On April 16, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, issued with authoritarian glee legal notices to X Corp and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to remove material within 24 hours depicting what her office declared to be “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact and detail.” The relevant material featured a live streamed video of a stabbing attack by a 16-year-old youth at Sydney’s Assyrian Orthodox Christ the Good Shepherd Church the previous day. Two churchmen, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and Rev. Isaac Royel, were injured.

Those at X, and its executive, Elon Musk, begged to differ, choosing to restrict general access to the graphic details of the video in Australia alone. Those outside Australia, and those with a virtual private network (VPN), would be able to access the video unimpeded. Ruffled and irritated by this, Grant rushed to the Australian Federal Court to secure an interim injunction requiring X to hide the posts from global users with a hygiene notice of warning pending final determination of the issue. While his feet and mind are rarely grounded, Musk was far from insensible in calling Grant a “censorship commissar” in “demanding global content bans.” In court, the company will argue that Grant’s office has no authority to dictate what the online platform posts for global users.

This war of grinding, nannying censorship – which is what it is – was the prelude for other agents of information control and paranoia to join the fray. The Labor Albanese government, for instance, with support from the conservative opposition, have rounded on Musk, blurring issues of expression with matters of personality. “This is an egotist,” fumed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, “someone who’s totally out of touch with the values that Australian families have, and this is causing great distress.”

The values game, always suspicious and meretricious, is also being played by law enforcement authorities. It is precisely their newfound presence in this debate that should get members of the general public worried. You are to be lectured to, deemed immature and incapable of exercising your rights or abide by your obligations as citizens of Australian society.  

We have the spluttering worries of Australian Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw in claiming that children (always handy to throw them in) and vulnerable groups (again, a convenient reference) are “being bewitched online by a cauldron of extremist poison on the open and dark web.” These muddled words in his address to the National Press Club in Canberra are shots across the bow. “The very nature of social media allows that extremist poison to spray across the globe almost instantaneously.”  

Importantly, Kershaw’s April 24 address has all the worrying signs of a heavy assault, not just on the content to be consumed on the internet, but on the way communications are shared. And what better way to do so by using children as a policy crutch? “We used to warn our children about stranger danger, but now we need to teach our kids about the digital-world deceivers.” A matronly, slightly unhinged tone is unmistakable. “We need to constantly reinforce that people are not always who they claim to be online; and that also applies to images and information.” True, but the same goes for government officials and front-line politicians who make mendacity their stock and trade.

Another sign of gathering storm clouds against the free sharing of information on technology platforms is the appearance of Australia’s domestic espionage agency, ASIO. Alongside Kershaw at the National Press Club, the agency’s chief, Mike Burgess, is also full of grave words about the dangerous imperium of encrypted chatter. There are a number of Australians, warns Burgess, who are using chat platforms “to communicate with offshore extremists, sharing vile propaganda, posting tips about homemade weapons and discussing how to provoke a race war.”

The inevitable lament about obstacles and restrictions – the sorts of things to guard the general citizenry against encroachments of the police state – follows. “ASIO’s ability to investigate is seriously compromised. Obviously, we and our partners will do everything we can to prevent terrorism and sabotage, so we are expending significant resources to monitor the Australians involved.” You may count yourselves amongst them, dear reader.

Kershaw is likewise not a fan of the encrypted platform. In the timeless language of paternal policing, anything that enables messages to be communicated in a public sense must first receive the state’s approval. “We recognise the role that technologies like end-to-end encryption play in protecting personal data, privacy and cyber-security, but there is no absolute right to privacy.”  

To make that very point, Burgess declares that “having lawful and targeted access to extremist communications” would make matters so much easier for the intelligence and security community. Naturally, it will be up to the government to designate what it deems to be extremist and appropriate, a task it is often ill-suited for. Once the encryption key is broken, all communications will be fair game.

When it comes to governments, authoritarian regimes do not have a monopoly on suspicion and the fixation on keeping populations in check. In an idyll of ignorance, peace can reign among the docile, the unquestioning, the cerebrally inactive. The Australian approach to censorship and control, stemming from its origins as a tortured penal outpost of the British Empire, is drearily lengthy. Its attitude to the Internet has been one of suspicion, concern, and complexes.

Government ministers in the antipodes see a world, not of mature participants searching for information, but inspired terrorists, active paedophiles and noisy extremists carousing in shadows and catching the unsuspecting. Such officialdom is represented by such figures as former Labor Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who thankfully failed to introduce a mandatory internet filter when in office, or such nasty products of regulatory intrusion as the Commonwealth Online Safety Act of 2021, zealously overseen by Commissar Grant and the subject of Musk’s ire.

The age of the internet and the world wide web is something to admire and loathe. Surveillance capitalism is very much of the loathsome, sinister variety. But ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, and the Australian government and other agencies do not give a fig about that. The tech giants have actually corroded privacy in commodifying data but many still retain stubborn residual reminders of liberty in the form of encrypted communications and platforms for discussion. To have access to these means of public endeavour remains the holy grail of law enforcement officers, government bureaucrats and fearful politicians the world over.

The attitudes down under towards social media have turned barmy. While there is much to take Elon Musk to task for his wrecking ball antics at the platform formerly known as Twitter, not to mention his highly developed sense of sociopathy, the hysteria regarding the refusal to remove images of a man in holy orders being attacked by his assailant in Sydney suggests a lengthy couch session is in order. But more than that, it suggests that the censoring types are trying, more than ever, to tell users what to see and under what conditions for fear that we will all reach for a weapon and go on the rampage.

It all stems from the April 15 incident that took place at an Assyrian Orthodox service conducted by Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and the Rev. Isaac Royel at Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Wakeley, Sydney. A 16-year-old youth, captured on the livestream of the surface, is shown heading to the bishop before feverishly stabbing him, speaking Arabic about insults to the Prophet Muhammed as he does so. Rev. Royel also received injuries. 

Up to 600 people subsequently gathered around the church. A number demanded that police surrender the boy. In the hours of rioting that followed, 51 police officers were injured. Various Sydney mosques received death threats.

The matter – dramatic, violent, raging – rattled the authorities. For the sake of appearance, the heavies, including counter-terrorism personnel, New South Wales police and members of the Australian domestic spy agency, ASIO, were brought in. The pudding was ready for a severe overegging. On April 16, the NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb deemed the stabbing a “terrorist incident”. NSW Premier Chris Minns stated that the incident was being investigated as a “terrorist incident” given the “religiously motivated” language used during the alleged attack. 

After conducting interviews with the boy while still in his hospital bed on April 18, the decision was made to charge him with the commission of an alleged act of terrorism. This, despite a behavioural history consistent with, as The Guardian reports, “mental illness or intellectual disability.” For their part, the boy’s family noted “anger management and behavioural issues” along with his “short fuse”, none of which lent themselves to a conclusion that he had been radicalised. He did, however, have a past with knife crime. 

Assuming the general public to be a hive of incipient terrorism easily stimulated by images of violence, networks and media outlets across the country chose to crop the video stream. The youth is merely shown approaching the bishop, at which point he raises his hand and is editorially frozen in suspended time. 

Taking this approach implied a certain mystification that arises from tampering and redacting material in the name of decency and inoffensiveness; to refuse to reveal such details and edit others, the authorities and information guardians were making their moralistic mark. They were also, ironically enough, lending themselves to accusations of the very problems they seek to combat: misinformation and its more sinister sibling, disinformation.

Another telling point was the broader omission in most press reporting to detail the general background of the bishop in question. Emmanuel is an almost comically conservative churchman, a figure excommunicated for his theological differences with orthodoxy. He has also adopted fire and brimstone views against homosexuality, seeing it as a “crime in the eyes of God”, attacked other religions of the book, including Judaism and Islam, and sees global conspiracies behind the transmission of COVID-19. Hardly, it would seem, the paragon of mild tolerance and calm acceptance in a cosmopolitan society.

On April 16, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, got busy, announcing that X Corp and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, had been issued with legal notices to remove material within 24 hours depicting “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact and detail.” The material in question featured the attack at the Good Shepherd Church. 

Under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), the commissioner is granted various powers to make sure the sheep do not stray. Internet service providers can be requested or required to block access to material that promotes abhorrent violent conduct, incites such conduct, instructs in abhorrent violent conduct or depicts abhorrent violent conduct. Removal of material promoting, instructing, or depicting such “abhorrent violent conduct”, including “terrorist acts” can be ordered for removal if it risks going “viral” and causing “significant harm to the Australian community.”

X took a different route, preferring to “geoblock” the content. Those in Australia, in other words, would not be able to access the content except via such alternative means as a virtual private network (VPN). The measure was regarded as insufficient by the commissioner. In response, a shirty Musk dubbed Grant Australia’s “censorship commissar” who was “demanding global content bans”. On April 21, a spokesperson for X stated that the commissioner lacked “the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally. We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court.”

In court, the commissioner argued that X’s interim measure not to delete the material but “geoblock” it failed to comply with the Online Safety Act. Siding with her at first instance, the court’s interim injunction requires X to hide the posts in question from all users globally. A warning notice is to cover them. The two-day injunction gives X the opportunity to respond.

There is something risible in all of this. From the side of the authorities, Grant berates and intrudes, treating the common citizenry as malleable, immature and easily led. Spare them the graphic images – she and members of her office decide what is “abhorrent” and “offensive” to general sensibilities.

Platforms such as Meta and X engage in their own forms of censorship and information curation, their agenda algorithmically driven towards noise, shock and indignation. All the time, they continue to indulge in surveillance capitalism, a corporate phenomenon the Australian government shows little interest in battling. On both sides of this coin, from the bratty, petulant Musk, to the teacherly manners of the eSafety Commissioner, the great public is being mocked and infantilised.

By Denis Bright  

Australia is quite vulnerable to political instability associated with future downturns in global trade and investment. Despite the current affordability crisis, market volatility is currently quite low in Australia largely because of our ties with dynamic Asian economies. Still, periods of market correction every 10-15 years challenge the policy skills of each generation of policy movers.

Even in times of low official unemployment levels, the latest polling from the Freshwater Group (AFR 15 April 2024) shows that Labor’s primary vote has dropped to 31 per cent after just two years in government.

This is a crucial loss of 1.8 per cent in Labor’s support base or 2 per cent after preferences. Only Peter Dutton’s flat preferred prime ministerial ratings are keeping Labor two-party preferred vote at 50 per cent within the usual margin of error in all responsible polling.

The key issues identified in the Freshwater Polling are cost-of-living (74 per cent), followed by affordable housing (41 per cent), health and social security (27 per cent) as well as economic management (26 per cent). Environmental management comes next on (19 per cent).

Voters are still playing a wait and see game with key voter priorities as shown by the large numbers of unresolved issues in these threads of public opinion.

Conservative lobbying groups have emerged to wedge public opinion in these indecisive times when interest in mainstream politics is not a popular past time. Voters have more narcissistic interests even in financially stressful times and tune-off against too much negative political rhetoric.

Mainstream political parties must stay ahead of these subversive framing and agenda setting games by offering policy solutions to the problems raised by minority groups to erode the remnants of Australia’s two-party system. The most important response is to promote policy solutions on those emotionally charged issues such as shortage of affordable housing, price increases for essential items, increased immigration and crime.

Introducing the Advance Conservative Lobbying Group

Advance uses its financial resources to assist in destroying the appeal of progressive spectrum of Australian politics.

The Guardian has covered the links between Advance and the Whitestone Strategic Group (Ariel Bagle and Sarah Basford Canales 1 March 2024). As a political player which espouses self-proclaimed mainstream values, Advance should be more open to public scrutiny relating to its sources of finance, local steering committees and national leadership coordinators.

A similar interpretation could be made of mainstream political parties in receipt of substantial amounts of public funding in proportion to the votes obtained at previous state or federal elections. Too much subterranean factional intrigue as well as excessive use of lobbyists and consultancy firms to keep political elites informed of community needs erode the primary votes of mainstream parties to add more fracturing to Australian politics.

Labor too needs to improve its current primary vote which was 32.6 per cent at the last successful national election to become less dependent on preference allocations from the Greens and progressive independents. Labor’s national primary vote in 2022 was 6 per cent lower than in 1996 when the LNP won by a landslide. It was 0.8 per cent below the landslide against Kevin Rudd in 2013.

Lobbying expenditure by Advance in 2022-23 was than campaign expenditure from GetUp!. This expenditure amounted to $7.8 million. These donations average eighteen dollars to raise $5.8 million from 19,288 donors in the last year to April 2024 (GetUp! web site). This campaign expenditure from GetUp! is crucial to the maintenance of a thriving democracy.

The AEC currently has limited control over less transparent third-party networks. These networks are required to submit returns of campaign expenditures but sanctions against offering misinformation to voters are less clear-cut. The AEC’s own media network did report action on complaints by two independent candidates at the 2022 Australian elections over signage authorized by Advance on trucks near pre-polling booths.

Yet another grey area relates to the harvesting of Postal Vote applications with individually addressed mail-outs to constituents particularly from the LNP.

Harvesting Of Postal Votes

Long before the arrival of Advance as a conservative lobbying group in 2018, dodgy strategies were used by the LNP at all levels of government to harvest postal votes in Queensland using Postal Vote Application Centres (PVAs). These are post office box addresses operated by the LNP to assist constituents to make use of the postal vote system. At the recent Brisbane City Council Elections, the PVA Centre was located at Post Office Box 938 in Spring Hill. Similar post-office box addresses paraded out at state and federal elections without sanctions from the AEC or state electoral commissions.

Having the various electoral commissions supplying the relevant form by mail-out to registered users of postal votes in the past is the best option to avoid coercive controls by well financed postal vote harvesting strategies.

Professor Emeritus John Wanna at Griffith University has criticized the use of PVA centres as a front for the LNP in the harvesting of postal votes (Enlighten Newsletter at Griffith University):  

“This practice is not illegal under current legislation, but is it open and transparent? Does it observe the necessary proprieties of impartial electoral administration? Do electors know that their personal information is going to political parties before the form goes to the AEC?

This interference with the postal vote application process is nudging us down the Americanisation of electoral administration. The various systems of electoral administration used across the USA are fundamentally not impartial and operated by party political officials often for partisan advantage.

Voters should be worried about the transfer of their personal information to party headquarters without their consent. The new practice of re-routing the postal vote application process in Australia reflects an objectionable drift towards the Americanisation of our electoral process. It will tend to lessen the confidence Australians have in the impartiality of the electoral system, which is all important to our trust in democracy.”

The return of political autocracy has no place in potentially enlightened times through the spread of misinformation and dodgy harvesting of postal votes through PVA centres which are merely a front for a more right-wing LNP.

Gilbert & Sullivan lampooned the excesses of political intrigue in the HMS Pinafore musical long before the arrival of a more deceptive AI era in contemporary political manipulation. Queen Victoria’s empire was still in its ascendency. Neoliberalism offers new empires of power and influence with promotional avenues for aspiring leaders who still enjoy polishing the handles of big front doors to rewarding leadership paths with options of corporate board positions or new opportunities with lobbying and consultancy networks after retirement from politics.

The ALP has long been characterised by internal ideological divisions between self-identifying social democrats and self-identifying socialists. This division has always problematic because there are competing definitions of social democracy and socialism. Sweden has been described both as socialist and social democratic. Democratic socialists always contested the notion that the former Eastern Bloc represented ‘real socialism’. Other socialists continued to find inspiration in one or another form of Leninism. Some self-identifying social democrats simply see their politics as ‘progressive but moderate’. In a relative sense we think here of a ‘traditional social democracy’. Other social democrats identify as ‘revolutionary social democrats’: basically a continuation in the tradition of early Marxism (before Leninism, and typified to a degree by the example of Austrian social democrats in the 1917-1934 period). This paradigm of socialism (the Austrian example specifically) is notable for adherence to revolutionary aims, even if pitched as ‘revolutionary reforms’ or ‘slow revolution’. It is not opposed to socialism (or democracy) as such – but rather is a reclamation of an old politics where ‘socialism’ and ‘social democracy’ were not opposed to each other.

The question I intend to explore here is ‘what is a reasonable minimum program for the ALP, which brings together the Party’s diverse ideological elements?’. What elements of a Party program should all members of the ALP share adherence to? This is no easy question to answer: as there must be a degree of ‘give and take’, but without compromising on certain basic issues. There’s also the question of what the modern ALP Left should stand for: and whether or not it is also ‘losing its way’.

The ALP used to adhere – in theory – to its own ‘Socialist Objective’. This was always complicated by the so-called ‘Blackburn Amendment’ which committed itself to socialisation to the extent of eliminating “exploitation and other anti-social features”. It was long considered by some as a ‘dead letter’; at odds with the practice of actual Labor policy and containing a contradiction: at least as far as Marxism is concerned. For Marxism exploitation is structurally inbuilt in capitalism (expropriation of surplus value) and socialisation must be absolute to eliminate it entirely.

Arguably the Objective was also at odds with political practice on the ALP Left; despite the Left fighting tooth and nail for many years to preserve it. When arguing for the preservation of the Objective Left leaders such as Kim Carr watered down their arguments to the point where there was a very significant loss of meaning and content – in an attempt to broaden its appeal. Guy Rundle has described Carr’s project as one of ‘national social democracy’ characterised by greater self-reliance in manufacturing. But does this meet appropriate minimum requirements as a ‘stream of socialism’? Meanwhile, Rundle portrays the rest of the party as embracing “distributionism” which aims to broaden economic ownership, including a place for co-operatives, but does not aim to negate capitalism’s core dynamics.

This means more than competition and markets; it means accumulation of capital and hence political power in the hands of a dominant capitalist class – achieved through economic relations of exploitation. Meanwhile avowed ‘Third Way’ politics water down social democracy itself – even in the traditions of ‘mixed economy and welfare state’ – to the point of meaninglessness.

For socialists in the Labor Party the reality is we cannot have it all our way. And there are questions as to what ALP Left politics are really about these days anyway. Cynics might argue that in practice the ALP Left simply stands for “a slightly bigger welfare state and social wage”; and “a slightly more progressive tax system”. Though incremental improvement of welfare, progressive tax and the social wage is desirable if the progress is sustained. The Left itself needs its own statement of beliefs: which involve a more fundamental critique of capitalism. This might include critiques of monopolism, exploitation, alienation created by physically demanding work, and work involving lack of creative fulfilment and control, as well as economic cycles and crises, and the distribution of political and economic power. But these could also include building blocks for the broader Party.

To begin it is worth considering the common ground between different schools of socialism and social democracy in terms of a minimum program. This would be inclusive of a steadily expanding social wage and welfare state – preferably to Nordic proportions (in the sense that was realised at the height of Nordic social democracy). Though Nordic Social Democracy has long been in retreat, and this means we need to take their example with a grain of salt. This means more robust pensions: comprehensive socialised health (including Medicare Dental) and appropriate subsidies for services and amenities fundamental to modern human existence. This includes power, water, socialised or co-operative housing, communications (including internet access), transport, availability of nutritious food, and so on. Ongoing Education is also crucial to modern life; and all people ought to be able to pursue personal fulfilment through education as well as skilling up to meet labour market requirements. 

While the reality is that the modern labour market is characterised by exploitation (workers do not keep the full proceeds of their labour power), we do operate in a global economy where it is necessary to sell labour power in order to participate. Right now there is ‘no way out’ of capitalism, but that does not mean we cannot have a critique which informs strategies which address the anti-social, irrational and unfair features of the system. The Left should have a critique – including of the core workings of capitalist political economy and it needs a code of principles which provides this, but a minimum program for a wide range of socialists and social democrats also needs to account for an alliance of forces including elements who are not committed to negating capitalism, even far into the future.

Something needs to change in discourse more broadly – with an effective counter-hegemony – to achieve anything like a consensus on a Socialist Objective within the ALP. This means we need a mobilised Left fighting to challenge ‘common sense’ ideas both within and outside of the Party. Arguably the Communist Party of Australia used to play this role very effectively, as did other Western Communist Parties – even though they did not usually enjoy significant electoral success. (The Communist Party of Italy – the PCI – is a very important exception; having won very strong electoral success for many decades.)

That said, a minimum program could include a commitment for the foreseeable future to a democratic mixed economy, or a hybrid system. Strategic socialisation should be pursued for reasons of economic efficiency, equity, and sovereignty. In areas characterised by a lack of competition, or by collusion – government business enterprises can be a game changer. Think banking, general insurance, health insurance, postal services. In other areas it is appropriate to have natural public monopolies. Infrastructure in energy, water, communications, transport are other areas where the logic of natural public monopoly ought to apply. Public monopolies in these fields translate into reduced cost structures; with the benefits flowing on to the economy more broadly, including consumers. Governments – including Labor Governments – have systemically undermined the place of natural public monopoly in the economy.

But we need a debate on this within the Party, about a commitment to strategic public ownership and if possible, to natural public monopoly in specific fields such as water, energy, transport and communications infrastructure as well as a restoration of a public sector job network after the example of the old CES.

Still, it is hard enough already getting many self-identifying ‘moderate’ social democrats to even agree to restoring a public sector role in these fields (in competition with private enterprise), let alone restoration of natural public monopolies. Nonetheless the Left should lead a debate on natural public monopoly and strategic (including competitive) government business enterprise. Specifically, a minimum program should refer to a democratic mixed economy, and this should frame an internal debate which the Left tries to lead. Government could also invest in primary industries; and in Australia especially there is great scope to benefit from a public role in minerals exploration and mining. Billions in revenue could be directed towards social programs.

Co-operatives could also play a central role in a democratic mixed economy, and as far as they reach, they attack economic exploitation at its very roots. It’s important to observe, however, that even in Spain where the successful Mondragon Co-operative operates – that co-operative ownership is not very significant in the context of the broader economy. But particularly, in Australia government could underwrite co-operative enterprise to enable it to remain competitive on global and local markets, including by investment in Research and Development and economies of scale. Government could also provide cheap loans to facilitate the establishment of co-operatives, including smaller scale co-operatives – eg: co-op cafes – which not only attack exploitation but which also allow intimate creative control by workers.

Strong policies could secure a significant (as opposed to marginal or minimal) place for co-operatives in the Australian economy. But importantly, co-operative enterprise is not a substitute for the public sector: both play a core role in a democratic mixed economy. Commitment to promoting a greater and greater role for co-operatives in the economy needs to be integrated in a minimum program.

Other areas where an agenda of popular and workers control could be advanced include co-determination and collective capital mobilisation. In Australia superannuation funds have become powerful players in investment. Though they operate in the capitalist context; and tend to adhere therefore to capitalist imperatives (eg: share value maximisation) hence they advance a distributionist agenda, but not much which is more radical. Also, public pension funds would have been more equitable, and the superannuation system threatens the eventual marginalisation and undermining of the public Aged Pension over time.

Meanwhile, co-determination can manifest either as consultation, or in the sense of all parties having to agree on major decisions. In Australia the starting point would be workers’ representatives on company boards. Hence workers could have ‘an insiders’ view’ on the decisions affecting their productive lives. This specific strategy would not be radically transformative in the sense of workers’ control, but it would be a step forward. Again, we need to set the broad framework in a minimum program, and then for the Left to lead a debate within that framework.

There is a broad scope to reform welfare. Labor should also be committed to strengthening the Aged Pension, Disability Pension, Job Seeker’s Allowance, Sole Parents’ Pension, Austudy, and other welfare. The Disability Pension (and National Disability Insurance Scheme supports) should be for life – in the sense of not being withdrawn depending on age. Also, there should be more scope to earn additional income through casual or part-time work (or other means) without losing the Disability Support Pension. And entering into a relationship should not see a substantial portion of welfare payments withdrawn. The NDIS should be strengthened more broadly, also not undermined. University fees should be replaced by progressive tax levies which effectively relate proportionately to the actual financial advantage gained. A Garaunteed Minimum Income relating to the cost of all fundamental needs could consolidate basic universal economic rights.

In a minimum program reference could be made to all pensions; and the imperative of providing them on the basis of need (again perhaps expanded, and then indexed quarterly to inflation or cost of living – whichever is greater). The debate on a Garaunteed Minimum Income can be won, but it may take time to integrate it into a Minimum Program.

Finally, there are issues of human rights, labour market and industrial relations rights, and housing – which also need to be addressed in a Minimum Program. Labor needs to be unequivocal in a Minimum Program in its commitment to freedom of association, assembly and speech, as well as the right to basic needs such as housing, heating, cooling, nutrition, education, health services, access to transport services, and access to communications and information technology. This needs to be amended as new relative rights and needs arise with technological and economic progress. The right to engage in Pattern Bargaining and to withdraw labour in good faith (whether for industrial or political goals) needs to be promoted, and at the lower end of the labour market especially more robust minimum standards and regulation need to be provided for. This should have a substantial effect if implemented in the case of heavily exploited ‘feminised’ industries.

Again, shelter is a human right, and government policy (including provision of public housing) should seek to achieve its universal fulfilment. Government could also help facilitate co-operative housing, and affordable housing – through subsidies and regulations. The Federal Government and the States have long lagged behind here, and support from the Federal Government especially is needed – as they do not endure the same fiscal constraints as do the other tiers. Recently there has been a trend to promote ‘affordable’ housing (as an alternative to public housing) through deals with private developers, but while this strategy can provide better outcomes for some renters, it does not achieve either efficient financing or equity compared with public housing.

Labor needs a minimum program which significantly expands an ongoing policy of building enough high-quality public housing to meet the demand; while looking to the Austrian example to destigmatise public housing and establish it as an option for all Australians, including but not limited to the most disadvantaged. A minimum program needs to aspire to this, and it should not be controversial for genuine social democrats and socialists.

In conclusion Labor also needs an independent foreign policy outlook and a humane policy with regards to rights of asylum seekers. We should lead the way on defusing conflicts between China and the United States and heading off any potential war. And there is no place for Mandatory Detention in any Party of the broad Left. We should also promote ‘deep democracy’, supported through civics education ‘for active, informed and critical citizenship’ and government programs which put active citizenship at the centre of policy. This could include government funding to access public space – including, for instance shopping centres – where political and social movement organisations across most of the spectrum could promote their own ideas of ‘active citizenship’.

In short – and to summarise in conclusion – a Minimum Program should promote a progressively expanding social wage and welfare state, as well as a democratic mixed economy – with stronger public and democratic sectors which aim to improve underlying cost structures to the benefit of the broader economy and consumers – through strategic public ownership. Here, the social wage includes socialised health and education and ensuring universal access to shelter (including public housing), information and communications technology, transport services, and a minimum income where access to energy and water is also universal. And with a steadily more progressively-structured tax system – with an open commitment to just economic redistribution. And we will define the welfare state’s role as comprising social provision of income – especially the vulnerable – with cross-over between welfare state and social wage where it comes to social services.  

Also, the minimum program should include reference to the progressive expansion of economic democracy on several fronts, and the provision of fundamental industrial and broader human rights. This means a regulated labour market and the right to withdraw labour in good faith for industrial or political purposes. As well as the minimisation of the anti-social complications of capitalism: including its crisis-prone nature; its tendency to concentrate wealth and promote monopolism; as well as problems of inbuilt obsolescence – and of collusion and other anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices. Also ‘the market’ does not necessarily ‘organically’ provide for human need – though there is a role for it in providing for the flexible satisfaction of individualised needs structures. The need for choice – and hence competition – means there are limits to socialisation – at least under current conditions. ‘The market’ has a place but so too does social provision which goes beyond ‘market logic’.

This article has sought to explore the issues which should inform a minimum program for the ALP. It should be possible to win broad agreement on most of this article’s broad tenets. In other areas the article has outlined areas where minimum policies could be applied, but where the Left should lead the debate in terms of achieving stronger policies. 

Also importantly, there are limits to purely electoral politics – and there is a need for an organised counter-hegemony. The counter-hegemony should seek a more radical reframing of debate and issues than the minimum program, and it is necessary to build an alternative to the old Western Communist Parties who used to contest ‘political and economic common sense’. But that is beyond the broad scope of this article. 

The point is that it is possible to achieve broad agreement on a minimum program which mobilises the broad Labor Party and frames its policies. The minimum program, here, attempts to frame the ALP as involving currents ranging from traditional social democratic (mixed economy, labour rights and welfare state) on the relative right, to democratic socialism and revolutionary social democracy on the Left (involving a more ambitious agenda of economic democracy and socialisation) And these various currents are considered as being capable of solidarity behind basic programmatic and policy principles and agendas. The most diluted ‘Third Way’ positions – which stand for little in terms of the traditions of social democracy or socialism – need to be seen as liquidationist – and hence are not accepted within the framework of the minimum program.

It is hoped that this article will promote debate and influence the development of the ALP’s Platform running up to the next National Conference. And also, the development of a program behind which both elements of the ALP Left and the ALP Right might be able to coalesce, as well as non-aligned elements. This goes so far is to problematise the very idea of an ‘ALP Right’ which is right-wing on the broader political spectrum. Even the most relative right-wing elements in the ALP should be relatively Left on the broader spectrum. We all need to see ourselves as part of a ‘broad Left’, and in this sense having common cause. Once we agree on this perhaps we can truly ‘move forward together’.

Note: I have been an ALP member for over 30 years.

This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum. 

The global movement towards authoritarianism took a step forward this week, and faced an experiment in checking its infiltration. In America, a frightening move towards crushing protest was made when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Mckesson v Doe case on liability accruing to protest organisers. In Europe, an international gathering of far right politicians was broken up by a brave (or reckless) mayor and the local police.

The Trump appointment-stacked Fifth Circuit had found that protest organiser DeRay Mckesson was liable for injuries sustained by an anonymous policeman at a civil rights protest against a shooting of a Black man, in Baton Rouge in 2016. Mckesson had no interaction with the assailant and had not exhorted violence, so US legal precedent should have protected his First Amendment speech rights. Unfortunately, inflicting “catastrophic financial liability” on protest organisers is a tantalising project for the Trump Right, and the Supreme Court has, for now, refused to tackle the finding.

The impact is feared to mean that even counterprotestors – such as Neo Nazis – would be included in the ambit of people for whose actions protest organisers could be held liable.

The Atlas Network Project 2025 not only aims to reverse climate action if Trump wins in November. Its most likely impact will be to aid Trump (through Project 2025 populating his administration) to attempt to orchestrate the seizing of millions of “illegal” immigrants.(1) Given the history of protests against Trump’s election victory and the “Muslim ban,” this draconian new possibility would incite massive protest.

Trump’s main support base remains the Evangelical movement. The devastation he has enabled on reproductive rights through tactical judicial appointments is his main attraction for them. It is also his primary vulnerability, since elections continue to show that even Republican electorates reject the extremity of the controls being imposed on sexuality. If Trump is able to overcome that argument and win with his prevarications, it is widely expected that contraception will eventually join abortion on the list of options to be banned nationwide through executive action.

This too, like forecast attacks on LGBTQIA+ existence, will provoke massive protests.

The actors around Trump know that crushing protest is crucial to their Christofascist goals if they can return Trump to the White House in January.

Other Republican states will be eagerly reproducing this legislation, as they have copied attacks on reproductive justice and Queer existence: the ability to bankrupt protest organisers is one of the most chilling of weapons in a longterm mission to crush protest. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an Atlas Network partner and has been key to generating legislation to be reproduced across Republican state senates intent on crushing human rights including protest. ALEC has constructed the pathway for oppressive legislation’s rapid spread.

The intentions of the figures gathered around Trump are clear: they intend to use government tools to enforce “traditionalist goals.” Traditionalism involves strict restriction of sexuality to genital-dictated roles, only expressed within the sacred bounds of heterosexual marriage. Those sex roles are also strictly dictated: passive and submissive femininity with unchecked fertility. Women and children must be subject to dominant masculinity. It is associated with ethnostate goals, aiming to (re)create a mythical unitary culture of the past. This is fascist politics. Alongside the enforcement of such identities by the state must go the unleashing of the industries that have subsidised the movement: in particular fossil fuel. Trump’s first two missions, he stated, are to deport migrants and to “drill baby drill.”

This is a global movement. The ethnostate in question can be Hindu or Jewish, for example.

A Belgian mayor this week took action to prevent the propagation of the global right’s fascistic messaging. This should provoke debate about whether the tolerance inherent in liberalism was meant to encompass tolerance of its own destruction. It has, however, inflated the martyrdom and grievance inherent to the global Right.

The conference in contention was a National Conservatism (NatCon) event. In the anglosphere, the Right-Wing movement that embraces Trump and traditionalism has been working to find a marketable label for its ideology. NatCon, in the US and Europe, is the feigned intellectual version. NatCon spruiks concern for (White) workers and is otherwise at war with everything that can be defined as “woke”: working women, reproductive rights, LGBTQIA+ existence, multiculturalism and, crucially, climate action. Nationalism and God must be forced into every aspect of the state. Its “grassroots” version in the UK has been marketed as Popular Conservatism or PopCon (probably echoing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in America and Australia) and is intricately intertwined, like NatCon, with the fossil fuel-funded Atlas Network. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship is another interconnected product.

The NatCon event, running since 2019, has strong ties with the European and Israeli Far Right, visible in the conference’s list of co-sponsoring institutions. The label is credited to Yoram Hazony, who plans to reclaim the “virtue” of nationalism from the fascist past. The Edmund Burke Foundation (EBF) of which he is chairman was the network that declared the “founding principles” of the NatCon movement. (News Corp’s Miranda Devine was one of the signatories.)

Hazony also runs The Herzl Institute which is embedded in the Greater Israel project of extremist Jewish Nationalism. Two of NatCons’ other sponsors – the Danube Institute and the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) – are core components of Viktor Orban’s propaganda network, frequented by Australian Liberal Party grandees. It is also supported by a news outlet described as “fascist filth”, funded by Orban: The European Conservative. Another body, Nazione Futura is closely linked to the fascism associated with Giorgia Meloni’s party. All these organisations have connections to the Atlas Network. Orban’s bodies are directly linked to the Atlas creator of the Trumpian Project 2025.

The committee includes Hazony who has declared that Meir Kahane is his hero. While distancing himself from the terrorism Kahane advocated, Hazony embraces his ethnostate message. Alongside other representatives from the sponsoring bodies is Associate Professor James Orr who is a Cambridge professor of religion and advisory board member to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (alongside several former Australian prime ministers and politicians).

Nationhood for NatCons is a religious identity. Patriarchal and hierarchical, it demands a unified identity for a state based on a shared culture, language and religion. “Others” within this nation-state must be, at best, suffered not included. The nuclear family is its basic unit and the rhetoric of speakers demands this morality’s enforcement although they tend not to detail how such constrained sexuality and lifestyle are to be enforced.

A deep loathing for immigrants is another central theme, depicting them as failing to share “our values”, code for Muslim. This is predictable for an ideology within the Islamophobic traditionalist spectrum. The free movement of people within the EU (as well as its propensity for regulating errant businesses) make its destruction a core goal for such a coalition.

The Orban’s MCC has a eurosceptic junktank offshoot, MCC Brussels, whose executive director Frank Furedi was in attendance at the contested conference.

NatCon Brussels was predominantly funded by fossil fuel. Viktor Orban granted sponsoring body the MCC a 10% stake in Hungary’s “oil and gas giant” MOL from which it received $65 million in 2022 alone. The NatCon movement has strong financial motivations to link climate denial with its fascistic identity politics.

The efforts to crush protest if Trump wins in November and the goals of the interrupted conference are part of an interconnected global authoritarian movement. Whether we suppress the authoritarians’ speech before they suppress us is a matter we must confront.

(1) Project 2025’s director has declared: “Project 2025 is not a white paper. We are not tinkering at the edges. We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces. Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power day one and deconstruct the administrative state.” Their idea of “deconstructing” involves sacking about 50,000 civil servants and disbanding departments like education and environment. These are to be replaced with approximately 20,000 ideologically-vetted Christian Nationalists, trained to enact the program. The intent is to override congress and steer as much as possible by executive action from those around the White House.

The Project’s Mandate for Leadership has been produced for every Republican contender since the Reagan era by the Heritage Foundation. Both Reagan and Trump implement 2/3 of the relevant edition in their first years. (Heritage, now a prominent partner in the Atlas Network, was founded within the Council for National Policy. The story of the CNP’s role in creating Christian Nationalism is covered in the documentary to be launched on Apple TV on the 26th April called Bad Faith. While it was created by the founders of the Moral Majority, Heritage was primarily a free market junktank until the appointment of its latest president, Kevin Roberts, a Rad Trad Catholic.)

There is no guarantee Trump will work with this Mandate because it has annoyed his inner circle by being too obvious about its authoritarian goals regarding reproductive rights and might alienate voters. It has also been arrogant about its certain and controlling role, annoying Trump. It is, however, likely that Trump will accept the help from a group of his allies doing all the hard work to ensure his “vengeance” is most effective.

This was first published in Pearls and Irritations as Do we suppress authoritarians’ speech before they suppress us?

In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, “Climate Change: A layperson’s Dilemma” in which I pointed out the debunked theories of people like Andrew Bolt, Prof Ian Plimer, Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Barnaby Joyce, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, and others who insisted that climate change did not exist. 

Science won the day, proving beyond doubt that it indeed did.

Now, Australian conservatives and their media supporters seem to have changed tact. While softening their stance on climate change “almost” to the point of a pretence of acceptance, they are now promoting nuclear energy as the answer to Australia’s energy problems.

On the surface, this is a reasonable proposition except for a) the cost to build, b) the time it would take, and c) where to build the reactors.

Cleverly, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has started a debate that he hopes will become as clear as mud and confuse further those already so in the hope that he opens another option that isn’t one supported by Labor but one that gives him creditability in the debate.

Former Liberal leader John Hewson, writing for the Saturday Paper says, “The climate wars may be over, but the battle continues. Now, the climate deniers have become renewables deniers.”

And may I suggest an argument that appeases those on his backbench, like Senators Rennick and Antic, who still believe that climate change doesn’t exist and that Coal is the answer to our energy problems?

For those who want to think a little deeper, it guarantees old and new power companies an extra twenty years to dig up the dirty stuff, given the 20-25 years it would take to build the power stations.

Within the conservative nuclear argument is a bluff to appease the conspiracy nutter mentalities who gain prominence by being controversially stupid, the coal companies and the sceptics in the general public. Such as Peter Dutton:

“I’m strongly in favour of renewables, but we need to keep the lights on, and we need to keep our prices down.”

How could you possibly trust those first six words?

From the ABC:

“The opposition is pushing for the development of small modular nuclear reactors across Australia and, more recently, for large nuclear reactors to be built on the sites that close coal-fired power stations.”

The ‘GenCost’ report [which is produced annually by the Australian Energy Market Operator] considered the cost of new energy generators – including small modular reactors but not sizeable nuclear power plants – with and without associated ‘integration costs’ such as transmission and storage.

Even when those integration costs were considered, variable renewables’ cost range was still the lowest of all new-build technologies, with small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen peaking plants being the most expensive.”

All Peter Dutton has to do is convince the punters that we cannot live without nuclear power. He can do this with his party’s renowned brand of negativity, lies, and scare campaigns. But remember, they couldn’t even build a few car parks.

What occurs to me now is that I’m faced with the same layperson’s dilemma as I had back in 2015: In the days of Tony Abbott’s “climate change is crap” lie. (Abbott interview with Kerry Obrien).

Upon introspection, I couldn’t help but wonder how could Abbott possess such an astute understanding of climate science to the extent that he could disregard it as nonsense when it was apparent that his knowledge of internet science was so minimal?

This, in turn, prompted me to question my own comprehension. I had to admit that although I followed the debate rigorously and considered myself well-informed, I needed to learn about climate science. Ask me about literature, art, political and religious philosophy, music, and sports, I can handle myself adequately, but science, no. 

If asked about these complex topics, many people would need help explaining the splitting of an atom, carbon dating, space exploration, medical advancements, mobile phone systems, DNA, AI, genetics, or electricity production. The average citizen may need help understanding them.

So, as a layperson, where does this leave me? Whom do I believe? Well, for me, it is a no-brainer. I support science. 

In the last few years, I have undergone several operations. I have had a heart attack (2 stents) and bowel cancer. Of late, it has been eye problems, another heart issue and a prostate issue. When confronted with these matters, I never questioned the specialists. I acknowledged the depth of scientific research that had given my doctors the knowledge to perform any necessary procedure.

So, why should I question the ‘good’ science of nuclear physics? There is no reason why Australia shouldn’t have it. It’s the cost and the time that are against it. Is the government going to foot the bill or private enterprise? Are they just pulling a swiftie in support of Coal?

In short, the nuclear debate began like this.

It’s been over a month since Mr Dutton criticised the CSIRO for their research on nuclear power, calling it Australia’s most expensive new energy source, and claimed that the estimates of the cost of renewables are unreliable. However, the CSIRO’s chief executive, Douglas Hilton, stood by their General Cost report and warned that it’s crucial for our political leaders to trust and support science. Despite this, the opposition leader repeated his incorrect claim that the report doesn’t accurately cost renewables and required transmission to integrate them into the grid.

On the other hand, Ted Obrien, the opposition spokesperson on energy, recently appeared on 7.30 to support nuclear power. Sadly, his argument was ineffective and lacked substance. I thought his main point, deceptively, was that “coal would last longer” if it took twenty or more years to build nuclear power stations. They plan for large reactors in disused coal mines and smaller reactors in locations yet to be named. How long it would take to build them is still an open question. 

It’s essential to consider the long-term effects of our energy choices. By supporting renewable energy sources, we can create sustainable and affordable energy systems, reduce our carbon footprint, and ensure a better future for future generations. 

There are better ways forward than disparaging science and spreading misinformation. Our leaders must prioritize science and make informed decisions to protect our planet and its people. A spine-tingling question, that one.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explained that:

“Nuclear reactors do not ‘firm up’ renewables. Solar and wind are intermittent – depending on sunshine or wind to make electricity. But we have them in great abundance. To firm them we need flexible, dispatchable sources of zero emission energy such as pumped hydro, batteries or green hydrogen. Nuclear reactors cannot turn on and off, ramp up and down like hydro or batteries can. Nuclear reactors generate continuously.”

While Tony Abbott was proclaiming that climate change was crap, and the coal companies donating to the Liberal Party were given a reprieve. It set in place a decade of science denial that made Australia a laughingstock around the world. Now, the same fools are wanting, despite all the evidence that says it is too costly and would take too long, to impose nuclear energy on us.

The problem for lay people like me is that nothing has changed. 

How does a layperson like me reach a view on such matters without formal training? It’s simple: do as I do. There are many areas (medicine, for example) in which, as an individual without an extensive analytical background, I, like many others, rely on experts, common sense, observation, and life experience to form my understanding. While theories, such as the theory of evolution, may be easily comprehended, many assume that theories need to be proven. However, it is crucial to note that theories are not merely conjectures or untested hypotheses. Instead, they are rigorously tested explanations supported by a vast body of evidence. As such, theories provide a framework for understanding complex phenomena and play a critical role in advancing knowledge across various disciplines.

In the scientific world, a theory has evolved to fit known facts.

Conversely, those who deny climate change and the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science deniers with obscure qualifications or, worse, to right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training whatsoever. 

These people cannot evaluate the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions. 

So, for the layperson, the choice is to approve the science or default to the opinions of the Duttons and Bolts of this world. Good luck with that.

The skin toasted Australian Minister of Defence, Richard Marles, who resembles, with each day, the product of an overly worked solarium, was adamant. Not only will Australians be paying a bill up to and above A$368 billion for nuclear powered submarines it does not need; it will also be throwing A$100 billion into the coffers of the military industrial complex over the next decade to combat a needlessly inflated enemy. Forget diplomacy and funding the cause (and course) of peace – it’s all about the weapons and the Yellow Peril, baby.

On April 18, Marles and Defence Industry Pat Conroy barraged the press with announcements that the defence budget would be bulked by A$50.3 billion by 2034, with a A$330 billion plan for weapons and equipment known as the Integrated Investment Program. The measures were intended to satisfy the findings of the Defence Strategic Review. “This is a significant lift compared to the $270 billion allocated for the 10-year period to 2029-30 as part of the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and 2020 Force Structure Plan,” crowed a statement from the Defence Department.  

Such statements are often weighed down by jargon and buoyed by delusion. The press were not left disappointed by the insufferable fluff. Australia will gain “an enhanced lethality surface fleet and conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines”, an army with “littoral manoeuvre” capabilities “with a long-range land and maritime strike capability”, an air force capable of delivering “long-range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance” with “an enhanced maritime, land and air-strike capability” and “a strengthened and integrated space and cyber capability.” The glaring omission here is the proviso that all such policies are being essentially steered by Washington’s defence interests, with Canberra very much the obedient servant.

The defence minister was firmly of the view that all this was taking place with some speed. “We are acting very quickly in relation to [challenges],” Marles insists. “I mean, the acquiring of a general-purpose frigate going forward, for example, will be the most rapid acquisition of a platform that size that we’ve seen in decades.” Anyone who uses the term “rapid” in a sentence on military acquisition is clearly a certified novice.

The ministers, along with the department interests they represent, are certainly fond of their expensive toys. They are seeking a fourth squadron of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters as replacements for the F/A-18 Super Hornets. The EA-18G Growler jets are also being replaced. (That said, both sets of current fighters will see aging service till 2040.) Three vessels will be purchased to advance undersea war capabilities, including the undersea drone prototype, the Ghost Shark.  

The latter hopes to equip the Royal Australian Navy “with a stealthy, long-range autonomous undersea warfare capability that can conduct persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and strike.” Importantly, such acquisitions and developments are always qualified by how well they will work in tandem with the imperial power in question. The media release from the Department of Defence prefers a more weasel-worded formula. The Ghost Shark, for instance, “will also enhance Navy’s ability to operate with allies and partners.”  

The new militarisation strategy is also designed to improve levels of recruitment. Personnel have been putting down their weapons in favour of other forms of employment, while recruitment numbers are falling, much to the consternation of the pro-war lobby. A suggested answer: recruit non-Australian nationals. This far from brilliant notion will, Marles suggests, take some years. But a good place to start would be the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders resident in Australia. Sheer genius.

The announcement was also meant to offer budget trimmers a barely visible olive branch, promising “to divest, delay or re-scope projects that do not meet our strategic circumstances.” (They could start with the submarines.) A$5 billion, for instance, will be saved from terminating naval transport and replenishment ships intended to refuel and resupply war vessels at sea.  

Hardly appropriate, opined some military pundits keen to keep plucking the money tree. Jennifer Parker of the National Security College suggested that, “The removal of the Joint Support ship means there is no future plan to expand Australia’s limited replenishment capability of two ships – which will in turn limit the force projection capability and reach of the expanded surface combatant fleet if the issue is not addressed.”

The focus, as ever, is on Wicked Oriental Authoritarianism which is very much in keeping with the traditional Australian fear of slanty-eyed devils moving in on the spoils and playground of the Anglosphere. Former RAAF officer and executive director of the Air Power Institute, Chris McInnes, barks in aeronautical terms that Australia’s air power capability risks being “put in a holding pattern for the next 10 years.” Despotic China, however, was facing no such prospects. “There is a risk of putting everything on hold. The People’s Liberal Army is not on hold. They are going to keep progressing their aircraft.” (The air force seems to do wonders for one’s grammar.)

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian was cool in his response to the latest promises of indulgent military spending Down Under. “We hope Australia will correctly view China’s development and strategic intentions, abandon the Cold War mentality, do more things to keep the region peaceful and stable and stop buzzing about China.” No harm in hoping.

By James Moore  

The only feature not mentioned was drool.

On his second day in court, charged with multiple felonies, the putative leader of the free world once more fell asleep. The man who has called the current president, “Sleepy Joe Biden,” cannot keep his eyes open in the midst of a trial that may put him behind bars and end any aspirations of retaking the White House. Journalistic observers described his “chin on his chest” and “jerking awake” while appearing “slack jawed” and “slumped forward” during the proceedings in the Manhattan courtroom. There is a chance that he drooled, though, and maybe those trained observers of men and events did not take note, distracted as they were by their mutual giggling. If there were cameras allowed in the courtroom, his desultory time before the bar might be the end of his dreams of political restoration.

The man who falsifies his face each morning with artificial coloring has worked even longer and harder at falsifying his life. Outside the courtroom, where he lectures without taking questions, he whined about the judge refusing to let him attend his son’s high school graduation, an important event for any father. The judge said nothing remotely close to Trump’s claim and refused to rule on the request, telling the defendant’s attorneys that he will decide at the time of the graduation based upon progress the trial has achieved.

Barron was less of a concern for his father, it needs to be pointed out, only four months after he had come into the world. Daddy was off at Lake Tahoe that month in 2006, hot in pursuit of a porn star who he wanted to convince to be nice to his naughty bits. When she acceded to his pleadings after vague promises he would help her get a legitimate break at a TV network, she discovered the already long-established fact that he was a liar, which years later prompted her threat to sell the story of their tryst to a tabloid. A side effect is that the man might not get to attend his son’s graduation, which is not that big of a deal since he did not show up for his other children’s matriculations.

According to the adult actress’ timeline, Barron was a baby and Melania was in her New York City golden castle nursing her infant son while the randy daddy was at a golf soiree in the Sierra Mountains of California. His investments in sexual relationships seem to have been as ill-advised as his real estate projects and casinos. A Playboy Playmate had also hooked up in 2006 with the man who would become democracy’s greatest mistake. Both women were paid in exchange for their silence during the 2016 campaign, but it’s how they were paid that has reduced a former West Wing and Oval Office occupant to a defendant. His lawyer, who will testify against him, set up a shell corporation to hide the the money transfers. A cascade of lies about the transactional sex and how it was disguised have led us to the first criminal trial of an American ex-president.

Photo by Max Letek on Unsplash

The even greater tragedy for the U.S. is that this man has taken control of the Republican Party and it is no longer a viable institution. Worse, the shredded remnants of the party of Lincoln have decided to put the country, and even the wider world, at risk with political intransigence. The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, who has compared himself to Moses and claims to use his Bible to guide his life, is also taking orders from a serial adulterer, pathological liar, fiduciary conman, and a Putin pal. While the Creamsicle Caligula gets his nappy time prior to his ultimate jail time, Speaker Moses refuses to move legislation that would protect the border because the new laws would also help the incumbent Biden with his reelection efforts. Those were his orders. Party over country.

Speaker Moses and his acolytes are not without projects, though. Measures they are considering, as Ukraine’s freedom slips away without U.S. assistance, include the “Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, the “Liberty in Laundry Act,” (Give me clean white underwear or give me death!), “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act,” the “Refrigerator Reliability Act,” “Refrigerator Freedom Act,” (Let my Frigidaire go!) and, of course, the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act.” These are all part of the powerful Hands Off Our Home Appliances Movement, which seems to have taken, at least momentarily, precedence over money for Ukraine and Israel and the border. There must be horrors in our homes we never knew but we have members of congress who are much wiser and understand how to prioritize for our protection.

Moses finally has a plan, but it’s doubtful it leads his people to the Promised Land, or that he will get to see it either, which follows the ancient script. Like his self-proclaimed Biblical namesake, Speaker Moses might see the Promised Land from a distance but is not likely to get there if he betrays the radical right caucus by passing funding bills to help Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The Georgia congresswoman is likely to zap him with her control of Jewish space lasers and move to have the speaker’s chair vacated by a draconian rule accepted by the previous GOP speaker, who was also desperate for power and control. The new bills under consideration include a lend-lease program for Ukraine, a ban on Tik Tok, (political cyanide for the Rs), and authorization to sell seized Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s resistance. The biggest accomplishment of this congress, though, appears to be accomplishing an historic level of disfunction, which could be tossed aside if they just voted on a comprehensive foreign aid package already passed by the Senate. The half-awake bully in the courtroom is haunting their daylight dreams of achievement.

The most unsettling fact about what is happening in the lower chamber of the federal government is that it is a consequence of officeholders bending the knee to a man who cannot stay fully conscious through his own criminal trial. They want what he wants, even if it harms their country and its allies, which is a certainty. Ukraine is running out of defensive weapons and wonders why the U.S. and other western countries were willing to shoot down Iran’s missiles and drones over Israel but is unable to do the same in their fight against Russia. Do the Ukrainians not understand the power of the doddering old man down in Florida? His madness and demands make effective two-party governance impossible, which is what he and his followers prefer to a functional country. While he moans before the cameras about not being able to attend a U.S. Supreme Court argument about granting him immunity from his many crimes, the country he purports to care about comes undone and its stature falters among allied nations. The high court could cause even greater damage if it rules the president is above the law later this year.

The infection, nonetheless, continues to spread through the American body politic. Down in Arizona, a former TV news reader who is running for the U.S. Senate, told a rally crowd the “next six months will be intense” and we need to “strap on a Glock,” an automatic weapon that can kill with great proficiency. A stylish celebrity, she sounds like the former president but with different hormones and an even more refined disregard for facts. Her politics were formulated by searching for the shortest line to public office and the radical right was dramatically lacking in gender diversity. The language spreading across the right has not stopped suggesting that violence will be essential to win elections and take offices. The Arizona TV lady clearly does not care what happens as long as she gets attention and glory and money and public office. None of her thinking is original and comes from the Adderall addled mind of a future Riker’s Island inmate. Global geopolitics, meanwhile, are on a knife edge and Americans are fixated on a low-intellect ex-president on trial for money and sexual promiscuity.

Our future may be as uncertain as his.

This article was originally published on Texas to the world.

The Middle East has, for some time, been a powder keg where degrees of violence are tolerated with ceremonial mania and a calculus of restraint. Assassinations can take place at a moment’s notice. Revenge killings follow with dashing speed. Suicide bombings of immolating power are carried out. Drone strikes of devastating, collective punishment are ordered, all padded by the retarded notion that such killings are morally justified and confined. 

In all this viciousness, the conventional armed forces have been held in check, the arsenals contained, the generals busied by plans of contingency rather than reality. The rhetoric may be vengeful and spicily hysterical, but the states in the region keep their armies in reserve, and Armageddon at bay. Till, naturally, they don’t.

To date, Israel is doing much to test the threshold of what might be called the rule of tolerable violence. With Iran, for instance, it has adopted a “campaign between the wars”, primarily in Syria. For over a decade, the Israeli strategy was to prevent the flow of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah, intercepting weapons shipments and targeting storage facilities. “Importantly,” writes Haid Haid, a consulting fellow for Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, “Israel appeared to avoid, whenever feasible, killing Hezbollah or Iranian operatives during these operations.” 

But the state of play has changed. The Gaza War, which has become more the Gaza Massacre Project, has moved into its seventh month, packing morgues, destroying families and stimulating the terror of famine. Despite calls from the Israeli military and various officials that Hamas’s capabilities have been irreparably weakened (this claim, like all those battling an idea rather than just a corporeal foe, remains refutable and redundant) the killings and policy of starvation continues against the general Palestinian populace. The International Court of Justice interim orders continue to be ignored, even as the judges deliberate over the issue as to whether genocide is taking place in the Gaza Strip. The restraints, in other words, have been taken off. 

The signs are ominous. Spilt blood is becoming hard currency. Daily skirmishes between the IDF and Hezbollah are taking place on the Israeli-Lebanon border. The Houthis are feverishly engaged with blocking and attacking international shipping in the Red Sea, hooting solidarity for the Palestinian cause. 

On April 1, a blood crazed strike by Israel suggested that rules of tolerable violence had, if not been pushed, then altogether suspended. The attack on Iran’s consular offices in Damascus by the Israeli Air Force was tantamount to striking Iranian soil. In the process, it killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and other commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including Zahedi’s deputy, General Haji Rahimi. Retaliation was accordingly promised, with Iran’s ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, vowing a response “at the same magnitude and harshness”.

It came on April 13, involving 185 drones, 110 ballistic missiles and 36 cruise missiles, all directed at Israel proper. Superficially, this looks anarchically quixotic, streakily disproportionate. But Tehran went for a spectacular theatrical show to terrify and magnify rather than opt for any broader infliction of damage. Israel’s Iron Dome system, along with allied powers, could be counted upon to aid the shooting down of almost all the offensive devices. A statement had been made and the Iranians have so far drawn a line under any further military action. What was deemed by certain pundits a tactical failure can just as easily be read as a strategic if provocative success. The question then is: what follows?

The Israeli approach varies depending on who is being asked. The IDF Chief of Staff, General Herzi Halevi, stated that “Israel is considering next steps” declaring that “the launch of so many missiles and drones to Israeli territory will be answered with retaliation.” 

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir was taloned in his hawkishness, demanding that Israel launch a “crushing” counterattack, “go crazy” and abandon “restraint and proportionality”, “concepts that passed away on October 7.” The “response must not be a scarecrow, in the style of the dune bombings we saw in previous years in Gaza.” 

Cabinet minister Benny Gantz, who is a voting member of the war cabinet alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, is tilting for a “regional coalition” to “exact the price from Iran, in the way and at the time that suits us. And most importantly, in the face of the desire of our enemies to harm us, we will unite and become stronger.” The immediate issues for resolution from Gantz’s perspective was the return of Israeli hostages “and the removal of the threat against the residents of the north and south.”

Such thinking will also be prompted by the response from the Biden administration that Netanyahu “think very carefully and strategically” about the next measures. “You got a win,” President Joe Biden is reported to have told Netanyahu. “Take the win.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also expressed the view that, “Strength and wisdom must be the two sides of the same coin.”

For decades, Israel has struck targets in sovereign countries with impunity, using expansive doctrines of pre-emption and self-defence. In doing so, the state always hoped that the understanding of tolerable violence would prevail. Any retaliation, if any, would be modest, with “deterrence” assured. With the war in Gaza and the fanning out of conflict, the equation has changed. To some degree, Ben Gvir is right that concepts of restraint and proportionality have been banished to the mortuary. But such banishment, to a preponderant degree, was initiated by Israel. The Israel-Gaza War is now, effectively, a global conflict, waged in regional miniature.