Distract

Distract (pronounced dih-strakt)

(1) To draw away or divert, as the mind or attention.

(2) To disturb or trouble greatly in mind; beset.

(3) To provide a pleasant diversion for; to amuse or entertain.

(4) To separate or divide by dissension or strife; to confuse.

(5) To make “crazy or insane” (now rare except in the idiomatic “drive to distraction” and its variants when the concept of “mad” is used in its colloquial sense).

1350–1400: From the Middle English, from the Medieval Latin distracten (to turn or draw (a person, the mind) aside or away from any object; divert (the attention) from any point toward another point), from the Latin distrahō (to pull apart), the construct being dis- + trahō (to pull), from distractus (drawn apart), past participle of distrahere (to draw apart), the construct being dis- + trahere (to draw).  The dis prefix was from the Middle English dis-, from the Old French des from the Latin dis, from the proto-Italic dwis, from the primitive Indo-European dwís and cognate with the Ancient Greek δίς (dís) and the Sanskrit द्विस् (dvis).  It was applied variously as an intensifier of words with negative valence and to render the senses “incorrect”, “to fail (to)”, “not” & “against”.  In Modern English, the rules applying to the dis prefix vary and when attached to a verbal root, prefixes often change the first vowel (whether initial or preceded by a consonant/consonant cluster) of that verb. These phonological changes took place in Latin and usually do not apply to words created (as in Modern Latin) from Latin components since the language was classified as “dead”.  The combination of prefix and following vowel did not always yield the same change and these changes in vowels are not necessarily particular to being prefixed with dis (ie other prefixes sometimes cause the same vowel change (con; ex)).  Distract, distracting & distracted are verbs & adjectives, distractionism, distractibility, distraction, distractedness, distracter & distractee are nouns, distractable, distractible, distractionary, distractive & distractful are adjectives and distractedly & distractingly are adverbs; the common noun plural is distractions.

Diversions are where one finds them.

The sense of “to throw into a state of mind in which one knows not how to act; cause distraction in; confuse by diverse or opposing considerations” has been in use by at least the 1580s.  Obviously related (and emerging a decade-odd later) was the stronger sense of “disorder the reason of, render frantic or mad”, once in common use and preserved (in rather diluted form) in the idiomatic phrase “driven to distraction”.  The literal senses of “pull apart in different directions and separate; cut into parts or sections” were in use from the late sixteenth century but are now functionally extinct.  The adjective distracted dates from the 1570s in the sense of “perplexed, harassed, or bewildered by opposing considerations” and came directly from the verb distract; from the 1580s it gained the meaning “disordered in intellect, frantic, mad”.  The noun distraction came from the mid-fifteenth century distraccioun (the drawing away of the mind from one point or course to another or others), from the Latin distractionem (a pulling apart, separating), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of distrahere (draw in different directions).  The sense of a “drawing of the mind in different directions, mental confusion or bewilderment” dates from the 1590s, and the meaning “violent mental disturbance, excitement simulating madness (in driven to distraction etc) was known from the turn of the century.  The meaning “a thing or fact that causes mental diversion or bewilderment” was in use by at least 1615 but, like other related forms, it probably was long in oral use.  The special use of distraction in medicine was used to describe “traction so exerted as to separate surfaces normally opposed”; it is long archaic.  The old idea of “distraction” meaning “crazy or insane” survives in the idiomatic phrases “drive to distraction”, “driven to distraction” and “crazy or insane” are now used in the colloquial, non-clinical sense meaning “a bit stressed or discombobulated”.  Usually, the phrases are used by those being so annoyed by someone or something they cannot focus on the task at hand.

Of Dr Faustus

Title page of the 1620 edition of the ‘B’ text of Doctor Faustus (first published in 1616 as The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus).

English playwright, poet and translator Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) was the enfant terrible of the Elizabethan age (1558–1603) and the circumstances surrounding his murder at a youthful 29 death has long attracted speculation.  Marlow’s most famous work was The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus (clipped usually to “Doctor Faustus”), a tragedy (some critics class it as a morality play) first staged around 1594.  Kind of the ultimate cautionary tale, it was based on German stories about an eminent scholar who sells (for eternity) his soul to the devil in exchange for 24 years magical powers.  The plot is charmingly simple: it follows Dr Faustus down the magical path lad for him by the demon Mephistopheles to his ultimate downfall as he fails to repent before his damnation.  An entertaining work, Marlow’s play also has the virtue of brevity unlike Goethe’s (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749–1832) sprawling Faust in two parts; Goethe’s Faust may be the author’s magnum opus and the finest achievement in German literature but it is very long.

Faust and Mephistopheles (1869), oil on canvas by Alfred Louis Vigny Jacomin (1842-1913).

What enabled Mephistopheles to tempt Faustus was that the doctor, who regarded himself an expert of just about every aspect of science and philosophy, had become enchanted by the idea of necromancy, something not easily explored in the temporal world.  Dating from the late twelfth century, necromancy was from the Middle English nigromancye, from the Old French nigromancie, from the Medieval Latin nigromantia, from the Classical Latin necromantia, from the Ancient Greek νεκρομαντεία (nekromanteía), the construct being νεκρός (nekrós) (dead) + μαντεία (manteía) (divination).  The spelling in the Medieval Latin with the element niger (black) was influenced by the notion of this being a “black (in the sense of “dark”) art; the modern spelling had emerged by the mid sixteenth century.  Necromancy, as understood by Faustus, meant the sorcery associated with raising or reanimating the dead and the Devil uniquely was well placed to provide instruction but there would be a price to be paid.  One of the devices Marlow has Mephistopheles (and sometimes the Devil himself) use to divert Faustus’s thoughts from anything which might bring about his repentance and save his soul are “distractions”.  The distractions are presented as essentially theatrical spectacles in the form of sensual pleasures, promises of power and trivial entertainments, all designed to ensure spiritual distraction; it was something like Faustus’s Elizabethan TikTok feed.

Distractions played a part: Al Gore (b 1948; VPOTUS 1993-2001 & NPOTUS 2000, left) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; NPOTUS 2016, right).

The distractions take many forms but their principle purpose is to divert Faustus from thinking about or speaking of Christ and heaven, thus the famous rebuke: “Thou shouldst not think of God.”  What Lucifer does is stage a pagent of the Seven Deadly Sins, a masque-like parade of Pride, Covetousness, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, and Lechery to amuse and seduce Faustus away from repentance.  As one might expect of weak, mortal man, Faustus delights in the spectacle: “O, this feeds my soul!”; well the Devil knew his customer.  Also provided are texts teaching transformations, conjuring, and occult knowledge, intellectual distractions appealing to Faustus’s vanity and appetite for mastery of new and unexplored subjects.  This is however a play written for the stage and it has a beginning, middle and end with much of the middle devoted to diversions: invisible tricks played on the pope (said to be very popular with contemporary audiences), conjuring spirits for emperors and nobles, practical jokes, feasts, and displays of magical power.  What Marlowe does is show Faustus squandering his grand bargain on shallow amusements rather than profound knowledge; comparisons have been made between what was promised would be the role of the “Information Super Highway” (dating from the time when “Al Gore invented the Internet”) and TikTok feeds.

Helen of Troy (1898), oil on canvas by Evelyn De Morgan (1855–1919).  Helen has for millennia been depicted by painters and sculptors and historians of art have used the images to track changes in Western ideal of female beauty.  

Near the end, when an Old Man urges Faustus sincerely to repent, Mephistopheles counters with Helen of Troy as an erotic and aesthetic temptation, Faustus responding with the famous: “Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships…?”  Helen represented the ultimate sensual distraction from salvation; as the Devil and advertising agencies understand: sex sells.  As a psychological study, Marlow’s work is a clever piece of the way manipulation can work, certainly with a victim as vain and self-absorbed as Faustus who Mephistopheles can convince repentance has become impossible, trapping him in a twilight zone between fear of the consequences of his actions and his irresistible urge to taste the distractions offered.  For those attracted by the comparisons with the internet, a major theme of the play is the notion of distraction, Faustus almost never allowed (or willing, depending on the reading), to sustain serious contemplation of repentance, Marlowe presenting damnation not as an open rebellion against God, but a gradual surrender of attention to spectacle, appetite, vanity and diversion. 

Of Marjorie Taylor Greene and flying saucers

Marjorie Taylor Greene with assault rifle, campaign material, 2020.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG, b 1974; US Representative (congressperson) (Republican-Georgia 2021-2026)) parlayed a career as a conspiracy theorist (evils of Islam, anti-Semitism, white genocide / replacement, Pizzagate, QAnon, etc (although she later disavowed her acceptance of what QAnon promotes)) into a seat in the US House of Representatives.  Once very much a Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) fan-girl and a devotee of the his MAGA (Make America Great Again) cult, during the second Trump presidency she made a remarkable volte-face, accusing him of betraying the “America First” movement, criticizing his policies (both domestic and foreign) and reluctance to release files related to convicted paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019).  With apologies to William Congreve (1670–1729) who included the original line in his tragedy The Mourning Bride (1697): “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a MAGA woman scorned.” and Mr Trump responded to this treachery by attacking her in a post on his ever-entertaining Truth Social platform, vowing to have her “primaried” (denied a place on the Republican ticket for the mid-term congressional elections in November 2026).  As recent Republican primaries have demonstrated, Mr Trump continues to hold the party in his thrall and MTG might have expected to suffer the same fate.  Accordingly, she resigned her seat so Mr Trump can treat that as a victory although she became what Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 & POTUS 1963-1969) called “outside the tent” (his argument being often it was preferable to have malcontents “inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in”).

Marjorie Taylor Greene in happier times.

Outside the tent, the scorned MTG renewed her attacks.  Most displeased at US military action against Iran, she called for the cabinet to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the constitution and remove the president from office (on the grounds of physical or mental incapacity) and, in a rhetorical flourish, suggested the Republican Party should be “burned to the ground.”  That was good but she also provided a critique of the administration’s tactic of “rolling out distractions”, calling the Pentagon’s release of “UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) files” as “look at the shiny object”, propaganda, placed in the public domain to divert public attention from matters such a high gas (petrol) prices, inflation and foreign military operations.  She dismissed the “UFO files” (the Pentagon prefers the nerdier UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena)) as revealing “nothing” and said the release was a mere strategic diversion, the administration knowing news outlets would think it a “sexy” topic that would displace gas and egg prices from the headlines and hopefully encourage the usual suspects in the public arena to start arguing about flying saucers.  Her core point was instead of publishing “UFO files” containing nothing substantive, the administration should fully disclose the Epstein files with no redactions beyond what was necessary to “protect the victims”.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, post MAGA.

President Trump said he’d directed the Pentagon to make available on their website 161 (with more to come) files “related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs)", because of “the tremendous interest shown”.  Of course, as MTG pointed out, there is also “tremendous interest” in what’s as yet unseen in the Epstein files.  What MTG claimed was the public’s “tremendous interest” is seeing “names named” in the Epstein files was in conflict with the equally “tremendous interest” Mr Trump told her his “friends” had in the information remaining suppressed.  According to her, Mr Trump asked her to remove her support from releasing the Epstein files because placing them in the public domain would “expose and hurt ‘good people’ he knew at Mar-a-Lago”.  That clash of interests hasn’t gone away so while it can’t be predicted whether it will involve the White House’s new ballroom or some other “shiny object”, more distractions may be expected.

Of political distraction

In political science, “distraction” is used in two ways.  The first sense describes forces or events which operate to divert a government’s attention from the matters on which they intended to focus.  Sometimes, this can happen because external events impose themselves or it can be a product of the attention of those in government being drawn to “other matters”.  The most amusing of these are personal vendettas which can assume a life of their own but they can involve just about anything.  The more interesting “political distractions” are those governments, parties or individual politicians “manufacture” to divert public attention away from damaging scandals, corruption, policy failures or unpopular legislation.  As one might imagine, given those imperatives, politicians often feel the need to distract the press and public for the public from thinking or talking about their many failings.  The orthodox approach among political scientists is to list diversions in six categories:

(1) Toss a dead cat on the table.  This describes the tactic of suddenly introducing an outrageous, shocking or highly controversial topic into the public arena, something designed to force the media and public to become interested in the new matter and forget or at least neglect whatever damaging discussion was dominating news cycle.  Aspects of the “culture wars” are dependable dead felines which is why matters such as trans-women’s participation in women’s sport do seem often to “crop up” when a politician’s poll-numbers are looking dire.

(2) Take out the trash.  The polite term for TotT is “Strategic Timing” which describes announcing policies likely to be unpopular policies or controversial executive orders on days when public attention is guaranteed to be fixed elsewhere, such as during big sporting events or during major holidays.  The trick to a successful execution of TotT is just to do it without leaving a “paper trail” (which can now be electronic).  That was a mistake made a certain bureaucrat in the UK government who, within minutes of the second jet hitting New York’s World Trade Center on 9/11 (11 September, 2001), sent a memorandum to her department head suggesting “It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.”  What was meant by that was that the coverage of the terrorist attacks would “swamp” just about everything else, meaning the government wouldn’t have to try to “defend the indefensible”.

(3) Tail Wagging the Dog: In political science this tactic is glossed as “Diversionary Foreign Policy” and refers to governments initiating or escalating foreign conflicts, border tensions, or military action to create the “rally 'round the flag” effect and divert attention from domestic matters which are proving tiresome.  Cases studies of “wagging the dog” are numerous but in the case of nations inclined often to embark upon foreign military actions, it can be difficult to be sure a certain venture is an example or just “business as usual” foreign policy doctrine in action.  When, in August 1998, Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) ordered a missile strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, that was claimed by the White House to be based on “solid intelligence” the facility was (1) connected with Osama bin Laden’s (1957-2011) al-Qaeda terrorist group (1957-2011) and was “manufacturing or storing the VX nerve agent”.  Although a successful military operation (ie the factory was destroyed with a low civilian casualty toll), the administration was forced subsequently to concede the intelligence was “not as solid as first portrayed”.  In Sudan, the locals had few doubts about the president’s motivation, the Monica Lewinsky (b 1973) scandal at the time dominating the US news cycle.

Distracting: English model Penny Lane (b 1991), Miami Swim Week, June 2026.  Her "catwalk strut" in a black, cut-out monokini with a matrix of thin, horizontal straps slashing across the midriff was the sensation of the show. 

(4) Scapegoating.  Although it’s the always reliable “blame the Jews” which is the standard template for scapegoating, the formula is adaptable to circumstances which can extend from religion & ethnicity (the way the Jews are exploited containing elements of both) to occupational categories, social class, political alignment and more.  Scapegoating can be a handy device of distraction when managing disquiet over issues such as unemployment, failing infrastructure, the spread of disease, crime, urban congestion, economic difficulties, rising prices or the weather (it really has been done).  Of late, the perfect scapegoats have been “illegal migrants” (often clipped to “illegals”), now in ample supply.

(5) Culture Wars.  Culture wars long pre-date Antiquity but in their modern sense were really a creation of the left, political parties (labour, socialist etc) which, even though for decades rarely being in power, were able in many places to become the central dynamic of the political process by “setting the agenda” some of their ideas becoming the dominant orthodoxy.  However, the right stumbled upon culture wars after the re-orientation of Western economies to the neo-Liberal model which tended to damage the interests of the working class.  What distractions like the culture wars (abortion, guns, right to drive huge pick-up trucks etc) offered to the right was the intoxicating prospect of persuading the working class to vote contrary to their own economic interest.  Threats to a way of life (trans people, climate change theories etc) have been added as culture war theatres as they proved to have traction.

(6) Flooding the Zone.  In the pre-digital age, this was called “drowning them in paperwork” which, although a mixed metaphor, conveyed well the notion of providing so much data it was impossible effectively to process.  In the age of social media, the technique has had to be adjusted because there are now some who will ignore the distraction and relentlessly focus of a single issue of interest but it does still work, advances in AI (artificial intelligence) meaning it’s now possible to release huge tranches of “redacted documents”.  At the micro level, the principle can be used by issuing literally dozens of executive orders (some of which the administration may have no intention of effecting and exist only as “sacrificial devices” in order to divert attention from a certain order.  Of course, just as AI can be a shield, it can also be a weapon, journalists and others now able to apply a Bot to a tranche, enabling in a short time the sort of analysis which would take a team of humans months or even years.

The ultimate usual suspect: Noam Chomsky's thoughts on distraction

In full flight: Noam Chomsky (left) discussing something with Jeffrey Epstein (right) while flying somewhere on a private jet.  Professor Chomsky is believed “deeply to regret” his association with Epstein, a man he once described as a “highly valued friend”.   The image was released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice).

Linguistics theorist & public intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky (b 1928) has for decades been something of an institution of the left, his critique of the policies of the US government in most aspects unchanging yet still attracting interest with each iteration, despite much of the mainstream media in the US maintaining what was, in effect, a ban on him appearing.  Unlike his work in structural linguistics, the complexities of which were understood by a relative few, Chomsky’s political writings were more accessible, something which some criticism from political scientists and those specializing in international relations who found his “elegant reductionism” just a form of simplification for mass-market appeal; political scientists much prefer the arcane.  Chomsky regards the tactics of distraction as tools in the strategy of manipulation and regards the art and science of distraction as the most significant of the ten vectors of manipulation practiced by the “political class” (political operatives and the news media).

(1) The strategy of distraction.  The primary element of social control is the tool of distraction, used to divert public attention issues and changes determined by political and economic elites; the most common tactic is the “flood”: “flooding” people with continuous distractions and insignificant information.  Distraction strategy is also essential to limit or even prevent public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics: “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance.  Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think.”

(2) Create problems, then offer solutions.  This method is also called “problem–reaction-solution.”  It creates a problem, a “situation” that will induce some reaction in the audience and, in time, will see them demanding a “solution”.  Examples include allowing urban violence to spread or intensify (if necessary, agents of the state can even arrange the attacks), then responding to demands for “security” by passing laws allowing a harsh crackdown and restrictions on social rights.  Such a tactic can augment a manufactured “economic crisis”, one of the solutions being a reduction in spending on public services, even to the point of their widespread disestablishment.

(3) Gradualism.  The “gradual strategy” is a form of the “thin end of the wedge” and is a way of eventually achieving something which would have been unacceptable had there been an attempt to implement the change is “one hit”.  What’s done is that measures are applied gradually over years or even decades, the public acting like the tale of the frog in the pot of water being slowly brought to the boil.  That famous example turned out not to be how frogs react to gradually increasing water temperature but, in the West, it’s something like the way the radically new socio-economic conditions of neo-liberalism were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s.  Had the architects attempted to impose at once what proved to be the eventual outcome, the public would likely not have accepted the change.

(4) Deferment.  This is a “long game” tactic, the theory being a way to have the public accept an unpopular policy is to present it as “painful but necessary”, the psychology behind that being the notion it’s more palatable to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate slaughter.  Intriguingly, deferment is said to be effective because there is much to suggest there’s a general public belief “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice suggested will finally be avoided.  That may sound surprising but the findings are said to be “solid” and mean people “get used to” the inevitability of the change and, “with a sense of resignation”, will accept things.

(5) Infantilism.  The theory (adopted also in many forms of advertising) is that if information is presented in a way one might to a child of twelve, (in other words as if addressing an adult with a mentally deficiency), the recipient will digest it with the lack of critical sense typical in a child of that age.  Not all political scientists are convinced this approach works in matters of public policy but its success in the marketing of at least certain products is acknowledged.

(6) Emotional appeals work better than anything analytic.  The idea is that stressing the emotional aspect of something can be effective because it tends to induce a “short-circuiting” of a recipient’s capacity for rational analysis, and finally to the critical sense of the individual.

(7) Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity.  The object is to make the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement.  Most obviously, this is achieved by keeping the quality of education provided to the lower social classes at a most mediocre level, ensuring a wide “ignorance gap” exists between them and the hegemonic class.  Instead of knowledge, the lower classes are given diversions such as reality TV and an endless diet of football matches.

(8) Self-identification of the lower classes with ignorance.  Apparently, this wasn’t something anticipated by the theorists but among sub-sets of the marginalized class, what evolved was a kind of “cult of ignorance” in which being uneducated and vulgar is fashionable and a form of class solidarity, toxic masculinity said by some sociologists to be a modern manifestation.

(9) Strengthen a sense of self-blame.  By definition, if individuals blame themselves for their misfortunes, they won’t blame the government and expect solutions to be provided although, impressionistically, it would seem demands often are made of governments regardless of a misfortune’s cause.  Still, if individual blames themselves, (failure of effort or ability), the hope is instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual descends into an acquiescent insensibility and hopefully a state of depression which tends to inhibit getting out of bed, let getting ideas about staging a revolution.

(10) Knowledge is power.  Just because something is a cliché doesn’t mean it’s not true and in recent decades there does seem to have been a growing gap between knowledge in public hands and that owned and operated by the power elite.  The system of control has developed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically meaning mechanisms of control can now be more targeted.  There were optimistic types who believed placing AI (artificial intelligence) capabilities in the hands of the masses might redress this imbalance but there seem little to suggest the technology is doing anything other than strengthening the existing hegemony.

Dynasty

Dynasty (pronounced dahy-nuh-stee (US English); din-uh-stee (UK English)

(1) A sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group.

(2) The rule of such a sequence.

(3) A series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success in business, wealth creation etc.

(4) In sport, a team or organization which has an extended period of success or dominant performance (technically unrelated to family links or even and great continuity in personnel).

(5) As used specifically in East Asian history, the polity or historical era under the rule of a certain dynasty.

1425-1475: From the Middle English dynastia, from the Middle French dynastie, from the Late Latin dynastia, from the Ancient Greek δυναστεία (dunasteía) (power, dominion, lordship, sovereignty) from dynasthai (have power), of unknown origin.  The adjective dynastic (from 1800) is used when speaking or, relating to or pertaining to a dynasty; dynastical attested since 1730.  A dynast (hereditary ruler) is from the 1630s, from the Late Latin dynastes, from the Greek dynastes (ruler, chief, lord, master).  The synonyms include house & lineage.  Dynasty & dynast are nouns, dynastic & dynastical are adjectives and dynastically is an adverb; the noun plural is dynasties.

The word is widely used of the ruling families of nations associated with royalty (Hapsburg dynasty, Romanov dynasty, Hohenzollern dynasty etc) and remains the standard term in the historiography of Imperial China (Ming dynasty, Qing dynasty, Song dynasty, Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty etc).  In political science it’s a popular use (verging on a slur) to describe the political arrangements concocted when a ruler attempts (sometimes with success) to pass the office (and thus their country) to a descendent (usually the eldest or most demonstrably ruthless son), examples including the Congo, Syria, Cambodia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Sometimes, polities organized in this manner can give rise to what is known as a subdynasty (which seems never to hyphenated), an idea borrowed from European history when royal families routinely would provide offspring to serve as kings of other states, thereby creating a new dynasty; sometimes this worked well, sometimes not.

In politics, families which some characterize as appearing dynastic can be very sensitive to anything which seems even to hint at the suggestion and the Lee family in Singapore is the standard case study.  Between the rule of Lee Kuan Yew (1923–2015; Prime Minister of Singapore 1959-1990) and that of his son Lee Hsien Loong (b 1952; Prime Minister of Singapore since 2004-2024) there was gap of over a dozen years (which must not be called an interregnum) and there was of some interest in whether a similar mechanism would be engineered to enable a third generation to assume office, the previous successor designate having been removed from the plan because of “some unsuitability”.  According to certain Western commentators, Mr Lee delayed stepping down from the premiership (to become "Senior Minister", the same path taken by his father and not wholly different for the approach of Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022)) so a “long runway” cold be laid onto which the next prime minister can emerge (the word “runway” used in the modern sense of the “catwalk” on which models strut their stuff rather than anything to do with aviation).

Something in common: Lee Hsien Loong and Klyie Jenner.

As things turned out, in 2024, Lawrence Wong Shyun Tsai (b 1972) became the city state's fourth prime minister.  While Li Hongyi (b 1987; first-born child of Lee Hsien Loong), has disavowed any interest in a political career, there’s still plenty of time and if, in the fullness of time, “drafted” by the ruling PAP (the People’s Action Party which has been in power since independence in 1959), he may feel it his duty to be “be persuaded”.  Li Hongyi may however believe his lineage is too great a disadvantage to overcome.  Earlier, Lee Hsien Loong dismissed suggestions his stellar career (becoming at becoming at 32 the youngest brigadier-general in the history of the Singapore military and prime minister at 53) owed anything to family connections, claiming being the prime minister’s son actually hindered him because people were so anxious to avoid accusations of favoritism.  Interestingly, entertainment personality Kylie Jenner (b 1997) made much the point, claiming it was belonging to a famous family which saw her denied some modelling work.  The Lee family though do seem unusually sensitive to suggestions the scions might unduly benefit from the connection, the Financial Times in 2007 even having to apologize for having published not anything libellous (actually easily done in Singapore) but simply a list of Lee family members appointed to high positions in the state.  The current derogatory slang is “nepo baby”, a clipping of "nepotism baby", a term one is unlikely to read in the Singaporean press.

Kim I, II & III: The Kim Dynasty, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, aka North Korea)

Kim I: Kim Il-Sung (1912-1994; The Great Leader of DPRK, 1948-1994, left).  Like his descendants, The Dear Leader and The Supreme Leader, The Great Leader enjoyed food.  He’s pictured here at lunch with another foodie, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader, 1924-1953, right).

Kim Il-Sung held an array of titles during his decades as the DPRK’s dictator, the proliferation not unusual in communist nations where the ruling party’s structures are maintained alongside the formal titles of state with which governments conduct relations with foreign powers.  In office for a remarkable 45 years, he was designated premier (head of government) between 1948-1972 and president 1972-1994.  He was head of the WPK (Workers' Party of Korea) between 1949-1994 and in that role successively was styled as Chairman (1949-1966) and General Secretary (after 1966).  During his 45-year rule, there were ten US presidents, six RoK (Republic of Korea (South Korea)) presidents, nine British prime ministers and ten Australian prime ministers.  He tenure in office also spanned the era of the Soviet Union from its apotheosis under comrade Stalin to its collapse in 1991.  Being dead however proved no obstacle to The Great Leader extending his presidency, the collective office Chuch'ejosŏnŭi yŏngwŏnhan suryŏng (Eternal leaders of Juche Korea) created in 2016 by the insertion of an enabling line in the preamble to the constitution.  What this amendment did was formalise the position of The Great Leader and his late son comrade Kim Jong-Il (1941–2011; The Dear Leader of DPRK 1994-2011)) as the “eternal leaders” of the DPRK.  Juche is the term used to describe the DPRK’s national philosophy, a synthesis of The Great Leader’s interpretation of (1) Korean tradition and (2) Marxist-Leninist theory.

Funeral cortege of The Great Leader, 1994.

It was an interesting move.  Constitutionally, the office of president in its executive form was codified only in 1972; prior to that the role of head of state had been purely ceremonial and held by trusted party functionaries, all power exercised by The Great Leader in his capacity as premier and WPK general secretary.  However, merely by being president The Great Leader vested the office with such an aura that upon his death in 1994, the position was left vacant, The Dear Leader not granted the title.  That nuance of semi-succession for a while absorbed the interest of the DPRK watchers but attempts to invest the move with any significance abated as DPRK business, though in the more straitened circumstances of the post Soviet world, continued as usual.  The constitution was again revised in 1998.  Being a godless communist state, no fine theological points stood in the way of declaring The Great Leader the DPRK’s "Eternal President", the latest addition to the preamble declaring:

Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-Sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic.

The constitution, as revised and promulgated after the death of The Dear Leader, again referred to The Great Leader as "Eternal President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but in 2016 (The Dear Leader having apparently been dead for what must have been judged a decent duration), another amendment to the preamble changed the administrative nomenclature of executive eternity to "eternal leaders of Juche Korea", the honor now jointly held by the leaders great & dear, one dead, one alive.  It was another first for the Kims.

Kim II: Kim Jong-Il (1941–2011; The Dear Leader of DPRK, 1994-2011) in Prussian blue pantsuit, 593 Military Unit's Commander School (secret location undisclosed), 21 June, 2010.

DPRK generals wear big hats and always carry a notebook in case the closest Kim says something interesting.  They write it down and because every thing said is interesting, all in the entourage go through many notebooks.  DPRK watchers have concluded that because of the nature of the regime, it's unlikely any of these notebooks have been discarded so there must be a large number of them stored around the country. 

As a political construct, the DPRK is best thought of as a hereditary theocracy because what's expected of citizens is not mere veneration of the Kims but a form of worship.  Although opaque, its dynamics are now better understood but when in 1994 The Great Leader died, neither within the country nor beyond was there wide understanding how much of the power structure he controlled had passed to The Dear Leader.  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union which had provided the DPRK with much financial and other aid, the economic circumstances were hardly propitious but there seems never to have been any doubt about the formal succession, The Dear Leader having been anointed for more than a decade.  The DPRK’s propaganda machine, while not in the conventional Western sense having a middle class to be made “quite prepared”, did have the had the rest of the country to work on and for years Kim Jong-Il had gradually been eased into photo opportunities with The Great Leader, eventually making even solo appearances, sometimes in the role of Supreme Commander of the KPA (Korean People's Army) to which he’d been appointed in 1991, despite having no military background.  However, given most of the generals and admirals (despite their impressive display of decorations and other medals) also have little experience of active combat, this was less of a problem than it might have seemed.

There must in the mind of the Great Leader been some concerns a dynasty might not evolve because, perhaps now aware of his own mortality, The Great Leader in the years before death made the effort to "clear the decks" for the succession, purging the military and civilian ranks of any difficult types who might prove potential obstacles in the path of Kim Jong-Il's ascent.  Some of the purged went into enforced retirement while the deaths of others (presumably suspected recalcitrants) was announced although that may have been a coincidence; the DPRK may be a theocracy but its military and political elite are gerontocracies so senior figures dropping dead from old age is not rare.  Anyway, the path was smoothed and, the military command settled, in 1992, The Great Leader announced Kim Jong-Il was now in charge of all the DPRK’s internal affairs.  Curiously, shortly after that, the media began using of him the honorific “Dear Father” instead of “Dear Leader” but for whatever reason, all official communications soon reverted to the latter which first had appeared a couple of years earlier.

Kim Jong-Il with the judging committee at the annual "DPRK Biggest Watermelon Competition", Pyongyang, August, 2010.

Despite all the dynastic help, indications are it took The Dear Leader sometime fully to assert his authority.  Seriously weird it may appear but, the WPK is just another political party and it too has factions; in the difficult post-Soviet environment of the 1994 succession, DPRK-watchers detected signs of genuine internal debates about how to deal with the economic problems faced.  The adjustments frankly didn’t go well for many North Korean citizens (some of whom starved to death) but while The Dear Leader may not have learned much economic theory, he proved adept at consolidating his power, adopting the Songun (military first) policy, granting the military priority in resource allocation and political influence, not out of any concern about foreign invasion but to ensure the loyalty of what was, in effect, a giant police apparatus tasked with protecting the Kim dynasty from "problems from within", the slightest hint of dissent met with the "good, hard crackdown" which is a signature tactic of dictatorships in managing their highest priority: regime survival.  Secure in office, spasmodically, The Dear Leader did attempt the implement the odd economic reform but the results were not impressive; despite that, efficient internal repression ensured the family's business as usual continued.

Dynastic family planning.

Kim Jong-Il shaking hands with Japanese-born singer Ko Yong-hui (aka Takada Hime, 1952-2004) circa 1972.  She became his consort and would later give birth to Kim Jong-Un.  Within the DPRK, her name must never be spoken and she's referred to only by honorific forms, the most commonly used being: “The Respected Mother who is the Most Faithful and Loyal 'Subject' to the Dear Leader Comrade Supreme Commander”.

By 1997, The Dear Leader sufficiently was entrenched in power to engineer his appointment to The Great Leader's old post as General Secretary of the WPK and, a year later, a constitutional amendment declared his role as chairman of the NDC (National Defence Commission) was "the highest post of the state", presumably among those still alive because the same constitutional reform proclaimed The Great Leader to be the DPRK’s "Eternal President".  Complicating things further, the Dear Leader's career progression was mapped onto the 2012 constitutional amendments in which The Dear Leader’s had been declared "Eternal General Secretary of the WPK and Eternal Chairman of the National Defence Commission".  In any other country this may have been thought an anomaly to be clarified but in the DPRK it's all part of the mystique of the personality cults of the Kims.  In 2016, after a decent period of mourning, the new title "Eternal Leaders of Juche Korea" was created and conferred on both The Great Leader & Dear Leader, the internal logic again perfect.

The reputation of the DPRK as a hermit state cloaked in secrecy is not wholly undeserved but what was published by the energetic and highly productive KCNA (Korean Central News Agency) was an official biography of The Dear Leader and it must from his earliest years have been obvious he was extraordinary.  He was born inside a log cabin beneath Korea’s most sacred mountain and in the moment of delivery, a shooting star brought forth a spontaneous change from winter to summer and there appeared in the sky, the biggest, brightest rainbow ever seen.  The Dear Leader turned out to be not subject to bowel movements, never needing to defecate or urinate (although evidence suggests this is not a genetic characteristic of the dynasty and not shared by his son & successor).  He had a most discriminating palette so prior to his meals being prepared, several staff assiduously by hand inspected every grain of rice to ensure each was of uniform length, plumpness, and color, The Dear Leader eating only "perfect" rice.  Although he only ever played one round of golf and that on the country’s notoriously difficult 7,700 yard (7040 metre) course at Pyongyang, he took only 34 strokes to complete the 18 holes, a round which included five holes-in-one.  Although the scorecard was verified by all 17 of the bodyguards on duty at the course, experienced golfers have cast doubt on the round of 34 (not commenting on the holes-in-one) but the diet of individually inspected & polished grains of rice was thought "at least plausible".  

Funeral cortege of The Dear Leader, 2011.

The funeral cars were 1975 or 1976 Lincoln Continentals, built by Moloney Standard Coach Builders on an extended wheelbase.  Lincoln experts say it's a different car to the similar model used in The Great Leader's funeral, the dynasty said to own several and it's believed they were obtained "through sources in Japan".  Nor are the big Lincolns are the only machines of note in the state mews.  Uniquely, the Kim dynasty is the only family believed also to own a brace of Mercedes-Benz 600 (M100; 1963-1981) long-roof Landaulets, only twelve of which were built.  Fittingly, these variants with an extended length folding top casually are known as the "presidentials" but the factory never officially used the designation.  There were also 47 "standard" Landaulets with a shorter fabric soft-top.  

The Kims certainly are the subjects of some of the most elaborate personality cults ever but it’s not only the DPRK administration that creates retrospective honours to acknowledge the uniqueness of a special individual. George Washington (1732–1799; POTUS, 1789-1797) will forever be the first POTUS so that distinction was always secure but he retired from the army as a lieutenant general; that others since have been appointed to more senior ranks did disturb some in the military, concerned his primacy in the hierarchy wasn’t adequately honoured.  Perhaps surprisingly, in the US military, the system was finalized only this century and prior to 1944, the matter of stars and titles for generals had been a little confused, the whole order of precedence in the army since the Declaration of Independence only properly codified with some retrospective creations in 1976 and 2024.  Historically, the most senior rank in the US Army had been lieutenant general with first significant change effected in the post Civil War (1861-1865) era when the rank of “General of the Army” was gazetted and while nominally a four star appointment, structurally, it was the equivalent of what would in 1944 be formalized as five star rank.  However, in 1866, the significance of the title “General of the Army” was it reflected the appointee being the general with authority over the whole army which meant there could be only ever be one in active service.  In other words, that meant the four star general was commander-in-chief of the army and the paperwork had years earlier been prepared for Washington to be raised thus but this was never done because of concern among lawyers it might set a precedent and be seen to impinge upon a president’s authority as commander in chief of all forces.  Indeed, although later the US military would use titles such as “Commander in Chief, US Pacific Command”, Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US defense secretary 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) in 2002 ended the practice (and use of the acronym CINC) by re-asserting there was in the US: “only one commander in chief in America - the president”, spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."  The matter of civilian authority over the military was one of the founding principles of the republic.

The next change came when General John "Black Jack" Pershing (1860–1948) who had commanded the US expeditionary forces in World War I (1914-1918) was in 1919 appointed to the then unique rank of “General of the Armies of the United States”.   At the time, the war was known as the "World War" (a suggestion by Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924; POTUS 1913-1921)), the vast and bloody conflict already regarded as “the war to end all wars” and the feeling was the conflict had in scale and awfulness been unique so some special recognition was deserved.  Pershing however remained a four star general and confusingly, when the spate of five star appointments was made between 1944-1950, the old wording “General of the Army” was revived with the pecking order based on the gazetted date of appointment to the rank which no longer implied an individual having authority over the entire army.  There have since been no five star creations (although many other armies have continued to appoint field marshals which is the equivalent).  In the US, some historians and many in the military fretted over the untidiness of it all and in 1976, George Washington formerly was gazetted “General of the Armies of the United States with rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present”, meaning he will for all time be the US Army’s senior officer.  In 1944, there was also an amusing footnote which, according to legend, resulted in the decision to use the style “general” and not “marshal” (as many militaries do) because the first to be appointed was George Marshall (1880–1959; US Army chief of staff 1939-1945) and it was thought “Marshal Marshall” would be a bit naff, something Joseph Heller’s (1923-1999) character “Major Major” in Catch-22 (1961) would prove.  So, retrospective adjustments to hierarchies are not unique to the DPRK.

Kim III: Kim Jong-Un (b circa 1982; The Supreme Leader (originally The Great Successor) of DPRK since 2011).  The Supreme Leader is pictured here with South Korean foreign minister, Chung Eui-yong (b 1946).  In the North, the KCNA refers to South Korea as "the puppet state" [of the US].

Inheriting the family business, the country and its population at a much younger age than The Dear Leader, The Supreme Leader, didn’t benefit (or suffer) from the long public gestation period his father was provided by The Great Leader.  It was in 2009, about two years before The Dear Leader’s death that the media began reporting the youngest son was to be the DPRK’s next leader although at that stage, he was referred to as The Brilliant Comrade, the honorific The Great Successor not adopted until after The Dear Leader’s death and it was soon replaced by The Supreme Leader.  For whatever reason, and the speculation and conspiracy theories are many, Kim III more quickly assumed his panoply of offices and titles than his immediate ancestor.

The Supreme Leader leads the bowing ceremony before the portraits of the Great Leader (left) and Dear Leader (right), 9^th Congress of the WPK (Workers' Party of Korea), April 25 House of Culture, Pyongyang, 19-25 February 2026.  Unanimously, delegates paid tribute to the Supreme Leader and declared it the “best congress ever”.

Portraits of the Kims are of great significance to the regime.  In August 2023, with tropical storm Khanun bearing down on the DPRK coast, state media issued instructions that all citizens must “with urgency” and “at any cost” focus on “ensuring the safety” of items depicting the three members of the Kim dynasty.  Presumably because they would be more susceptible to the storm’s heavy rain and strong winds than sturdier objects like statues, the Rodong Sinmun (official newspaper of the ruling WPK) emphasized citizens’ “foremost focus” must be ensuring the preservation of portraits of the Kims although they did caution the need also to safeguard the large number of statues, mosaics, murals and other monuments to the dynasty which has ruled North Korea since its foundation in 1948.

Meeting of the WPK to commemorate the Supreme Leader’s tenth anniversary of his assumption of leadership of the party, Pyongyang, April 2022.  The Supreme Leader’s portrait is displayed in an oval which is not unusual in DPRK Kim iconography.

The order was an interesting insight into the way the regime regards the symbolism of representational objects as a part of its legitimacy but they have set the population an onerous task given the sheer volume of portraits which exist.  At least one each of the Great Leader & Dear Leader are known to hang in every house, café, bus, train carriage or shop and in larger public buildings there might literally be dozens.  In whatever form, the depictions are regarded as not merely symbolic but as sacred icons; just as every citizen must be willing (anxious even) to die protecting the leader, so must they be prepared to sacrifice themselves to save his portrait.  It's never been revealed whether any of the Kims read Oscar Wilde's (1854–1900) The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) but if so, they've learned well. 

Coriaceousness on legs: The Supreme Leader in black leather.

Fashionistas note the perception of black as a “slimming color” but caution the effect is attained through the interplay of optics, contrast perception and even cultural expectations rather than the color’s inherent properties.  Done well, it can work but success depends on design and fit; there are limitations so expectations have to be “realistic”.  Essentially, what use of solid black can do is: (1) Reduce visible contour information (although something really shiny like patent leather can make things worse) because less light is reflected, meaning shadows, folds and changes in body shape appear less are less visually distinct, details to some degree “flattened out”; (2) Minimize edge definition and contrasts in hues, human vision (for sound evolutionary reasons) drawn to highlights & boundaries so while light-colored fabrics generate stronger visual cues of volume and curvature, these black tends to suppress; (3) Exploit a trick from visual art in which darker tones appear to “recede” while the lighter “advance”.  The technicalities however operate in conjunction with the long-established cultural expectation; because the notion “black is a slimming color” has become a popular orthodoxy, viewers perceptions can be “pre-conditioned” and appearances interpreted accordingly.  Fashion critics suggest the effect is overstated and all else being equal, design and the quality of fabric is much more significant than the color, a well-cut garment in a light shade able to be more “slimming” that anything ill-fitting or of poor design in black.  They note the effect anyway can to some extent be achieved with other solid, dark colors (Prussian blue, charcoal, deep olive etc) because again, the uninterrupted expanse reduces visual segmentation.  Perceptions are also sometime gleaned from professional photography with angles and lighting optimized whereas IRL (in real life) there’s movement so expectations must be tempered down to the art of the possible.

Official portrait of the Supreme Leader, issued by the KCNA at 7th Congress of the the WPK, 6-9 May 2016, April 25 House of Culture, Pyongyang.

Announced by the KCNA on state television as The Great Successor, The Supreme Leader was appointed General Secretary of the WPK, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and President of the State Affairs Commission, followed soon afterwards by a promotion to the army’s highest military rank, Marshal of the Korean People's Army, adding to his position as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (exactly the same constitutional arrangement adopted by Hitler as commander-in-chief of both OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres (High Command of the Army)) and OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces)).  Great minds do think alike.  Confusingly, having already morphed from The Brilliant Comrade to The Great Successor to The Supreme Leader, references also appeared calling him The Dear Respected Leader but thankfully the proliferation seems now to have stopped and for more than a decades it's been "The Supreme Leader" all the way.  In office, he has pursued 병진 (byungjin (literally "parallel development")), a refinement of The Great Leader’s policy simultaneously to develop both the economy and the military, his particular emphasis in the latter a focus on nuclear weapons and inter-continental delivery systems.  It may be an attempt to avoid the problems inherent in the “Waffen und Butter” (guns and butter) programme pursued seriously by the Nazi regime (1933-1945) only by as late as 1938, the latter element loosing resource allocation after 1943 as fortunes turned in World War II (1939-1945).

Kim Jong-Un, looking through binoculars across the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone), observing the “provocative maneuvers” of the South Korean Army.

While Kim III is no longer referred to as The Great Successor, there have been great successes.  Despite Western propaganda, there are elections in the DPRK and when The Supreme Leader sought a seat in the Supreme People's Assembly, there was a record turnout of voters and he received 100% of the votes cast.  Although it’s hard to determine the veracity of many of the reports, it’s suggested also he’s an innovator in matters of military discipline, new methods used by firing squads said to include flame throwers, and anti-aircraft cannons, both said to make quite a mess although it's difficult to know how high is the body count, some reported executed later turning up alive and well.  Worth a mention though is the assassination in 2017 of his exiled half-brother Kim Jong-Nam (1971-2017), killed with the nerve agent VX while walking through Kuala Lumpur International Airport, a novel twist on the extra-judicial execution being the use of two aspiring starlets to deliver the toxin; they believed they were being filmed as part of a reality TV show (as assassinations go, genuinely that was innovative and yet another first for the Kims). Most celebrated has been the nuclear programme and the increasingly bigger and longer-range missiles paraded from time to time.  Underground nuclear tests being hard to monitor, it remains unclear whether some of the devices tested are the long de rigueur plutonium weapons or, for the first time since the one-off A-Bomb used in Hiroshima in 1945, made using uranium.  Most impressively, the KCNA reported an almost complete success in the DPRK for some time avoiding outbreaks of COVID-19 with no cases reported in the republic so, on any basis of calculation, The Supreme Leader supervised the most successful COVID-19 strategy on Earth.  Unfortunately, because of neglect by lazy and incompetent officials (who were executed with the next two generations of their families consigned to labor camps) an outbreak did happen and the DPRK's borders remain almost wholly closed, only small number of carefully vetted tourists from Russia and the PRC (People's Republic of China) permitted entry for carefully supervised visits.   

The Supreme Leader has also at times drawn the interest of the pro ana community because of his weight loss has at times been striking and achieved before the general availability of GLP-1s (glucagon-like peptide-1).  Whether his motivation was (1) concerns about his health, being a bit chubby, (2) a wish to look more sexy and attractive to younger women or (3) display solidarity with his subjects, many of whom were suffering food shortages, his weight-loss regimes have on occasions been an obvious success, experts estimating (on the basis of photographic evidence), as much as 25-30 kg (65-80 lb) may have be shed.  That was commendable but did elsewhere create a problem for the small number of people in the entertainment business working as as Kim Jong-il impersonators, some of whom sought guidance from the pro ana community.  For security reasons, the regime employs "Supreme Leader body doubles" (doppelgangers) and it's not known if, during his "slim phases" they're starved until the meet the required dimensions or simply shot and replaced with thinner models.  Conspiracy theorists in the West did speculate the "slimmed down version" may really be a body-double who was paraded for the cameras just to assure hungry citizens the Supreme Leader was sharing (at least to some extent) their deprivations.  The KCNA does have "a bit of previous" in being "economical with the truth" so who knows?  However, regardless of his weight, The Supreme Leader seems in such rude good health that, still barely 40, he may well rule the DPRK even longer than his grandfather’s 45 years.  Ever since the demise of the USSR in 1991, analysts have been predicting the imminent demise of the communist regimes in both Pyongyang and Havana but they seem to muddle through, the DPRK of late enjoying new sources of foreign exchange, branching out from industrial-scale drug production and the smuggling of oil and minerals to the new field of cybercrime; even in the niche market of fake news they're said to run a small operation.

Doppelgangish.

US actor Elizabeth Gillies (b 1993) appeared as Fallon Carrington in the television drama Dynasty (2017–2022), a revival of the 1980s soap opera; it was shown in the US on the CW Television Network (episodes streamed internationally on Netflix the next day).  She appeared (far left) in Ariana Grande's (b 1993) music video Thank U, Next (2019), taking the part of Lindsay Lohan in the segment which was a homage to Mean Girls (2004).  While not technically a doppelganger, the degree of resemblance was sufficient for the theme to work.  The concept of Ms Grande's Thank U, Next could be applied to the DPRK's succession model ("just one Kim after another" as it were).

An artist’s depiction of how a statute in bronze of Daniel Andrews might be cast.

News the ALP (“Australian Labor Party” although more cynical souls prefer “Agitprop, Lies & Propaganda”) government in the Australian state of Victoria was allocating some Aus$134,000 (US$95,000) to erect a bronze statue of Daniel Andrews (b 1972; Premier of Victoria 2014-2023) was greeted by most taxpayers with a resigned indifference although at least some presumably would have preferred attention be devoted to violent crime, crumbling transport infrastructure and the troubled health system.  However, from the usual suspects in the commentariat came the predictable critique that given Victoria’s debt level and other acknowledged "issues", this might not be the most propitious moment to announce so much (borrowed) money was being spent for the aggrandizement of the politician under whom so much debt was accumulated and billions apparently squandered.  Unimpressed by such carping, Premier Jacinta Allan (b 1973; Premier of Victoria since 2023) defended the move, calling Mr Andrews “a fantastic premier” and didn't bother to deny suggestions her government was so resigned to losing the next election the focus had shifted to looting the exchequer for funds to build monuments to themselves.  Nor did she refer to analysis concluding the last ALP administration (under John Cain (1931–2019; Premier of Victoria 1982-1990) & Joan Kirner (1938–2015; Premier of Victoria 1990-1992)) had left the state in an even worse financial position so maybe she really has stopped trying.  Politically, though, she must find the similarities striking: a woman handed the job because the situation is hopeless and all that remains is for her to go down with the sinking ship, most of the men having already taken to the (taxpayer-funded) lifeboats.  In feminist theory, the phenomenon is known as the "glass cliff", exemplified by the recent investiture of a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury; were it possible for the job still to be done, the Anglicans would have appointed the 106^th man rather than the first woman.  

A visiting tour group of Australians from Victoria bow before the three statues.  As the bronze of comrade Dan's statue weathers, it will appear in the same, darker hue as his illustrious companions.

However, the announcement from Melbourne was described as “long overdue” by Kim Jong-Un who in 2023 presided over the unveiling of a statue of Mr Andrews, erected on a plinth beside those of Kim Il-Sung & Kim Jong-Il.  The three statues, cast in bronze and 22 metres (72 feet) high, stand as the centre-piece of 만수대대기념비 (Mansudae Grand Monument), a complex in central Pyongyang at which have been erected over 200 other (appropriately smaller) statues of figures from the DPRK’s heroic past.  At the unveiling ceremony, 10,000 invited citizens were able to enjoy listening to an untypically brief oration by the Supreme Leader before two hours of extracts from speeches by Mr Andrews (in the original English, followed by a Korean translation) were broadcast over loudspeakers.  Topics covered by Mr Andrews included “modern techniques in debt management”, “fiscal discipline” and “locking citizens in tower blocks for their own good”.  At several points, the broadcast was for some minutes paused so citizens could applaud.  Unfortunately, the outdoor ceremony was conducted on what proved to be Pyongyang’s coldest day in 44 years and several dozen in the audience died after succumbing to hypothermia while there were at least hundreds of cases of frostbite but the KCNA reported interviewed survivors saying that was a small price to pay to be able to hear in his own voice the thoughts of the one they called “The Great Leader of Victoria”.  Closing the ceremony from his double-glazed, centrally-heated, booth, the Supreme Leader concluded things with words that were at once inspiring and modest: “For a thousand generations, the people the eternal nation of the DPRK will honor the memory of comrade Daniel Andrews and his untiring assaults on decadent bourgeois values such as freedom of assembly, privacy and free speech.  Comrade Dan was the great dictator that I aspire to become and deserves to stand on the plinth next to our Great Leader and Dear Leader.  If I can do to the DPRK what comrade Dan did to Victoria, perhaps one day a statue of me will be placed on the plinth.”