It can come as no surprise that the Act party has received large donations from a range of rich-listers; they no doubt see their generosity as a worthwhile investment in protecting their riches.

But, can you imagine the humiliation of being revealed (as some have been) as being able to afford only $50 million, whereas others have donated $100 million – are the skinflints really entitled to join the ranks of rich-listers if they are such curmudgeons?

Whose assessment of Putin was more accurate? Joe Biden said “Putin is a killer.” Donald Trump described him as “a genius” and “very savvy”.

In a somewhat pretentiously titled “State of the Nation” speech, Christopher Luxon yesterday offered a few thoughts (if one is being generous) to a small gathering of National party faithful. Even Claire Trevett in the Herald reported that the speech had failed to make any waves.

The speech, no doubt written for him by an underling, was nevertheless noteworthy for a number of reasons. It underlined his lack of any new or ground-breaking ideas, and also his serious limitations as a political leader.

The first limitation was his mode of delivery. The speech was delivered in a weak and conversational tone. His voice lacked any authority, conviction or inspiration. Anything less like a speech from a potential leader of the country and designed to enthuse and inspire cannot be imagined.

The content was similarly devoid of any “wow” factor. What we (or they – his supporters) got was a pallid re-hash of traditional National policy – and that means only one thing. Any National leader short of something meaningful to say will reach for the file titled “Tax Cuts”; but, as is always the case, uttering the phrase is the easy bit – there was then no hint of what would need to be cut, by way of public services, in order to finance the proposed gift to the assembled fat cats.

Such is the parlous state (not to say, absence) of National party policy, however, that Luxon was no doubt satisfied with the restrained ripple of applause he received as he wrapped up his tour de non-force. We can’t say we haven’t been warned – if that was his vision of the state of the nation, let’s get another vision and a different visionary.

With the “protest” at Parliament now over, we have the chance to take stock and to understand what has happened.

Following the scenes we witnessed yesterday, any claim that the protest was “peaceful and non-violent” can be dismissed. There will be some, however, who will maintain that the original protest was peaceful and that the early protesters were, as time went on, infiltrated by various and familiar elements of the international “far right” – the white supremacists, the conspiracy theorists, those hostile to government – any government, and government in general – Trump supporters, emulators of the 6 January attack on the Capitol – for all of whom the use of violence comes quite naturally. It was those elements, it is claimed, that transformed a protest by decent and responsible people into an attempted insurrection.

The evidence, however, does not support this analysis. The initial scale and impetus of the protest at Parliament could have been achieved only by determined people with a clear and agreed strategy and goal. The early protesters were spoiling for a fight. It was those extremists and revolutionaries who used the violent language, and issued the threats of execution, that set the scene and created the atmosphere of impending violent confrontation.

The “decent” and “peaceful” protesters were, on the whole, the later arrivals, attracted by the thrill of excitement and “a good day out” and the sense that, at last, they counted for something. Many of them were not so much “libertarians”, as merely opposed, on a range of different grounds, to the government – and this government in particular. Indeed, I suspect that for many the motivation was nothing more than to make life difficult for Jacinda and to swing public opinion against her. Wanting to change the government, and being unwilling to take the chance of waiting for and winning an election, may have been motivation enough for some.

What we saw yesterday was clear evidence of these two quite separate groups and motivations. The political opportunists bailed out quite early in the face of the police assault. Those who stayed to the bitter end and toughed it out were the “far right” warriors. They were dancing to a different tune, a tune orchestrated (and probably funded) from far away.

Reports that protesters intend to block Auckland harbour bridge as part of a “national campaign” suggest that – unbelievable as it may seem – this country is now on the brink of civil war. Violent and lawless forces are apparently intent on using force to remove the country’s elected government.

We now need to understand who these people are, what motivates them and who is financing them.

What is clear is that they represent and include a number of disparate groups – white supremacists, anti-semites, anti-islamists, conspiracy theorists, “libertarians”, Uncle Tom Cobley and all – all elements in what is now emerging as a world-wide resurgence of far-right, not to say fascist, movements.

In New Zealand, the unifying factor seems to be a hostility to our Prime Minister. It is becoming increasingly clear that the real focus of their anger is Jacinda Ardern, and equally apparent that the reason for this is that she is seen as the standard-bearer and central figure in the advancement of a socially aware approach to public policy that is true to this country’s history of democracy and social responsibility but which is the antithesis of the distorted goals of the far right. She is seen as the main obstacle to the triumph of those extreme views. There is no victory for anti-democratic forces until she is brought down.

Jacinda Ardern has had to confront a range of immediate and dramatic challenges beyond the experience of any of her predecessors. Instead of being recognised for the sterling job she has done, and despite the fact that her record has meant that she is seen, both at home and overseas, as the exemplar of what good government can achieve, she is seen by the far right as public enemy number one.

What is becoming further apparent is that the hostile reaction to her has come not only from fascistic opinion at home but also from similarly extreme opinion overseas. It is no exaggeration to say that our Prime Minister’s glowing reputation in other democracies is seen as a major obstacle to the advancement of right-wing causes across the globe. Would-be fascists cannot tolerate the notion that a government of the moderate left, wherever it may be, could merit support and commendation.

The parallel between our situation and that in Canada is too obvious to be missed. The Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, may not be in Jacinda’s class as an emblem of socially responsible government, but he is a prominent enough standard-bearer of the left to have attracted a similar degree of violent protest to what we have seen here.

These parallels suggest an obvious question. Is it purely coincidence that similar forces have emerged in both Canada and New Zealand to confront similarly moderate governments in the two countries? If not, what is the factor that unifies them?

That in turn raises a further question. How have these geographically disparate movements been funded (and funded they have surely been) and what has been the role of a handful of known right-wing and wealthy figures with ties to Donald Trump and a close interest in promoting extreme and anti-democratic causes?

It is virtually certain that the truth about these issues will eventually emerge. We cannot afford to wait until it does. Until it does, we had best be on our guard. The “protest” is almost certainly not just a domestic issue but is part of a world-wide resurgence of far-right opinion; whether or not the majority of protesters know it, it is more sinister than we may realise.