend very heavily upon relationships with Asian countries. Australia’s defence, banking and cultural imports are inextricably woven into the United States of America empire. It is obvious that these two axes would come under extreme stress in a Trump administration (and perhaps in a Clinton administration too). How can Australia best negotiate its own survival in this situation?

j) The American electoral system is very different to the Australian electoral system. What they have in common, along with many other systems of choosing political leaders, is a propensity to throw up leaders and representatives who are at best very mediocre, and at worst borderline mad (the Trump phenomenon). In any country there are far more capable individuals than these. How can these more able people be brought into the service of their countries without sacrificing the strong reminders of public interest which democracy gives us?


[much more to come]


Reading List*  (other suggestions welcome)

Associated Press (July 16, 2016) "Believe it or not: Fiction authors imagine Trump presidency". Boston Herald online @

Bixby, Scott and Ben Jacobs (25 August 2016) "Trump in favor of immigration reform, softening stance on his signature issue". The Guardian online @

Blake, Aaron (August 22 2016) "Donald Trump's change of heart on migrants could be his biggest flip-flop yet". Brisbane Times online @

Caesar, Ed (August 29, 2016) "Deutsche Bank’s $10-Billion Scandal -  How a scheme to help Russians secretly funnel money offshore unravelled". The New Yorker online @

Craig, Suzanne (August 21 2016) "Donald Trump's maze of debts and opaque ties". Brisbane Times online @

Gabbatt, Adam (20 August 2016) "Reading Breitbart for 48 hours will convince you the world is terrible". [example: Breitbart news site @] The Guardian online @

Gearan, Anne with John Wagner and Dan Balz (August 21 2016) "Immigration, Supreme Court, guns, campaign finance: Hillary Clinton's to-do list". Brisbane Times online @   

Ghafour, Hamida (21 August 2016) "The fatwa hotline: 'We have heard everything' - Can men and women work together? (Yes) Should I fast during Ramadan if I have my period? (No) These are just some of the dilemmas answered by women running a Muslim helpline in Abu Dhabi". The Guardian online @  

Gittins, Ross (August 20 2016) "Australia and China, a partnership facing massive change". [Includes a comment by me] Brisbane Times online @

Gounder, Celine (25 August 2016) "I'm a doctor. The real issue isn't Hillary Clinton's health – it's that she might win". The Guardian online @

Istvan, Zoltan (December 30, 2015) "We Must Cut the Military and Transition to a Science-Industrial Complex". website online @

Martin, Peter (January 11, 2016) "Trans-Pacific Partnership will barely benefit Australia, says World Bank report". Brisbane Times online @  

May, Thor (1986) “A Collision of Technology and Politics - Star Wars Revisited”. online @

May, Thor (2004) "Submission to the Australian Parliamentary Senate Inquiry on the Status of Australian Expatriates". This has been tabled in the Australian Parliament and can be viewed on the website of that parliament at or on my own website @ 

May, Thor (2009) “The end of capitalism is announced”. Thor’s New China Diary online @

May, Thor (2013) "Ethical behaviour is harder for the rich". online @  

May, Thor (2014a) "What will be the dominant ideologies of the 21st Century?". online @ 

May, Thor (2014b) "How can we treat refugees humanely?" online @  

May, Thor (2014c) "The problem of work and the rise of the precariat". online @

May, Thor (2014d) "How can we treat refugees humanely?" online @ 

May, Thor (2016a) “Is globalization a failure, or can something worthwhile be rescued?” online @

May, Thor (2016b) "If half of all jobs disappear, what then?". online @

McColl, Gina and Philip Wen (August 26 2016) "Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's links to Chinese political donors". Brisbane Times online @

McGeough, Paul (August 17 2016) "It may be a Trump line, but 'crooked Hillary' is a real issue for many US voters". Brisbane Times online @

Meyer, Thomas (08/09/2016) "This Is What Trump’s ‘America First’ Policy Would Mean For Germany". Huffington Post online @

Neate, Rupert (25 August 2016) "US warns Europe over plan to demand millions in unpaid taxes from Apple. US Treasury says investigations into alleged tax avoidance by US companies including Amazon and Starbucks could create ‘unfortunate precedent’. The EU has been investigating whether Apple’s tax deals with Ireland, which allowed the company to pay very little tax on income earned throughout Europe, amounted to state aid". The Guardian online @  

Newton-Howes, Julia (2 March 2016) "Australia's unbalanced foreign policy". [recommended] The Interpreter website online @

Oxley, Alan (Apr 19 2016) "Learning from past Chinese protectionism can help future trade negotiations".


Pham, My and Idrees Ali ( May 11, 2016) "Quietly, Vietnam hosts arms gathering attended by U.S. companies". Reuters online @

Rafi, Salman (August 18, 2016) "The ‘unsolvable’ Afghan conundrum". Asia Times online @

Ragozin, Leonid (Aug. 19 2016 ) "Our 1991: Why the World Risks Repeating Russia's Post-Soviet Nightmare - Toxic nationalism and pack instincts undid the 1991 democratic revolution. Today, the same forces are at play far beyond Russia’s borders". The Moscow Times online @  

Reuters (08/16/2016) "German Minister Says Trump Ignored Facts With Dig At Angela Merkel’s Refugee Policy - “I’m sorry that the Republican presidential candidate trumpets out things like that without any factual basis.” Huffington Post online @   

Roberts, Dan and Lauren Gambino (24 August 2016) "A tale of many Trumps: book reveals the showman, womaniser and slick operator - Donald Trump shrugs off his past political flip-flopping in his resolute pursuit of power and celebrity in Trump Revealed, a book by Washington Post journalists". The Guardian online @

Sanger-Katz, Margot (AUG. 16, 2016). "Terrorism Killed More Westerners in the 1970s and 1980s". New York Times online @ 

Sautin, Yevgen (May 9, 2016) "This Vietnamese base will decide the South China Sea’s fate". Asia Times online @

Scimia, Emanuele  (August 16, 2016) "China and Russia concerned over America’s anti-missile moves". Asia Times online @ 

Schmid, Valentin (August 19, 2016) "The Clinton and Trump Economic Plans: Growing the State or the Private Sector". Epoch Times online @

Uhlmann, Chris with Andrew Greene, Stephanie Anderson (21 August 2016) "Chinese donors to Australian political parties: who gave how much?" Australian Broadcasting Commission online @

Wallace, Tim (August 20 2016) "Donald Trump in the White House is the biggest risk to the world economy". Brisbane Times online @

Watson, Bill (October 28, 2014) "American Protectionism Threatens US-China Trade - For all its complaints about Beijing’s unfair trade policies, the U.S. unfairly targets Chinese goods". The Diplomat website online @

Wroe, David (August 25 2016) "Let Indian military train in northern Australia, leading defence scholar says". Brisbane Times online @

Zappone, Chris (August 18 2016) "Donald Trump never wanted to win: Michael Moore". Brisbane Times online @ 


Professional bio: Thor May has a core professional interest in cognitive linguistics, at which he has rarely succeeded in making a living. He has also, perhaps fatally in a career sense, cultivated an interest in how things work – people, brains, systems, countries, machines, whatever… In the world of daily employment he has mostly taught English as a foreign language, a stimulating activity though rarely regarded as a profession by the world at large. His PhD dissertation, Language Tangle, dealt with language teaching productivity. Thor has been teaching English to non-native speakers, training teachers and lecturing linguistics, since 1976. This work has taken him to seven countries in Oceania and East Asia, mostly with tertiary students, but with a couple of detours to teach secondary students and young children. He has trained teachers in Australia, Fiji and South Korea. In an earlier life, prior to becoming a teacher, he had a decade of finding his way out of working class origins, through unskilled jobs in Australia, New Zealand and finally England (after backpacking across Asia to England in 1972).

Donald Trump has won the US presidential election (imagine)! ©Thor May August 2016


 return to homepage

WebSTAT - Free Web Statistics