Chaos and confusion are intentional weapons: Albanese must strengthen not weaken the misinformation bill
The Albanese government announced this week that it would weaken proposed disinformation-suppressing measures because the Coalition was implacably opposed to them. It is hardly surprising that Peter Dutton’s Opposition should fight the bill; it is disappointing that Labor should have so little commitment to protecting its own chances let alone the democratic project.
Dutton’s Coalition showed, over the referendum campaign, that engaging in culture war divorced from empirical truth is their chosen path to regaining power. Thus it is in Labor’s interest to enhance our democracy by reinforcing integrity in civic debate and politics with as much vigour as they possess.
There are many forces at work fostering chaos and confusion. Some of the problem is structural: social media monetisation driven by pandering to the id; old gatekeeper media organisations struggling to remain solvent in the face of the internet challenge; too much competition for our attention.
There are, however, forces determined to capitalise on that situation. There are many kinds of disinformation at work. Some of it is merely random trolling or malice at play. There is however much that stems from national actors, with such technology functioning as a military asset in hot or cold war situations. Cyber warfare forces are amongst the least expensive divisions and weapons at a government’s disposal, but we have seen repeatedly how powerful one facet, the digital versions of leaflet dropping over enemy lines, has become. Compared to traditional wartime propaganda, it is much harder to distinguish from reliable information.
The US has also used its giant tech firms to meddle in foreign countries’ politics: Google, for example, interfered in countries such as Syria, against Assad, for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Many nations have such divisions with China, Iran and Israel divisions making news. Israel also spawns a number of troubling private “security” companies that deploy military expertise for profit or patriotic goals. It can, of course, be challenging to measure the integrity and intent of the reports and complaints made about these nations’ forays into disinformation.
Russia has been notorious in the field using Facebook to shove crowbars into the civic divides that pervade America. It has also been most effectively muddying opinion about its neoimperialist and traditional imperialist actions regarding nations in its region. As well as allegedly strategising against Israel, it has been working since the invasion of Ukraine to hide the truth. A factor as basic as motive has become fodder for endless debate.
This derives from the same information campaign skills that Russia developed over the Syrian civil war where, for example, the moral reputation of the White Helmets remains starkly divided, depending on the individual’s information source. Some believe them to be heroes who rescue the injured; others see them as a propaganda operation that supports terrorist groups. The latter opinion appears to be the result of a sustained Russian and Syrian government disinformation campaign. Publications such as The Grayzone seem thoroughly integrated into Russian information networking.
The situation is not aided by the old anti-war left becoming susceptible to Russian propaganda about Ukraine driven by long and justified disgust with Western neoimperial foreign policy. To see figures like Noam Chomsky spreading the new imperialist aggressor’s talking points is odd: there is room for villains all around. This is one facet of the new diagonalist politics where leftish figures end up working for the Right.
The same information chaos surrounds understanding the sustained Israeli bombardment of Gaza after Hamas’s gruesome attack on the 7th of October. Cyber strategies, including disinformation, have been important tools. There are many actors involved, including minor third parties.
The power of lobby groups to suppress discussion of information arising from the violence has been stark. Jewish peak bodies have Australian government and media so dedicated to avoiding charges of antisemitism that they can barely challenge action that is “perilously close to meeting the threshold” of genocide. Penny Wong’s long-delayed and tepid request to halt attacks on hospitals is depicted as supporting “false and harmful narratives,” a call that has the peak bodies “highly concerned.” Moreover it’s important for journalists (and Kmart) to distinguish between real Jewish community peak bodies and a disgraceful imitation. Disinformation augments misinformation natural in the chaos of warfare so that knowing where to find factual accounts is fraught.
News Corp is certainly one source to avoid. Rupert Murdoch’s investment, with Dick Cheney, in Genie Energy has prevented his media organisation being a reliable source on Israel and Palestine. Genie has had exclusive rights to explore for oil and gas in the contested Golan Heights since 2013. (Did Rupert Murdoch request Scott Morrison send peacekeeping forces to the Golan Heights in 2019?) The investment is also argued to be a substantial factor in News Corp’s climate denial propaganda.
This illustrates that private sector efforts to manipulate opinion can be just as critical as national efforts to achieve military goals. Climate denial and culture wars promoting ultraconservative social positions have long been tied to muddying the civic information space. The primary goal was overtly crippling public ability to commit to fighting for industry regulation.
The model was honed in the campaign to stop certainty taking hold about the gold standard science linking tobacco smoking and cancer. The cigarette, in 2013 considered “the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation,” was not regulated for decades because of the long PR war fought by the tobacco lobby. Many of the same people and scientists used the same strategies to stop the transition from carbon-based energy to renewables. The number of deaths to be caused by this 50-year delay will dwarf tobacco deaths in the decades ahead.
The bodies fighting industry regulation and taxes merged with ultraconservatives fighting the growing diversity of 20th century societies. Networks like the Council for National Policy and the Atlas Network were developed with the goal of destroying civic discourse in order to achieve the ultimate liberty of business combined with statist control of public morality. Much of the money funding this project comes from fossil fuel billionaires.
The strategies used include owning media bodies. Religious radio networks in the US, for example, proved powerful. It involved founding schools or funding chairs in universities intended to produce intellectual material to support their goals. Representatives and delegates continue to write columns for the newspapers, bolstered by big advertorial and advertising spending. Metastasising clusters of civil society organisations are still being established: some were intended to present as thinktanks, others to present as grass roots organisations. The fakery involved in these is captured in the strategy’s label “astroturfing.”
These interests work with full-service influence companies to manipulate the debate. The company that developed the model, Black, Manafort and Stone, became known as the Torturers’ Lobby. It was not just murderous autocrats that they whitewashed for Washington dollars, however. They perverted the information space and democracy for corporate and political clients too.
Australia spawned Crosby Textor, and New Zealand Topham Guerin, as offspring of that innovative forebear.
The Murdoch family was involved, alongside some of Australia’s best known mining magnates, in the founding of such “think” tanks in Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, the Centre for Independent Studies and the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance are several of the Australian bodies that belong to the insidious international Atlas Network.
The Voice referendum campaign become another tool in the array of targets selected by these bodies. Dr Jeremy Walker and Anthony Klan’s investigations into the ways that Advance and Fair Australia are connected to the Atlas Network’s Australian affiliates also highlighted how the No campaign used the typical strategies to muddy the debate until clarity was impossible. The connections to fossil fuel are clear and follow a long history of Atlas affiliates attacking First People’s efforts to protect their land.
The slogan used by the No campaign, “If you don’t know, vote no,” was an embarrassing celebration of Australian ignorance. It was also peak fossil fuel disinformation. This command to abandon the search for truth and understanding is precisely what tobacco and fossil fuel interests sought to create and manipulate. The study of agnotology is, in part, a study of the deliberate fostering of this ignorance. They want us all to vote no to regulating or taxing industry because we just don’t know.
China and Russia are both amongst powers alleged to have powered an attack on information about the Voice, including the deployment of bots. The AEC’s efforts to check lies have been described as “like a man standing with a backyard hose, waving it at an inferno.”
In celebrating the defeat of the Voice, Jacinta Nampijinpa price signalled that her next target would be Queer Australians. Andrew Bolt highlighted again the link between the Voice and fighting climate action: slamming renewable energy with “Now let’s do Labor’s other mad crusade” (23/10).
Fighting disinformation about fossil fuels and similar controversial sectors, as well as inhibiting destructive culture war battles used to disguise the primary goals, has become the field of independents and minor parties like the Greens. Monique Ryan has introduced a bill to limit the toxic impact of lobbyists with her Clean Up Politics proposal. Zali Steggall has introduced her Voter Protections in Political Advertising bill. Sophie Scamps has tabled a bill to provide safeguards for public appointments. They are collectively fighting alongside the Greens to pressure Labor to make the misinformation bill strong and also extend it to cover the mainstream media.
The Liberal Party has arguably become the political arm of the various interests represented by the Atlas Network’s Australian affiliates. Their direct and broader interest lie in the information space being chaotic. In this light, their criticism that the misinformation bill attacks “freedom of speech” must be seen as the disingenuous nonsense that it is.
Australia can’t be a functioning democracy unless voters understand policy platforms on offer and the stakes. Unless we properly control dis- and misinformation in the civic space, we have little chance to vote well. Albanese must find a backbone for his own sake as well as the nation’s.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
57 comments
Login here Register here-
Phil Pryor -
Max Gross -
Terence Mills -
Canguro -
Charliene -
RomeoCharlie -
Steve Davis -
Lucy Hamilton -
Steve Davis -
leefe -
corvusboreus -
Gus -
Steve Davis -
Lucy Hamilton -
steve clarkin -
Lucy Hamilton -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis
-
Gus -
Andrew Smith -
Lucy Hamilton -
Michael Taylor -
Phil Pryor -
Igor -
Steve Davis -
wam -
Lucy Hamilton -
Steve Davis -
Wayne Turner -
Steve Davis -
Centrelink customer -
Andrew Smith -
Steve Davis -
Lucy Hamilton -
Lucy Hamilton -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis -
Brody -
Steve Davis -
Brody -
Steve Davis -
Lucy Hamilton -
Steve Davis -
Canguro -
Andrew Smith -
Steve Davis -
Phil -
corvusboreus -
B Sullivan -
Roswell -
Brody -
Roswell -
Andyfiftysix -
Andyfiftysix -
Lucy Hamilton -
Centrelink customer
Return to home pagePerhaps one should invest in makers of brown shirts, jackboots, insignia, fake medals and sashes.., not that most of Australia’s right wing types need them to be noticed. They have money, outlets, media, manipulators and dreams of avarice, control, endless throttling control. Now we hear that China, our largest trading partner, is behind some cyber attacks, no doubt due to the horrible existence of former P M Morrison, who must have suffered a brain amputation not yet revealed. AUKUS might make anyone else anywhere keen to sabotage us in any way, as after all we cannot do much about anything intelligent used against us. We just don’t understand much, do much, achieve much, so, why not have our greedites scrape, hole, gouge, sell, as always. We are shafted in so many ways. Legislation based on policies of achieving openness and honesty are surely doomed, even farcical. Nobody up there in Australia seems honest and open these days, or was it ever so? Leave it all to PwC or IPA or the Merde Dogs. There. And, Peter Duckwit-Futton can become titular P M, a pathetic misfit, no further training needed there.
Who cares if Dutton opposes the Bill? Dutton opposes anything and everything Labor proposes anyway and they should just ignore him and get on with it.
Thanks Lucy
There appears to be a confusing circular argument when it comes to the Israeli/Palestine war. The question was posed on a BBC program overnight where it was acknowledged with all round agreement that Israel had the right (and the obligation) to defend its people and its borders. But where it became less clear was whether Palestine had an equivalent right to defend its people and its borders against an invading (and occupying) force.
It was suggested that Palestine was not a ‘state’ and thus did not attract rights and protections offered by the UN Charter, in particular Article 51.
The discussion on the BBC was inconclusive and reverted to the 7 October terrorist act which some say gave Israel carte blanche to take whatever action it saw as appropriate and, of course, the UN Security Council was unable to reach agreement (as usual) and was blocked by vetoes, so offered no guidance.
I don’t have any solutions in this area but it raises several important issues of proportionality as there is no doubt that the concept of self-defense as embodied in the UN Charter only allows measures that are “proportional” to the armed attack suffered and necessary to respond to it.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I’d suggest, per Lucy’s closing observation… “Australia can’t be a functioning democracy unless voters understand policy platforms on offer and the stakes,” that for the majority of Australian voters, politics gets given little to no attention per the narratives as expressed by the various media outlets and that given the domination of that landscape by the Murdoch’s elephantine footprint, much of that narrative is skewed and misleading, while alternative sources like the ABC struggle to maintain relevance given their current paucity of seasoned and responsible journalists with enough gravitas to catch and maintain readers’ and viewers’ attention.
There’s always, obviously, two ends to the stick, and in the context of a majorly two-party Westminster system, the opposition will oppose, as it always has, pretty much anything the government proposes. The willingness of right-wing media helmed by talking heads on behalf of the Murdoch empire to act as the messengers on behalf of the LNP to blanket airwaves and print & digital media make it incredibly difficult for the average Joe to find a balanced perspective in all of the noise and chaff, notwithstanding that this has to be accomplished amid all of the other necessary distractions that cost time & attention in Average Joe’s life. Not easy!
re. Terence Mill’s observation in his first para above, wrt the right & obligation of Israel to defend it’s borders, I’d suggest that that’s analogous to the right of the indigenous Australians to defend their lands against the British colonists; let’s not forget that the Palestinian territories were essentially stolen from them after their continuous occupation for millennia and granted to Zionists who’d been agitating for those lands. In a certain sense of unpacking the mass of complexities that typify that rat’s nest speck of the planet’s terrestrial regions, one could mount an argument that demonstrates that Israel’s claims to territorial ownership are substantiated by nothing sounder than the notional house constructed by a deck of cards; handshakes between men, winks & nods, transfers of monies into bank accounts in exchange for agreements and so on.
A flimsy basis, now reinforced by the worst behaviours of which men are capable. Obscene, shameful, and inhumane.
A question to Lucy – when the Libs are next in power, and they will be eventually, and the Misinformation Bill has passed, how exactly are the public going to be told the truth about anything? With politicians and the media exempt from scrutiny, and with no incentive to ever tell the truth, what do you think is going to happen? As it stands, neither group likes juggling facts or being reminded there are more than one side to a story. They are truly infantile. The Bill will concrete that dysfunction into the fabric of society forever.
If the majority of people are such children they cannot allow the free flow of info without seeking out some father figure to control the thoughts of others, then leadership by fascists and their Ministry of ‘Trooth’ is the next stop.
If passed, the Bill is the end of the voice of the individual.
No more thinking your own thoughts unless it agrees with Dutton or whoever fills the LNP vacuum once he retires.
If you like the idea of living in an authoritarian regime, fair enough, you do you.
Another example of a gutless Labor government unwilling to use its numbers, with the support of greens and independents, to do what is right, instead kowtowing to an Opposition which has little legitimacy and shows it is only capable of negativity. Time to act like a government which won!
As for the mid-East situation. Two questions arise: did Hamas actually commit a crime in Israel or was it within the illegally occupied former Palestinian territory and thus an ‘internal uprising’ rather than an attack in Israel! and if Hamas has hostages, then doesn’t Israel also hold thousands of Palestinians in detention without trial, i.e. effectively hostages?
I believe the United States, Britain and Australia are mis-reading public sentiment by their support of Israel’s genocide. I further believe Netanyahu, his war-mongering cabinet and the IDF are destroying, or have destroyed, any remaining sympathy for victims of the Holocaust. I think survivors of the Holocaust, particularly the Warsaw Ghetto, would be aghast at what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank.
Interestingly we are seeing very little about the costs of the Gaza battles in terms of Israeli lives lost, I have seen only one figure of 20 dead in one battle. How many of its own forces, its sons and daughters, is it prepared to expend in what will ultimately be a futile battle to exterminate Hamas? All it is doing is radicalising more Palestinians, and thus more recruits to Hamas.
If the horrific scenes of death, injury and destruction— so clearly an illegal and disproportionate response to October 7th— don’t change minds in Israel, the sight of those sons and (presumably) daughters returning in body bags might.
Lucy, as much as I admire your work, I have to say that when you make statements such as this; “Publications such as The Grayzone seem thoroughly integrated into Russian information networking” you should give evidence. It’s a serious accusation, and so although these things can rarely be proved either way, the evidence should be substantial.
The link you provided as evidence seems to be Ukrainian, and is similar in content to an article published in the same year by a Ukrainian govt body, the Government Office for Coordination on European and Euro-Atlantic Integration. Is your linked article from that body also?
Irrespective as to whether the linked article is Ukrainian propaganda or not, it was not a great idea to use it as evidence. It shows clear bias, guilt by association, and the summary at the end, listing all of Blumenthal’s alleged errors, is somewhat ruined by the passage of time — most of his positions turning out to be correct.
Of course, you could be right, and I’m more than happy to be convinced of that. But perhaps Blumenthal is not integrated into Russian information networking at all. Perhaps he’s just reporting situations as he sees them.
But back to your article. I support it wholeheartedly.
Early response to Steve Davis: another link https://prospect.org/politics/my-adventures-with-rt-putin-russia/
Will follow up.
Thanks Lucy.
FFS! You’re in government, Albo. It’s not like the LNP concerned themselves with your preferences when they were in charge. Do the right thing instead of kowtowing to the extremists and wreck ers.
The ALP should definitely support Zali Steggels Voter Protection in Political Advertising bill.
https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/zali_steggall_mp_introduces_her_voter_protections_in_political_advertising_bill_02
The concept has broad polled public support (about 90%), and would offer an interim way of muffling the public broadcast of blatant BS for political purpose without offending religious insensibilities.
Pragmatically, it would also provide opportunity to surprise & outflank the Dutton creature’s oppositional arguments against Labors broadly scoped proposal.
As a bonus, by cooperatively adopting a narrower legislative bill that satisfies an evident public demand, the ALP would also signal to the voting public that they can reach consensus with some sensible cross-bench propositions.
Not necessarily a bad thing when you are bleeding primary votes to the faction offering suggestion.
“Thus it is in Labor’s interest to enhance our democracy by reinforcing integrity in civic debate and politics with as much vigour as they possess.”
Shaping free speech does not enhance any democracy that is suffering.
Yes, in Labours interest to mould free speech to its own desire and protection.Shades of Fabianism.
Free Speech is non negotiable; you have free speech or you do not have free speech. There is no in-between.
Gus, yes in principle, no in practice.
We cannot have freedom of speech that permits denigration of “the other”, of minorities, of those less capable to defend their legitimate interests.
Gus and Charliene, I just wrote you a really beautiful post explaining why you are missing key points but the blinking thing disappeared in saving. Here’s the TLDR.
– We don’t have free speech unlimited. Copyright. Defamation. Inciting to violence. Hate speech.
– It was a goal invented by white men and eg Yassmin Abdel-Magied who was phoned by free-speech politicians over the weekend to tell her to shut it, threatened with rape and murder until she left the country – continues to be largely that case.
– It involved white men in the first coffee shops, their letters, pamphlets, books.
-did not account for propagandist news organisations dominating the scene and most importantly amplified by social media.
– did not account for industries whose goal is utter disinformation and destroying the civic space of knowledge.
– can’t have a democracy if we don’t know what is factual and what actual policies are
– can’t have climate action while they continue their 50 year effort to destroy that discussion. We missed the window where we could have done it gently and may have missed the window altogether because of their work.
– we have a side of politics that has utterly abandoned any integrity. See Republicans and the Tories for the model.
– we have authoritarian/fascistic politics surging around the world
– liberal democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction. It was never meant to tolerate the intolerable but it allows the growth of the authoritarian.
We can decide to protect good faith free speech and place limits on the industries of disinformation that threaten our freedoms and even survival or we can sink into that nightmare. You have to choose.
Terence Mills–“But where it became less clear was whether Palestine had an equivalent right to defend its people and its borders against an invading (and occupying) force.”
Geopolitical Economy Report have an article and video on how the Palestinians have a right to self defence. I attach the link for your interest.
Steve – I’ll change my link to this one. I think it summarises the problem better: https://www.publicnotice.co/p/chomsky-greenwald-unkraine-anti-anti-putin
A wise decision Lucy, a wise decision. 🙂
Lucy, the first thing that struck me about the newly linked article is that some journalists have no trouble identifying fascism in perceived enemies, but somehow seem to miss it in themselves, or their allies.
Then came the first lie.
“Chomsky also quickly called for a move “towards a negotiated settlement,” even though it was clear immediately that Putin, sans resistance, would not settle for anything but conquering the country.” Putin tried for a peace deal within days of the invasion. More on that later.
The lie was followed immediately by this; “The Democratic Socialists of America similarly condemned the Russian invasion. But their statement did not mention Putin by name, made no statement of solidarity with Ukrainian resistance, uttered both-sidesy noises about a diplomatic solution, and condemned the US for “imperialist expansion,”…”
First point is that the author had no right to expect a statement of solidarity with Ukraine from anyone, particularly a party that condemned the invasion. For him to expect all interested parties to have identical views to his was childishly illogical. And to complain that the statement did not mention Putin by name is quite frankly, ridiculous. Second point is that US involvement in the war is verifiable from 2014 onwards. The stated aim of the US had been to establish an ally on Russia’s border then weaken Russia. It is quite reasonable to refer to that as imperialist expansion.
Later, in a comment critical of Chomsky and progressives in general, “Progressives opposed to US aid to Ukraine, and to Ukrainian resistance, have largely argued that only a quick peace could, in Chomsky’s words, “save Ukraine from a grim fate.”As with the first linked article, that comment does not look good with the passage of time. Ukraine has indeed suffered a grim fate, with no end to the suffering in sight. Chomsky was right.
I won’t go on, the pattern is clear. It’s not difficult to detect bias in an article.
The following might make my position more clear. Here’s an article worth looking at to see how murky the world of geo-political journalism and misinformation is.
It covers the criticisms of a site that has been described as pro-Russian, and tells the true story of the site’s position on a number of contentious matters. It’s an interesting article, yet there’s parts that I do not agree with and parts that should be responded to by “lets-wait-and-see.”
But the take-away from the article is that opinions cannot be assumed to be facts. Just because someone thinks The Grayzone is “thoroughly integrated into Russian information networking” does not make it true.
Yes, we should take notice when such claims are made, but a careful reading of the claim can quickly give a rough indication as to credibility. Neither of the linked articles stand up to scrutiny. Does that mean they’re wrong? Not necessarily, but it does mean that better sources must be found.
In line with the misinformation topic of the article, readers who are understandably confused by the Ukraine tragedy should find this link interesting. The claim is that Ukraine and Russia worked out a peace deal very early in the conflict, but it was vetoed by the West.
From the Conclusion: Based on the publicly available reports and documents, it is not only plain that there was a serious willingness to negotiate on the part of both Ukraine and Russia in March 2022. Apparently, the negotiating parties even agreed on a draft treaty ad referendum. Zelensky and Putin were ready for a bilateral meeting to finalize the outcome of the negotiations. Fact is that the main results of the negotiations were based on a proposal by Ukraine, and Zelenskyy courageously supported them in an interview with Russian journalists on March 27, 2022, even after NATO decided against these peace negotiations. Zelensky had already expressed similar support beforehand in a sign that proves that the intended outcome of the Istanbul negotiations certainly corresponded to Ukrainian interests. This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine.
Check out the credentials of the Editor and authors.
Hi Steve,
I considered that principal should be practice.
However, it would be a travesty to sacrifice human creativity of free speech to the altar of ignorance and the demands of the selfish few.
Good article, firstly to some commenters, question, why do Chomsky and other US ideologues for Putin, with a media profile, have no credibility with the European left? Because they have no credible expertise nor analysis on the region vs. others who do, including in Oz (vs. another outlet platforming an ‘astrologist’ for ‘analysis’ on pro- Russia vs. Ukraine.
Counter Punch’s Draitser gave the best response describing them as ‘fake anti-imperialist sh*theads of the left’ citing many in the article.
Worse, many FoxNews ‘analysts’ agree with the ideological left in the US in their pro-Russian stance while Tucker Carlson departs (various explanations), Trump’s Hannity takes over the role and like Koch or Atlas think tanks, seems to be a confluence of fossil fuel, ageing left and anti-EU interests in the Anglosphere that have been drawn together (inc. former LNP types)?
Gus. Hilarious that you ignored all the points that address both your comments. Suggests to me you have a football but no gameplan.
There is no risk to creativity or good faith free speech in placing checks on industries of disinformation.
Lucy, Gus is not known for his/her logic.
There is a Gus, or is it Gas, who claims that principal ( er, principle??) should be something, perhaps practice, which is what many do in professions.., and, there are claims about free speech, which we know can be stolen, adopted, adapted, borrowed, plagiarised, whatever.., and, an altar of ignorance is postulated, though we know of this nothing, and.., there seems to be demands, no doubt of a selfish few, which could embrace Merde Dog’s phenomenal greedy ignorance down to ordinary person’s requirements for some food, so as to live another hour. Are we here to be driven on, gloriously, by this load of excremental evacuated ploppery?
Julian Assange and all whistleblowers become persona non grata once the Misinfo Bill passes. Think about it. The media and gov are ‘out of scope’ in terms of being included in the class ‘spreaders of misinfo’. In other words, they can, and more than likely will, say whatever suits their agenda. What could possibly go wrong, other than LNP regains control of gov?
Andrew Smith has referred to “Chomsky and other US ideologues for Putin,…” with no evidence to back up the claim.
But wait, he did include one thing that could be construed as evidence. Or something. He said that Counter Punch’s Draitser described them as ‘fake anti-imperialist sh*theads of the left’.
As I pointed out earlier, opinions are not facts until supported by evidence.
And it seems that some on Draitser’s own team are not exactly behind him on the Ukraine issue.
In an article at Counterpunch by Richard Rubenstein, titled “Eric Draitser’s Disturbing Review of “War In Ukraine”, we find this.
“I generally admire Eric Draitser’s knowledgeable, sharp-edged commentaries on international affairs, which are equally critical of U.S. imperialism and other forms of colonial and neocolonial oppression. Nevertheless, something bizarre happens in Eric’s review of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict by Medea Benjamin and Nicholas Davies. Having criticized those authors, with some justification, for oversimplifying a complex conflict, he then produces a radically oversimplified response which amounts, in effect, to joining the U.S./NATO camp and underwriting the Zelensky regime’s drive for “victory.”
And later, “Eric opposes negotiations, however, because they would result in the “dismemberment” of Ukraine. This position, actually to the right of that announced by U.S. Chief of Staff General Mark Milly, ignores the fact that peace treaties often involve making changes in the status of disputed territories.”
Wow. To the right of a US Chief of Staff. I wonder where that puts Draitser on the political spectrum?
You know what? It doesn’t matter. Not one bit. Because all this is just opinions. But keep in mind, Draitser is someone that Andrew Smith would like readers to accept as an authority.
As the old joke goes, opinions are like backsides — everyone has one, so the closest we can come to reality in a world of misinformation is to consider opinions backed up by documentary evidence.
So I’ll repeat the opinion of Funke and Kujat that they backed up with documentary evidence.
“This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine.”
beauty cangaru perhaps the vast majority are fixed regardless of rupe’s, dumpton’s or the bandit’s flood bullshit but the floating 5% are the people whose vote counts and what stimulates them is albo’s mission.
The voice misinformation made dutton and the lnp electable.
Ergo, labor has to make dutton unelectable.
Steve, did you ever follow up Diagonalism as an explanation of contemporary political/ideological confusion. The Conspirituality podcast interviewing the scholars who brought the idea across from German (Querdenken) is fascinating. It helps understand what is happening with some old Lions of the Left who have been very handy to Putin in the face of his literal territorial imperialism and aggression. Ukraine wants to join NATO and EU, for example, ever more fervently after Putin began taking chunks out of it. (As do many neighbouring states. Had I been an enforced part of the Soviet Union empire, I would do the same.) The rhetoric from Putin and Silovarch mates is that there is no Ukraine, only greater Russia. They plan to ethnically cleanse it, even if “only” in cultural terms.
I’m not saying the old Lions aren’t correct about vile US neo imperialism and grotesque Western foreign policies that have caused untold harm to pls es around the globe. I am saying their old sympathy for Russia in the light of that fury has blinded them to the way they are being used.
There is plenty of room for self-made villains all over the place. (Of course the colonial, military and foreign policy of West may well have gone into making them, but is it not another form of solipsism to say that all bad dudes around the world act in response to us only? They can have plenty of internal games at play using reasoning – eg Eurasian spiritualism – that doesn’t work for us.)
Lucy, I’m sorry, I did not. I shall get onto it now.
We might have to agree to disagree on Putin taking chunks out of Ukraine. As Jacques Baud said in regard to Crimea, “Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1991, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. Yet, western countries sanctioned Russia for that…”
In regard to the Donbass republics, their right to declare independence without consultation with Kiev is protected by international law.
The downfall of this Federal government,clearly is going to be how gutless they are.
They are in government. Who cares what the corrupt,and self serving COALition think.
Grow a spine Labor.
If Labor are really going to have a bill to fight misinformation,no one should be excluded from it. From politicians to the Main Stream Media. Just all tell the truth. Of course the toughest aspects of the bill = Who decides what is misinformation? Must be real penalties for spreading misinformation? What penalties? Etc…
Also to Labor= Stop being Liberal lite. People want more than that.
Lucy, I did a search on Diagonalism but came up with nothing substantial. From the description given at the Boston Review there are some points they have that I would agree with.
Also nothing substantial for Conspirituality. So it would be pointless to comment. But I will say from my 50+ years of interest in Eastern philosophy, that political activism and spirituality do not mix well, so those who go down that path are likely to be led up the garden path.
In regard to the podcast, I see podcasts as a negative where serious discussion is concerned. I avoid even those made by figures I respect. They inhibit careful analysis. Very few people who watch podcasts will take the trouble to take notes, so at the end they have at best a fuzzy idea of a few points. This is not an efficient way to inform people. In fact, in the hands of the unscrupulous, it’s a great way to misinform people.
But the subject sounds interesting. Can I suggest that you do an article on it. It would not have to be comprehensive — short and sharp, so the nitpickers like me have nothing to grab. 🙂
Message for ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie and Senator Janet Rice.
Dear Ms Cassandra Goldie and Senator Janet Rice,
Services Australia got thousands of dollars from my pocket as result of their review decision made by an anonymous “delegate or authorised officer” not an authorised review officer (required by law). The review is not valid as it was conducted by an unqualified person.
Ms Cassandra Goldie and Senator Janet Rice, are you going to take action?
Steve Davis, while playing and waffling on as the devil’s advocate, claiming your ‘facts’ vs opinions, you offer no analysis except avoiding details on current events, going back to the past and deferring to suboptimal analysis (inc. shooting messengers) of ageing and other ‘tankies’ in the Anglosphere, with strawman arguments to muddy the water, mislead and waste people’s time?
Here’s Draitser and explains why e.g. BS coming from Russia and its US supporters ‘(3/28/22) Exposing Fake Anti-Imperialism on Ukraine’ https://youtu.be/Y2JntuQpD4M?si=tatBP3qzeCjyRtPj (from memory he cites Kremlin linked Grayzone which blamed Syrian civilians for attacking and killing themselves….deflecting from Putin ally Assad)
There is much quality analysis in Europe by younger Europeans & Anglos that passes the credibility test versus deference to ageing US generic faux geopolitical grifters of left & right masquerading as experts, who do the same as you.
In short, present (talking) points to create doubts, no time lines, no synthesis of sources* (if any or one media based source), hence, simply PR promoting opinions, beliefs and sentiments shared between (mostly) US ideological left, right wing libertarians inc FoxNews and the Kremlin; suggests neither credibility nor objectivity?
*CRAAP test Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose, basis of source checking, then with others, synthesised to show understanding vs. presenting a media article to support opinions?
On Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, can you name any current geopolitical expert, academic, researcher, analyst or journalist neither pro-Putin nor American, but European?
Why do Russia’s nearest European neighbours continue being in NATO?
Further, as you seem to know so much, how do you explain Oz RW Lib party types working for UK Tory govt., around think tanks i.e. Tufton St. London and IPA (Koch linked) etc., Murdoch media, CPAC/ACU etc. who visit Budapest and are often supported by the Hungarian govt of PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban inc. Danubius Institute linked to Koch’s Heritage Foundation?
Not only suggests a link in or shared interests between Anglo conservatives in Koch e.g. pro-fossil fuels, anti-climate science, pro-Brexit/anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-liberal democracy etc. with Putin’s regime, but many Anglo conservatives like Trump, Carlson et al, run protection and respect Putin, why?
Because a permanent corrupt, nativist and authoritarian government is what they all aspire to; see Koch, Heritage & Trump Project 2025 https://www.project2025.org/ which Dutton’s people seem to have picked up on that too, with demands for asylum seeker camps etc. to show he is a tough guy, like Putin?
Andrew Smith, that was a rant, straight out of a scatter-gun.
You seem to be unable to simply make a point, then give evidence for it. You raise the latest bee in your bonnet then demand that I explain it. Let me give you some free advice. Using a question mark as a weapon does not do the trick.
You are confused. You asked “On Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, can you name any current geopolitical expert, academic, researcher, analyst or journalist neither pro-Putin nor American, but European?” despite me having named three, Funke, Kujat and Baud.
Your confusion was also evident when you asked “As you seem to know so much, how do you explain…?”
You missed the bit where I implied that I know very little; as in “You know what? It doesn’t matter. Not one bit. Because all this is just opinions… so the closest we can come to reality in a world of misinformation is to go for opinions backed up by documentary evidence.” Then I gave an opinion backed by documentary evidence. An opinion from Europe, your preferred point of origin. I suspect you didn’t like it. Here it is again, for your further consideration.
“This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine.”
Steve. This is well worth your time. https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/diagonalism-william-callison-quinn-slobodian
Also, Steve. If Crimea belongs to Russia (after it ethnically cleansed the Tartars) then it should have been decided by UN monitored election or similar, not an invasion. It is clearly established in Russian language that Putin & cohort deny the existence of Ukraine as a separate nation or culture and plan to incorporate it as people and/or cleansed land. Decent people ought to be able to oppose imperial violence whoever perpetrates it. Note also that when the West persuaded Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons after the Cold War, it was done in exchange for our guarantee that we would protect it from Russian aggression.
Lucy, thanks for the link, I’ll get onto that.
In regard to Crimea, I’m no historian, but my recollection is that all were getting along fine, Kiev, Donbass, Crimea, with the Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea having a reasonable degree of autonomy, and with Russian troops in Crimea by arrangement. That changed with the change of govt in Kiev in 2014, the Donbass felt threatened and declared independence, Crimea had already separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1991 but were happy to plod along on condition of no interference. With the Russian troops already in Crimea, there was no invasion. I’m happy to be corrected on that.
Lucy, I’m sorry, I only lasted 10 mins into the audio and could not go on. It’s just not a medium that I’m comfortable with. But from what I’ve read, and heard on the audio, diagonalism is certainly concerning and should be watched, but I see it as a fringe concern. To put it another way — we have bigger problems. Please correct me if I’ve assumed wrongly.
At the time I got your comment I had some extra thoughts prepared on this trend to audio/video in information sourcing, and my conclusion is quite critical, but I must say that from what I heard, the people involved in your link seem reasonable and well-intentioned.
Here’s what I had prepared.
Despite my view that the spread of information by audio and video is inefficient, and potentially a source of misinformation, I decided to watch the Draitser video on “Fake Anti-imperialism” that Andrew Smith linked to. Within 3 minutes the flaw in Draitser’s argument was clear.
Draitser claims to be anti-war, and apparently has a track record of being so. Because he is anti-war he sees the Russian intervention in Ukraine as being inexcusable, lacking reason, imperialism. He said at the 2 min mark that we have a situation where “so-called anti imperialists” end up being cheerleaders for war crimes, where fake anti-imperialism makes it difficult for us to argue against imperialism, against war, and against escalation. Then his explanation began.
Now I know I’m a bit slow, but to get to 3 mins took 10 mins with stops to take notes. At that rate it would take me over 100 mins to properly absorb this 38 min video. Of those more sprightly than me, very few will go to that amount of effort. Hence my argument in an earlier comment that at the end of an audio/video presentation the viewer will have at best a fuzzy recollection of a few points. But by constantly repeating the theme of the video, the presenter can be fairly certain that viewers have absorbed the main message, and had little time to collate a refutation of the message.
At the 3 min mark Draitser admitted that the US is using Ukraine for its own ends, which gives a certain credibility to Russia’s stated fears about US and NATO activities in Ukraine, but at the 5 min mark Draitser engaged in an argument technique we’ve seen used repeatedly by Andrew Smith. Guilt by association.
As his first example of fake anti-imperialism at work, so presumably his best example, Draitser referred to a soccer match in Serbia in which fans held up a banner naming all the countries NATO had bombed or invaded and ending with the message, Give Peace A Chance. A message that Draitser endorsed without reservation. How could he do otherwise?
But then he made the outrageous claim, without proof, that because the fans were notorious right-wingers, then the banner message was merely a devious manipulation. A “cynical weaponisation of history.” In other words, in Draitser’s view, a good message is only good if it comes from people that have Draitser’s approval. He even admitted that it’s not the message it’s “the nature of the people who are trying to convey the message…”
He knows nothing of the nature of those people. He even linked them to atrocities committed decades ago, which is about as despicable as it gets.
When Draitser then dealt at length with decoding messages from the twitter-sphere, I knew it was time to turn off.
Purity of thought. Purity of belief. Guilt by association. Does that remind you of an ideology that’s very much in the news lately? It’s not far away from purity of race and guilt by ethnicity. At the very least it has a cultish air about it.
My advice? Steer clear of audio/video if you want to be informed about the world.
I stumbled upon three articles that shed some light on the chaos and confusion caused by misinformation, and which give historical context to the Russian intervention in Ukraine
From “Ukraine and the Rebirth of Fascism”Jan 29th 2014, “The violence on the streets of Ukraine is far more than an expression of popular anger against a government. Instead, it is merely the latest example of the rise of the most insidious form of fascism that Europe has seen since the fall of the Third Reich…If Europe and the United States don’t recognize this threat in its infancy, by the time they finally do, it might just be too late.”
From Ukraine’s Sickness Feb 24th 2014, “Right wing ultranationalists and their “liberal” collaborators have taken control of the Ukrainian parliament and deposed the democratically elected, though utterly corrupt and incompetent, President Yanukovich… In Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin undoubtedly watches with anxiousness. (sic)”
And from “Ukraine, Intervention, and America’s Doublethink” March 3rd 2014, “Some international observers question why the Crimea is calling on Putin to intervene on their behalf, portraying the move by Moscow as pure opportunism. This is far from the truth,…”
And the author of all this? None other than the above-mentioned Eric Draitser.
How could Draitser go from this realistic analysis of the complexities at the heart of the Ukraine disaster to a simplistic opposition to Russian intervention based solely on opposition to all wars? The answer to that can be found in a weakness in the no-warfare-ever position.
It’s generally accepted that in certain circumstances violence can be justified. That applies in the case of an individual’s right to self-defence, to a nation’s right to self-defence, and to the right of others to assist in defence. These are legal concepts and provisions. This leaves the no-warfare-ever position very difficult to defend.
It’s worth looking at Draitser’s position on this in 2014. From “Ukraine, Intervention and America’s Doublethink” Draitser wrote in regard to cries of “invasion” from the West when Russia moved more troops into Crimea, “First and foremost is the fact that the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty establishes that Crimea, and Sevastopol specifically, represents a strategic national interest for Russia. Moreover, it codifies the fact that the protection of the rights of the people of Crimea is the responsibility of the Ukrainian government. However, what happens when a so called government in Kiev is openly hostile to the region? Who then is responsible for the Russians living there? With Kiev’s putsch government having the backing of the US, NATO and Europe, it seems that no one other than Russia could possibly guarantee the security of Crimea”
And “Considering the openly hostile attitude expressed by the new Security and National Defense Committee leadership in Kiev, it seems clear that Russia’s national security interests would be under threat. There is ample precedent in international law justifying Russia moving to protect its forces in Crimea. Moreover, with Ukraine falling into the hands of Nazi elements, a sound argument could be made that, beyond the Crimea, Ukraine poses a danger to the security of Russia proper”
And “Yanukovich, whatever negative things could be said about him and his government (and there are many), was never defeated in a democratic election. Rather, he was chased out of the country by a violent mob that has now been consecrated by the much touted “international community” (read US-EU-NATO) as the recognized government. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s Constitution, not to mention international law and the accepted principles of modern democracy. With Yanukovich having taken refuge in Russia, and still being the legal President of Ukraine, isn’t it fair to say that Russia is acting as the guarantor of international law, rather than its enemy?
And “With international institutions such as the United Nations and International Criminal Court firmly under the “influence” (read control) of the United States, what other institution could possibly enforce international law in Ukraine? Surely not NATO, the alliance that has been angling to bring Ukraine into the fold since the fall of the Soviet Union. And so, it would seem that Ukraine’s fate, and that of Crimea specifically, rests on the shoulders of Russia and Putin. Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.”
Wow. That sounds very much as though Draitser, in 2014, supported the use of force. But the important point was “Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.”
SD, if you haven’t already done so, sounds like you’re now ready to view Oliver Stone’s 2014 doco ‘Ukraine on Fire’.
Should be on Rumble or Bitchute platforms.
Thanks Brody.
Can you give a quick summary?
Steve, a while since I watched it, wikipedia has a summary in part: “film portrays the events that led to the flight of Yanukovych in February 2014 as a coup d’état orchestrated by the United States with the help of far-right Ukrainian factions. The film’s central thesis is that the US had used Ukraine as a proxy against Russia for many years.”
Moving right along but backtracking to 1984 and G Edward Griffin and his interview with KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov . .
The western media has a lot to answer for.
Cheers Brody, thanks.
Steve. Don’t trust anyone who sends you to Bitchute or Rumble. Conspiracy-fash platforms. Same applies to Oliver Stone. He’s a far right activist. There are better sources.
My argument remains that you can mistrust America and Russia.
Thanks Lucy.
Mistrust America and Russia?
Very true, because all governments lie.
But if we look at it from the angle of the lesser of two evils, it doesn’t look good for the US . What I look for is the trail of blood.
Apologies for being so blunt, but the trail of blood is the reality that victims have to deal with. Something from which we are insulated. So insulated that we can pretend it isn’t happening.
And unfortunately we as a nation do trust the US.
We live in a fantasy world.
We have US installations and bases on our soil.
Any country that has foreign bases and forces on its soil is an occupied country. That is another reality we are not prepared to face.
We have far more to fear from the US than from Russia.
Lucy, re. your comment on Oliver Stone’s political views that’s not how, in general, he appears to be viewed, and more concretely it doesn’t seem to be reflected in his body of work, for example: South of the Border, along with others such as Comandante (2003) and Looking for Fidel (2004), Mi Amigo Hugo (2014), and Snowden (2016).
He is, naturally, and in common with most of us, not easily abled to be boxed and labelled, but the general tenor of his political outlook tends to confirm a bias towards the left rather than the right.
Steve Davis, you go on about and denigrate the analysis and opinions of Counter Punch’s Draitser on Russia’s invasion, who is just one of many media based analysts who can do analysis with knowledge, while you avoid citing any credible sources like others do?
For example European based sources which are proximate, versus the confines or safe space of far away ‘US-Anglosphere’ narcissism masquerading as expertise, very abstract, like much pro-Kremlin agitprop that gaslights anyone not on piste in the ‘west’ as gullible supporters of US imperialism, NATO etc…….
Why does the left in Europe have no confusion about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as opposed to Anglosphere faux anti-imperialists of the left agreeing with RW libertarians e.g. Koch’s Mearsheimer (a local counterpart of Draitser’s who contributes here) & PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban etc.?
It’s because they do not take kindly to being denigrated and gaslit by rank amateurs and grifters in the Anglosphere, doing the bidding of corrupt nativist authoritarians.
Oliver Stone is an example of a popular film doco maker inc. conspiracies, but why would anyone follow him for specific geopolitical analysis, especially when he, like many of the US right, are sycophants for Putin’s regime?
Andrew Smith says that I “denigrate the analysis and opinions of Counter Punch’s Draitser on Russia’s invasion,..”
Yes and no.
Draitser’s analysis in 2014 was possibly the best that I’ve seen. Brilliant. What I can’t work out is when and why he became a Russophobe and resorted to cheap logical fallacies to drag the discussion as close to the gutter as he could get.
And guess what? It matters not a bit. Draitser no longer has credibility. Even a colleague at CounterPunch has taken him to task over his questionable argument technique.
Andrew has a fixation on “European based sources which are proximate”, as though only these can be seen as credible, but he might not enjoy the conclusions of this European source, retired General Harald Kuyat, ex-head of the NATO Military Committee, chief military officer in NATO, head of the NATO—Ukraine Council under the Council of Chiefs of General Staff, and Chairman of the Russia—NATO Council when the NATO—Russia Council was still working.
European enough? Proximate enough?
Kuyat said in an interview just a few days ago in regard to the goals of the Russian armed forces; “Their goal is not to hold territories at any cost, but to destroy the APU. This is the basic rule of Clausewitz : disarm the enemy — and then everything else will work out by itself. This is exactly what the Russian armed forces have achieved.” If Kuyat is correct, there’s not much left to analyse.
As for Andrew’s last three paragraphs; I have no idea what he’s talking about, particularly in regard to Oliver stone, about whom I know little, and have said nothing.
A brilliant essay Lucy. Clear and comprehensive. Thank you.
I am concerned about the options Albanese really has. Is he gutless, as Dutton/Murdoch wants us to believe? Or is his voice too quiet, too quieted? Given that the for-profit media are poised to strike at the sniff of any progressive step, before he does so he needs to build the narrative much, much more. To bring us all on the journey of why transforming change is necessary, urgently. All the Ministers need to do this. What they are doing isn’t working.
Just in case anyone is vaguely interested in a practical proposal that seeks to prevent politicians from using public funds to peddle bullshit (without impinging on individual freedom of speech, I will once again post a link to Zali Steggels tabled ‘voter protection against political advertising bill.
https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/zali_steggall_mp_introduces_her_voter_protections_in_political_advertising_bill_02
Just in case…
Seems to me that if a genuine misinformation bill was passed the AIM network itself would have a lot an explaining to do to justify why it should not be shut down for the, no doubt unintentional, misinformation that it routinely promotes. And what would be the effect on Albanese’s government? Isn’t it also guilty of promoting misinformation? A bill against proven intentional misinformation might work, if deliberate intent to misinform could be proved. Then the government could move on to legislating against wilful stupidity.
Try promoting critical thinking. Without critical thinking how is it even possible to identify misinformation?
A campaign dedicated to misinformation was The Voice to Parliament referendum which was never about A Voice. It was about acknowledging and constitutionally enshrining misinformation, namely that some contemporary Australians are entitled (by the privilege of their birth) to be recognised as the first peoples of Australia. Why was this dubious recognition required in order to bestow a voice to Parliament? We don’t even know who the first peoples of Australia were. We know that they have been dead for many many thousands of years so no one alive today qualifies. We also know that humans are not indigenous to Australia. All humans originated in Africa. Who arrived here first and when is obscured in the ignorance of prehistory and by the popular suppression of any archaeological enlightenment of the issue by those who presumptuously claim to be the first Australians and vilify archaeology as disrespectful to their assumed ancestors. Misinformation combined with wilful ignorance about the reality of Australia’s past. The result of which has been to make something as reasonable as a voice to Parliament by anyone who needs or deserves it dependent upon constitutionally enshrined privilege.
All over the world archaeology is permitting ancient voices to speak to us from the remote past. Promote archaeology in Australia and the first peoples of Australia might also speak to us. Wouldn’t it be something to hear those voices?
B Sullivan, our greatest crime re misinformation is allowing your comments to be published.
B Sullivan has a right to express an opinion. Imagine a world without free speech, where only govt-sanctioned ‘information’, propaganda, and quisling memes are allowed.
Imagine if Labors Misinfo Bill existed 450 years ago, we’d be living on a flat earth today. And if Galileo had continued to spread his ‘false misinfo’, well, lock him up and throw away the key. It’s hard to believe people want to get rid of the ability to express a point of view. That way of life is for slaves or slave traders.
If the plan by govt, Labor or Libs, is to get rid of whistleblowers forever and a day, and stifle all debate, then a Misinfo Bill is the way to go. Want the end of science and the Socratic method of critical thinking, then mindlessly parrot politicians.
The risk of speaking truth to power is real, look at what happened to Socrates. Some think it’s different today, but look at Julian Assange. A most recent example is Kiwi whistleblower ‘Winston Smith’ (one character of Orwells ‘1984’), who came out last week and blew the whistle on a NZ Ministry of Health database. Rather than investigate the legitimate concerns related to the data, the govt sought to silence the debate.
But alas, too little, too late, New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science has coverage of this issue.
The point is, progress in any field requires critical thinking and a spirit of freedom.
When I see a corporation (Labor of Libs) out to shut down debates forever because someone’s point of view doesn’t suit the agenda, then it’s time to speak out.
Of course he does, Brody, and I’ll never stop him. Don’t get me wrong.
terrence mills, “I don’t have any solutions in this area but it raises several important issues of proportionality ”
I distinctly remember reading in the bible about God wanting to destroy the world but some prophet convinced him to spare us if one good person could be found. Jews are rightfully proud of their history but they should be very very scared of what the cult is doing in their name.
Proportionality is the new word speak. Some israeli cult lover suggested 2 for one was a good proportion. HOW CRIMINALLY IMMORAL IS THAT? Innocents being killed because , well……they are in the way. There is no check on the cult’s assault on palestinians. The destruction I saw when massive bombs were dropped on suburbs cannot be called war. Its terrorism alla russia. Kissenger lives…….Its a surreal world of dr strangelove and 1984 rolled into one humanitarian disaster that will take generations to fix….if ever. Talk about self fulfilling prophecies. Its only a matter of time before some radicalised group gets its hands on biological weapons….superior tanks cant defend against that “proportional” response. Imagine the power of a single drone fully loaded and ten thousand decoys. It truly is frightening what is being sown by the cult. Another “Maginot Line” in the sand. Dont think its possible? Look at how the Ukraines are decimating the russian army with drones.
What i find disheartening is the attempt by media to be players. Even the age seems to be writing more crap by liberal agenda stooges. A serious attempt is being made to belittle Albo and praise Dutton. When really both should be put in their place. The ABC has gone stupid neutral….alternative facts have equal value. Because wind turbines 20km off shore will kill wales. And this was widely reported in the media. Instead of being treated for the stupidity it is, it got the coverage that Dutton wanted. The seed of stupid was planted in enough idiots. Why does the media pursue dumb people to report that they are not sure when something like this is so easy to dismiss as nutter territory.
The China bashing agenda that Morrison pursued has finally been put to rest and here they are trying to start another bushfire with the palestinian/cult issue. Mark my words, immigration will get a new lease of life…….small australia will be back on the agenda. Dont think this is a small issue, look what damage it did to britain with brexit. Its such a fucked up ideological bent that stupid does disservice to stupid people.
And then the russian /ukraine conflict is all one way in our beloved media. Here they are trying to portray it as some sort of historical reset. Same as Taiwan and the palestinians. When will people get it through their stupid heads, these people don’t want to be run over by russian tanks or chinese ships or israeli bullies.
Humans can be convinced of anything if enough of a critical mass can be generated. Seems in this day and age, that’s all too easy.
As for politicians being held account for promoting lies, that is already too late. The new tactic is to say the most base thought and then let the media report it. There job done. Personally its time to burn all news papers cause they are not NEWS papers but advertorials that are easily exploited. News papers much like books and watches and cars are technological fads that gripped generations. Now that the novelty has worn off, its time to reappraise what is truly useful and that which is superfluous. I stopped wearing a watch about 40yrs ago. I can get the time from my phone. News papers are a waste of time if they are founded on the quaint notion of bums on seats to sell advertising. hell, the age doesn’t even allow comments anymore . I don’t know what its like behind the paywall, but damned if i am going to pay for misinformation. Books at least are still useful.
Forums like aimn network at least gives us a chance to debate and point out stupid arguments before they become main stream. And my crusade is to not make it an echo chamber.
Leaving up B Sullivan’s comments is free speech. The industrial-scale creation and promotion of such nonsense is a different matter.
Message for Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten.
Dear Amanda Rishworth and Bill Shorten,
Services Australia forced me into a significant debt as a result of their review decision made by an anonymous “delegate or authorised officer”. The person who conducted the review was not qualified for the job. This is not a formal review, it’s a fake.
I raised this issue a number of times but none of you nor Services Australia ever made a comment on the matter. I am waiting for your response. If you believe I was not eligible for a formal review by an Authorised Review officer (ARO) then state in writing.