A most disturbing revelation, with profound repercussions for victims of rape and sexual assault, was made by former Channel Seven Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach in his evidence in the defamation action brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

Lehrmann is alleged to have raped staffer Brittany Higgins in the parliament house office of then Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, in March 2019. His criminal trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.

Auerbach alleged that Lehrmann supplied Seven with privileged material given by Ms Higgins to the AFP, material that was not used in his criminal trial. It is also alleged that Lehrmann airdropped the entire police E-brief to Auerbach, while the two were on a golfing trip.

According to a News.com report:

“Network 10’s barrister Dr Matt Collins has told the court that Bruce Lehrmann breached legal principles by providing Seven with documents from his ACT Supreme Court trial.

Mr Auerbach, in an affidavit tendered to the court, said Mr Lehrmann provided him with the AFP “statement of facts” from Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial.”

The police statement of facts was provided to the defendant and his lawyers by the AFP, as is customary. Lehrmann and his legal team were then obliged by their responsibilities to the Harman Undertaking to use the documents “only for the purposes for which they were disclosed, and not for collateral or ulterior purposes.”

In short, the text messages, phone records and diary extracts supplied by Ms Higgins to the AFP, included in the brief of evidence and not used in the trial, should never have been released to the media. To do so was to breach the Harman Undertaking.

In theory such a breach can lead to a charge of contempt of court and, if you are a lawyer, a complaint to the Legal Services Commission.

As Ms Higgins stated in late July 2023, she provided the material to the AFP to assist in the prosecution of her alleged rapist:

“Reminder – this is my phone data I provided to the AFP to prosecute my rape case.

“None of it was tabled in court.

“And now, it continues to be leaked to the media without my consent.”

She said that the leaks represented “such a dangerous precedent to tolerate a victim’s private data to be weaponised in this manner without any recourse.”

Mr Auerbach alleged in April 2024 that Mr Lehrmann was responsible for supplying the privileged material to Seven. It is unclear who first released the privileged information to Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian in the middle of 2023.

It is important to note here that Mr Lehrmann has consistently and vigorously denied the rape allegations and denied that he is the source of the information from the police brief.

It’s telling that while there’s been a steady leak of evidence not used in Lehrmann’s criminal trial, there has been a remarkable lack of protest about the leak of that privileged material and the breach of the Harman Undertaking the leaking represents. There’s no shortage of salacious coverage of the content of the leaks, but considerably less commentary on the illegality of the act of leaking them.

Unless penalties are imposed on those who abuse their privileged access to police evidence such breaches will continue, to the detriment of victims, particularly in rape and sexual assault cases. As things stand, a complainant would do well to hurl her phone into the nearest body of water rather than give it to investigating police for inclusion in a brief to which her alleged perpetrator has access.

It seems an entirely untenable situation and one that can only be addressed if there is the legal and political will to address it. There is a clear framework in place for the prosecution of offenders, however, so far, nobody seems particularly interested in using it.

So when in September 2023 I was informed that the police brief of evidence in the Lehrmann Toowoomba matter had been obtained by an individual with no standing in that matter, who did not meet the criteria for access to that brief under Queensland law, I decided to do something about it.

Bruce Lehrmann was charged with of with two counts of raping a woman in Toowoomba, Queensland in 2021, shortly after he appeared in court in the ACT on charges of allegedly raping Brittany Higgins. Witnesses in the Toowoomba matter will be cross examined by Lehrmann’s counsel in a committal hearing in June 2024.

The individual who obtained the Toowoomba police brief relayed chunks of information from the brief to two other individuals, who, without knowledge of the other’s involvement, passed on the information to me. Both parties named the same individual as their source.

I have of course no evidence of who leaked the brief, and no knowledge of the intentions of the individual who benefitted from the leak. However, I was and remain sufficiently horrified by this breach occurring for the second time in two separate matters concerning the same accused person, that I decided to take whatever action I could.  

On September 14, 2023, I lodged a complaint with the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission about the leak of the Toowoomba police brief to the individual.

On 26 October 2023, the Daily Mail published an article headlined: “Full details of rape accusations against Bruce Lehrmann after meeting alleged victim at a Toowoomba strip club – and when she came forward.”

Journalist Kylie Stevens attributes as her source a court brief she states was “obtained exclusively by The Australian“:

“According to a court brief obtained exclusively by The Australian newspaper [paywalled], the pair used cocaine during the night.’

The Australian headline is upfront about its source:

Cocaine, unprotected sex: Police brief reveals new charges.

Details of allegations against former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann can be revealed…”

Journalist Samantha Maiden also wrote a piece for News.com on October 26, detailing some of the police allegations without naming a source.

On 2 November 2023, I updated my complaint to the Queensland CCC to include these three articles.

Several weeks later, the Queensland CCC advised me that they would not be pursuing my complaint.

I’ve now decided to make the complaint again, in the light of current evidence provided by Mr Auerbach and concerns expressed by Dr Collins at the breaching of the Harman Undertaking in Lehrmann’s first trial. It appears that the Undertaking may have already been breached in the Toowoomba matter, before it has even come to trial.

We are talking about what is supposed to be a fundamental protection for victims of rape and sexual assault who choose to make a complaint to police, being used by the perpetrator, or someone who has privileged access to the police brief, to intimidate, harass, and humiliate complainants. It is astounding that this abuse of the legal system has not received anything like the attention it deserves. It is one more obstacle in a field filled with obstacles that can and do deter women from seeking justice after enduring rape and sexual assault.

Why are authorities such as the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, and the relevant body in the ACT, failing to investigate these leaks?

Skiddy leaves his mark

Full of shit and full of himself, Scooter has left the building.

His greatest contribution to Australian governance is his departure from it. A vacuous blowhard given to bovine slogans, a Pentecostal nutter convinced of celestial endorsement from a deity whose prosperity ethos luckily aligns with his own, yet he was also sufficiently self-aware as to disguise his odious actuality with his daggy dad artiface and endless photo-op dress-ups.

The ever-present, punchable smirk belied any of his claims to humility; rather it underlined his belief in his own devine exceptionalism – a would-be theocrat thwarted by secular reason:

“God’s kingdom will come. It is in his hands, we trust in Him. We don’t trust in governments.” (Preaching at the Victory Life Centre in Perth, 2022).

Following the electorate’s clear gag reflex at the notion of this disingenuous gobshite continuing to represent the values of our country the image of a now forlorn figure on the Opposition’s backbench nose-bleed seats ironically elicited some entirely undeserved empathy. Scrolling his phone hoping someone had returned his calls, his “if you’re good at your job, you’ll get a job” banality taking its time to manifest itself, he was due instead the forensic grilling by a no-nonsense Catherine Holmes at the Robodebt Royal Commission where he distinguished himself as a practised sophist and blame shifter. And, due also, the ignominy of his too-clever-by-half ‘secret ministries’ parliamentary censure – a loose equivalent to the impeachment of his orange BFF and fellow twatwaffle Dorito Donny.

History will record, and many will now recall his many failings – his cravenness and inaction in the face of adversity, his ducking of accountability, his claiming of the success of others, his malice and bullying, repurposing taxpayers’ money to cronies and right-wing supplicants – all manifestations of his lack of character.

A shrivelled, one-dimensional intellect, a light-weight incapable of reflection or forethought with underlying smarm and personality defects, mentored by a proselytizing grifter and informed by an eagle painting he was impervious to self-reflection – comfortable in the belief he was the Chosen One.

In his departing sermon presented as a valedictory speech he professed “faith in Jesus Christ, which gives me the faith to both forgive but also to be honest about my own failings and shortcomings” which he then failed to be honest about by neglecting to mention any.

Manifestly unsuited to the job he is a study in how megalomania, verbal diarrhea, treachery and happenstance can reward a shameless fabulist and serial failure.

A creationist’s literal belief in biblical fables and his related, rampaging case of gynophobia are the 2 standouts in his compendium of personality defects.

He was visibly confused by the notion that women are equal.

He referred to females, including ministers, by their 1st names, men by their titles.

He mansplained over the top of his senior minister Anne Ruston when she was asked about the Lib government’s treatment of women.

Women to him were packaging:

“1st party room as PM. B4 media came he requested all women MPs move seats & sit in front of him. As props. For the cameras. When media left, Scott’s men took their seats” (Julia Banks, former member for Chisholm).

Counsel for all things female, the eponymous “Jenny”, was required to alert him to the unacceptability of rape via reference to his own daughters.

“I’ve had plenty of mates who have asked me if they can be my special envoy to sort the issue out with Pamela Anderson” he told Gold Coast radio station Hot Tomato FM. Wink, snerk, guffaw, eh? eh? Imagine that pasty slug pawing a woman. No actually. Don’t do that.

He did get handsy with unsuspecting disaster victims, admitting to copping a quick feel as some sort of subliminal, evangelical healing process by his God’s emissary – himself.

Inanity and beyond was a feature of the slogan bogan – each facile declaration followed by the smirk as if he’d passed on an inspirational maxim. The restraint shown by not shooting women protesters is a standout for the clueless galoot as was his spittle-flecked tirade against Christine Holgate who had the audacity to be a strong female role model as chief postie.

Which brings me to his trademark malice and bullying:

“The pattern is that if you attack Scott Morrison… he will lash out and background against you in the most vicious of ways.” (Samantha Maiden, The Drum).

This godly man, this humble servant of a benevolent divinity was ever eager to punch down, to victimise, torment, ignore and defame. Toddlers, Kopika, and Tharnicaa, asylum seekers, grannies,the unemployed. If some died, they died – his conscience was clear.

The black hole of honesty (truth bends around him) cultivated a regime where rorting was not a crime but a credential. The open disdain he held for established and trusted institutions went beyond the traditional Tory aversion to acountability – his God’s will over-ruled any and all. Science? Evidence? Proof? Veracity? Phhht!

When he needed to step up he stepped out; when opportunity arose to show true leadership he hid behind the curtains. He was anti-anti-corruption, aesthetically unpleasant, duplicitous and wantonly cruel.

His loyalty is transactional – Brother Brian? Who? Brother Stuie? Who? His most valuable gofer was his photographer. His closest confidante fled for the exit as an integrity commission was coming to fruition.

He claims credit for two issues as stand-out big wins for his legacy – the response to Covid and the AUKUS pact. Let us remain mindful of the context:

Australia came through the worst of Covid better than most. This is not due to The Galoot who was tardy with vaccines – worsening lockdowns and blaming the premiers. He, and cherubic Rubbery Figures Frydenberg were dragged kicking and screaming by the premiers (and, FFS, Igor Mortis John Howard) to implement the JobKeeper initiative of Greg Combet and Sally McManus.

AUKUS cedes our residual sovereignty to the Americans for decades and for a brain-bleeding price. Delivery is on the never-never and we can be sure the Seppos will bill us for every one of their inevitable FUBARS.

It looked for too long a while that we’d never be rid of The Galoot – stuck like a clock spring on the soap. Now to be referred to in the past tense, his name should become a verb synonymous with opportunistic duplicity – “That car yard sold me a lemon. I was Morrisoned.”

 

 

“He departs the parliament having scarred democracy, diminished trust in government, creating a legacy of shallow politics and photo op policies, of raising the individual above the collective, of switching the story to fit the circumstances; of above all, advancing Scott Morrison.” (Amy Remeikis, The Guardian).

 

Worst ever PM. Fuck off!

References

As Scott Morrison leaves Parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers? The New Daily

Decoding ScoMo: the hidden story and messages in his Pentecostal mashup. Crikey ($)

 

This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

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

The headline conveys a tale of acquisition, narcissism, and unimaginable wealth. The world is overflowing with money inherited, earned honestly or obtained through corrupt means. Nevertheless, little is acquired through equal opportunities. It is a world where the rich have a significant advantage. It is a rich man’s world.

Let’s begin our investigation with some sobering statistics.

Last year, before legislation to fix the problem, research by the Australia Institute showed that:

“… the cost to the federal budget of generous superannuation tax concessions was on par with the cost of the entire aged pension and more significant than the total cost of the NDIS as a whole in 2022-2023.”

And Oxfam’s latest report, “Inequality Inc.,” said that the income of Australia’s 47 billionaires doubled in the last two years to $255 million.”

If you are amazed by those numbers, you are not alone. I am, too. Never before have the wealthy been so well taken care of. 

Tax avoidance through family trusts is also an industry unto itself.

“Earnings can be allocated to family members with low income from other sources so that the taxable income attracts the lowest tax rate possible.

In some circumstances it is possible to reduce the tax bill to almost zero.”

As if that’s not enough:

“The rich also get rewarded with tax concessions to employ armies of lawyers, financial consultants, and accountants to arrange their tax affaires to avoid tax.”

While Australians face a cost-of-living crisis, billionaires have been raking it in. One report said that 897 self-managed super funds produced $1 million or more in income.

We now have “more wealth in the hands of 47 people than around 7.7 million Australians,” – just absurd.

And the wealth of:

“… the three wealthiest Australians, Gina Rinehart, Andrew Forrest and Harry Triguboff, has more than doubled since 2020 at a staggering $1.5 million per hour.”

That inequality of such magnitude should exist in a wealthy country like Australia should open our thinking toward a wealth tax.

SOS Australia rightly points out that:

“… the rest of the community bears the “cost of these tax concessions. It siphons off revenue that would be better used to fund schools, TAFE and universities, as well as other services such as health care, mental health, public housing, unemployment benefits and so on. As the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have observed, tax avoidance is ‘the triumph of injustice‘.”

They add that:

“To compound the injustice, the wealthiest families in Australia also benefit from over $1 billion a year in government funding for the elite private schools they send their kids to. Figures published on My School show that 126 of the wealthiest schools in Australia received $1.25 billion in government funding in 2020. Not only do the rich avoid paying taxes, but they get massive subsidies from the taxes paid by the rest of the community. The sheer scale of the avarice is gobsmacking.”

The Australia Institute also points out that tax concessions for super items “such as medical benefits are $31.3 billion, and assistance to the states for hospitals is $26.6 billion.”

You have to wonder how individuals accumulate large sums in superannuation while receiving such generous tax benefits, not to mention negative gearing, franking credits, and CGT (capital gains) discounts.

When you stop to consider it, the situation is quite scandalous. How did we get here? Is it the result of consecutive conservative governments being too generous while in power? Or is it due to the Labor government’s reluctance to take action? Once you’ve given something, it’s tough to take it back.

I wanted to understand why significant wealth inequality exists in our society. I wondered why both conservative and left-leaning governments tend to reward those who already have a lot of money rather than support those with less. It seems counterintuitive that this pattern persists across different political ideologies.

A conservative philosophy might suggest they should, but it doesn’t say it should be unfair. Conversely, Labor philosophy unequivocally supports the less well-off.

I typed into my search engine, “Why do the rich in Australia receive so many tax breaks?” Google provided a multitude of headlines to peruse.

As I wrote this, news hit the airwaves that the stage three tax alterations would advance more equitably. The Opposition is now up in arms, of course, but logic has won over politics. They will shout broken promises, but Labor can hardly go against its philosophy and still maintain respect with its supporters.

The Australian started its salvo with six stories on its front page about the tax cuts the day after the announcement – none with equality in mind.

Another article I read was by Aimee Picchi, from December 17, 2020, for MoneyWatch. Although it wasn’t Australian and a little dated, it contained a thread to what I sought. Picchi wrote that:

“The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, examines 18 developed countries – from Australia to the United States – over 50 years from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes for the wealthy, with those that didn’t, and then examined their economic outcomes.” 

The analysis discovered one significant change:

“The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries such as the USA, where tax rates were lowered, but instead of trickling down to the middle class, the tax cuts for the rich accomplished much more. Reagan inadvertently or deliberately helped the rich become more wealthy and exacerbated income inequality.”

Although the report doesn’t cover the period of Trump’s Presidency, his tax cuts lifted the ultra-rich’s fortunes even further. 

A piece by The Guardian’s Stephanie Convery from 2023 tells us that the:

“Australian data showed that a wealth tax of just 2% on the country’s millionaires with wealth over $7m, 3% on those with wealth over $67m, and 5% on billionaires would raise $29.1bn annually, enough to increase income support payments to the Henderson poverty line of $88 a day for 1.44 million people.”

Tax reform is necessary to generate additional revenue for the government, which can then be used to reduce poverty and improve human services.

We need tax reform to help those struggling with poverty and improve access to essential human services. By generating additional government revenue, we can work towards creating a more compassionate society that supports and cares for all of its citizens.

My last Google search was surprising. I found it hard to believe that more than 250 ultra-wealthy individuals were urging politicians to increase their taxes. It happened at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 15-19, 2024.

“Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society,” the wealthy people said in an open letter to world leaders. “This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, deprive our children, or harm our nation’s economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”

Like I said: I was surprised.

Internal bickering between ingrained, imported, or cultivated groups can have the most ruinous consequences for a nation’s social cohesion, particularly those of a multicultural mix like Australia.

With its extensive mix of ethnicities, Australia is a prosperous multicultural country that has maintained peace and social cohesion.

We have prospered with this influx of folk from around the world, and I have been party to many grand arrivals in my lifetime. Of course, our early settlers came in the thousands from the overcrowded jails of England. Looking for a better future, the Irish and Scottish followed. Religious differences came with them, but we managed it. 

All this in the backdrop of The White Australia Policy, which prevailed as our attitude to immigration, after Federation in 1901, and for the next 70 years. Was it racist? Of course, it was. It was aimed at stopping non-white people from coming to Australia.

Yet such diversity exists nowhere else. We are home to the “world’s oldest continuous cultures, and Australians identify with more than 270 ancestries.” Since 1945, millions of people have migrated to Australia. 

In the main, we have maintained social cohesion despite the complexities these folk would inevitably bring. “Populate or perish was the catchcry” of the 1950s. It worked:

• Nearly one-third of Aussies were born overseas
• Half of Australians have an overseas-born parent
• Almost one-quarter of Australians speak a language other than English at home.

It was this immigration that built the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme. The richness of their different ethnicities merged into ours to produce a new Australia. It has, in the main, been harmonious. However, some have taken the opportunity to bring their problems with them and act them out on our soil.

Others of Australian heritage have sought to take advantage of these problems to stir up racial prejudice for their own political advantage.

However, some subjects, such as Israel, can be taboo, and the ABC’s decision to go ahead with Q&A without an audience two weeks ago illustrates how volatile some issues can be.

Our history of rejecting refugees is a case in point. John Howard, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison have a history of stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment and racism for political advantage and religious attachment.

As recently as the first question on the resumption of Parliament (November 14), the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, deliberately misquoted what Penny Wong had said in an interview with David Speers on the Insider program. The Opposition Leader Peter Dutton began Question Time by asking Mr Albanese whether it was the government’s position to call for an Israeli ceasefire.

He put to the Prime Minister that on Sunday, Foreign Minister Penny Wong had:

“… claimed Israel, in carrying out its defensive war against terror group Hamas, is breaching international law and should undertake a ceasefire.”

Here is the transcript of what she actually said:

Speers: So just on the ceasefire argument, as you mentioned, the French President Emmanuel Macron has said that he is calling for a ceasefire. You just said you would like to see the steps taken towards a ceasefire. Can I just invite you to tease out what sort of steps are you looking for?

Foreign Minister: Well, we need steps towards a ceasefire because we know that Hamas – it cannot be one‑sided – we know that Hamas is still holding hostages and we know that a ceasefire must be agreed between the parties.”

Nowhere in her answers can you find that Australia was committed to a ceasefire, yet Dutton’s sleazy question suggested otherwise. The Australian newspaper supported his assertion with this headline: “Albanese refuses to endorse Wong call for ceasefire” (firewalled) and started with this lie:

“Anthony Albanese has refused to back Penny Wong’s call for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas, or her suggestion the Netanyahu government could be breaking international law.”

The point of all this, of course, is that while these two sides are fighting the most depraved acts of warfare, killing children, bombing hospitals and committing the most terrible crimes against each other. The Opposition Leader chooses to play dangerous politics with what is a war of far-reaching consequences.

On Wednesday, November 15, Dutton launched another attack, attempting to link criticisms of the government’s response to the Gaza conflict and the release of detainees from immigration detention. Albanese was having none of it. Visibly angry and upset, he accused Peter Dutton of “weaponising antisemitism.”

“To come in here and move this resolution and link antisemitism with the decision of the high court is beyond contempt.” 

“I didn’t think that he could go this low as to link these two issues'” he said in response to Dutton’s motion. 

But Dutton is not alone in these acts that create civil disobedience and threaten social cohesion. The Liberal Party and its leaders have never felt ill-disposed to stirring up racism. 

Let’s test our memories for a moment.

Remember when Peter Dutton openly accused Sudanese teenagers of social disobedience by running amok in the streets of Melbourne. (Then) Prime Minister Turnbull followed him up with similar accusations that amounted to straight-out racism.

No one can forget the tensions that developed when John Howard said:

“But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

The Tampa Affair followed, and the phrase “Stop the boats” further antagonised people. Remember when Alan Jones incited hatred and the Cronulla riots began. Then there were Scott Morrison’s numerous offences as Immigration Minister, Social Services Minister, and Minister for everything. 

To the point of boredom, Turnbull told us that we were the most successful multi-racial country in the world, yet at the same time, while Dutton was claiming that people were scared to leave their homes to eat out because of African gangs. Turnbull and Dutton were repudiated in a sensible fact-laden piece by Waleed Aly.

Turnbull seemed to be all over the shop:

“Australia will consider adding a ‘values test’ for those considering permanent residency in order to protect its ‘extraordinarily successful’ multicultural society.”

In London at the time, the Citizenship and Multicultural Minister Alan Tudge, in a speech to the Australia/UK Leadership Forum, suggested a “values” test to fend off “segregation”. Ever the hypocrite, Turnbull agreed.

“Segregation,” I thought to myself. I dislike the word intently for the images it places before one’s eyes. Still, nevertheless, it is something we have practised – especially on First Nations people – for as long as immigration has existed and is as natural as life itself. His speech was full of racial overtones calculated to incite further violence back home. 

Craig Emmerson noted that John Howard tried this tactic in 1988 with Asian immigration, adding:

“Who would have imagined Turnbull would try it again in 2018. The Liberals haven’t changed in 30 years. Very sad for our country.”

When the Italians came to Melbourne, they gathered together in Brunswick, the Greeks in Carlton, the Vietnamese in Springvale and the Chinese in Box Hill. And so on. Then, over time, they neatly integrated into general society.

We are now confronted with more odious loathing threatening our social cohesion. This time, it is between Jews and Middle Eastern Muslim groups, both of which can claim the moral ground. These vile events are attracting protesting groups in enormous numbers, threatening to escalate into full-on rioting. On social media, commentary of a xenophobic and anti-Semitic nature is just pathetic. 

Australians have a long history of finding fault with things we don’t understand. The complexity of Middle Eastern politics and religion is so electric that they can flare up at any time, and any discussion on the subject is filled with danger.

In our mindless observation at various times, we have blamed communists, Jews, women, the devil, Indigenous people and witches, even God for all manner of things.

Sitting on the platform at Flinders Street Station and watching the passing parade of ethnicity, I can only admire a country I could never envisage from the same seat in the 1950s.

The ‘No’ campaign and the Trumpifaction of the tinpotato

It has been said that Donald Trump appealed to many millions of Americans because he gave them permission to be the very worst of what they always were. In a divided and acrimonious USA a scandal-weary public has become numbed to the orange Trumplethinskin’s outrages, while others have gleefully embraced them.

The botoxed, duck-lipped Fox News Barbies, the goateed ammosexuals, the evangelical god fodder, antisemites, trailer trash and white supremacists, the defiantly ignorant oicks, evolutionary dead-enders, low information, chuckleheaded moon units, the proto-nazi authoritarians and the kooks and goons admire his cruelty. They like the hideous aspects of his character. An increasingly desperate Trump may be headed to prison but Trumpism lives on in the GOP. He has normalised the nasty.

“MAGA voters won’t change. They’re in a statist, authoritarian cult driven by racial animus, lurid conspiracy twaddle, and a corrupt media-entertainment outrage complex that has conditioned them to constant outrage with a steady drip of agitprop.” (Rick Wilson – American political strategist and former member of the Republican Party).

The fight against domestic fascism is as American as apple pie. Even though much of the modern mythology of the western world celebrates the USA as a bastion of democracy, providing a steady and unalloyed example of democratic virtue for the rest of the world, this is misleading. It ignores the actual history of the land.

Back in the real world The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is certainly not the first case in which the forces of niceness in America have moved to prosecute a bunch of runaway fascists, and it is unlikely to be the last. So, it is comforting to note that while Trump and his clowncar full of fascists do garner an awful lot of attention, they are also incredibly incompetent. Whereas the last time a coup attempt by a bunch of fascists was thwarted by the Justice Department it involved a plot being overseen by competent individuals who were all acting in accord with a potentially viable and well thought out plan.

In the 1930s American Fascism was on a roll. It must be remembered that until the entry of the US into WWII, in December of 1941, the idea of fascism was perfectly respectable in the US. Great swathes of the American population were avid followers of political activists who were avowed and self-professed fascists.

At this time the polarisation of Europe was echoed by a domestic polarisation within the USA. The large and growing domestic socialist movement in the USA, that had existed prior to WWI, had been the target of a concerted domestic backlash both during and following the war, with groups such as the American Defense Society in concert with many federal government authorities leading the charge. A similar polarisation was evident inside the workers organisations in the US, with the revolution in Russia forcing a schism between more moderate forces and the radical Leninists.

All of this context is mentioned so as to stress that up until the commencement of WWII, the idea of fascism in the US was perfectly respectable. Not like being a nasty un-American commie, or a Unionist. Fascism was popular. It was a growing trend.

Throughout the late 1930s radical demagogues such as Father Coughlin were drawing huge radio audiences. This Hitler loving cleric talked directly to more than thirty million listeners every week, preaching an anti-Semitic, antidemocratic, racist ideology to a growing and ever more radicalised listenership. As Mark Twain has observed, while history might not repeat itself, it often rhymes. So, at this point it is helpful to once again broaden our focus to include Trump and his clowncar. This is because, regardless of the epoch, American fascism – as with fascism everywhere – always remains much the same. It hums an ‘us and them’ song. A populist, ultranationalist, ditty that preaches the need to return to the values of a glorious past – a far greater and more glorious past. An utterly mythical past. But the focus is always on the unpatriotic hordes.

The targets change but the song remains the same. Coughlin was anti-Jew, anti-Black, anti-Labor, anti-atheist. He sympathised with strong man regimes around the world. He quite deliberatively provoked hatred for those he deemed to be un-American. He praised Hitler, urged his followers to get involved in politics at every level, and demanded that they strive to rid the American political system of Jewish, Socialist, Communist, and Atheist sympathisers. By the late 1930s Coughlin led a broad populist movement that was spread right across the USA.

The targets change but the song remains the same. Trump rants that gay transgender druggie leftists are stealing America. That black criminals are stealing America. That refugees are stealing America. That welfare queens, unionists, students, feminists, the entertainment industry, Silicon Valley, teachers, fully stocked libraries, RINOS and Democrats – and the rest of ‘them’ – are all engaged in stealing America. As with all fascists, the list of those who are patently unpatriotic is endless.

Father Coughlins’ fascistic dreams culminated in 1939. In February the American Nazi’s held a rally at Madison Square Garden that was attended by more than 20,000 supporters. This caused the Attorney for the Southern District of New York to become concerned. His office publicly petitioned the Feds to take action. In response, in December of the same year, the FBI raided the offices of the Christian Front and so famously thwarted a well-funded, carefully organised and more than adequately armed insurrection plot, just two weeks away from launching a full-blown coup to take over the government of the USA.

Following the raid seventeen people were indicted. They were charged with conspiring ‘to overthrow, put down and destroy by force the Government of the United States and by force to take its property’, as well as the theft and stockpiling of ‘Federal munitions and property’. Then history intervened.

Late in 1941 the USA entered the war against Germany, and as the Naz’s were allied with the fascists, the fight against ‘fascism’ was a now national security priority. At once the national mood changed. Fascism was instantly uncool. The charges against all the Christian Front operatives were vacated in the first year of the war. It was deemed to be against the public interest to engage in a lengthy and somewhat embarrassing trial during wartime, especially as there were bigger fish to fry. The domestic fascist threat was suddenly a thing of the past.

Yet even though the Trumpian hordes sing a fascistic song, and his followers dance a fascistic jib, which is all directly comparable to that which was celebrated by millions during the 1930s in the USA, most media outlets in the land still refuse to label it ‘fascistic’. Or acknowledge we have seen it all before. Which is entirely understandable for those outlets that have declared a partisan political allegiance, but not the rest. Or the major political parties.

I feel this is largely down to category confusion. Many are critical of Trump but are nevertheless confused regarding what they are seeing occur. They are careful to avoid calling it a ‘fascist’ movement as they mistake this as being a reference to a political movement or idea. Which is simply a failure in comprehension more than anything. Fascism is expressed politically but it is not at all about politics. Fascism is all about populism and raw power, it is always both anti and non-political.

Which is to say, fascistic movements everywhere in the world have always derived their strength and support from drawing from all sides of an existing political spectrum. But more significantly, they are populist movements that serve to mobilise a large proportion of otherwise politically unengaged citizens. Consequently, one of the defining characteristics of both the movement in the 1930s, and the Trumpian horde, is that a large proportion of these people were previously politically unengaged and unaffiliated. These are voters who are largely new to any sort of political discourse or action and who commonly profess to be largely disaffected with all sides of the political process prior to their becoming fascistic supporters. Thus, these are people who are seeking a different message and solution to those that are being considered and offered by mainstream political parties. In simple terms, a fascistic movement is always characterised by simple, dangerously fantastical, ideas. The propositions of a mythical past might differ (be it a glorious Roman or American Republic), but the systemic denigration of minority groups remains the same. The targets change but the song remains the same.

Therefore, the principal threat that is posed by the rise of a fascistic dialogue (as is perfectly illustrated by the MAGA movement), is generally missed. It is unlikely that the fascists will take outright power. Yet the concerns and arguments that are pedalled by the fascists nevertheless do take a terrible toll on our social life and governmental institutions. This is because fascism is not politics, it is organised hating. Fascism is an ideology that hinges on the identification and civic defenestration of mythical enemies. It is undemocratic, but to dismiss it as being ‘unpatriotic’ simply leads to an ever more determined failure to focus on the imaginary world of American nationalism and the need to be careful and considered in our political speech. It only serves to further blur the line between mythic representations and reality. When we entertain or respond to ‘culture war’ idiocy in our media, policy discussion is thus slowly abandoned. It is far less interesting. It catches fewer eyeballs than any good culture war fight.

Thus, seamlessly and slowly, the possibility for any sort of rational and coherent policy discussion is largely obviated. Idiot propositions are normalised. All that is left in the commercial ‘mainstream’ is the proposition of nonsense and the countering of the nonsense; an ongoing, ever-expanding and ever more nonsensical culture war. Thus, in my opinion, the biggest threat from fascism in the modern age is that it serves to debase our pollical discourse. The real threat from the Trumpian discourse is not that a fascist government in the USA is a likely prospect. The real threat is the normalisation of idiocy.

The biggest threat is to allow people to spout overtly fascistic idiocy and false information in public, without this drawing hoots of derision and guffaws of astonished laughter. Without these idiots being laughed off the stage. The real threat is that large swathes of our media now actively indulge in fostering an ‘us and them’ fascistic worldview, where cultural uniformity and traditions, in accord with a (mythical) glorious past, are always privileged, regardless of the topic under consideration and usually instead of the topic under consideration.

In such a manner, fascistic thinking is caustic. It rots the brain by privileging the basest tribal instincts. A lot of time can be saved by simply identifying the one small segment of the American population that is ignored by the fascists. When considered from this vantage, it is very soon obvious that the only ‘real Americans’ in the USA – according to both Father Coughlin and Trump – are white, affluent, Christian and heterosexual. It is simple bigotry and runs counter to the intent of the founders of the American Republic and the plain text of the American constitution.

The battle is against the celebration and retailing of idiocy and bigotry. Not Trump. There are commercial forces in the media that have decided that they will dictate that the political dialogue of the whole world will be either Trumpian nonsense or the refutation of Trumpian nonsense, as this averts all eyes from much needed media and monopoly law reform, and for as long as we are thus engaged in arguing about nonsense, we suffer the crazy status quo.

So, while I expect that in the next few months we will see the long-awaited implosion of the current fascistic movement in the US, in much the same manner as it dissipated very quickly last time around, I suggest that it will take a very long time to repair the damage done to our media and political discourse. Which requires that we all refocus our attention on all of the boring yet actually consequential topics that the current political discourse seems to ruthlessly avoid.

(Funny thing that. Have a nice day.)