Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): There’s a frenzied rush by the Australian political/media class to both propagandise Australians as quickly as possible into supporting preparations for war with China, and to ram through legislation that facilitates the censorship of online speech.
Every politician, media pundit, priest, or business person who clamors for war needs to be shamed, laughed at, and removed from whatever position they hold.
Gregory T: I can tell that you are not a writer. Every word has to be perfect. "Love means" is more powerful than "Love is". "You're" needs the apostrophe. "Your" denotes ownership. "You're" means "You are".
Words are how we think, express ourselves, and create the present, past, and future.
Words matter which is why the Evil Ones are always corrupting words.
Thank you for explaining the grammar. So much ungrammatical usage in multiple comments all over the Internet. Another one: "try and". It's not trying and (doing something else); it is trying to (do something). Logic explains that try to is correct, and try and is nonsensical.
Canada insists there is evidence of China's interference in Canada's elections and security but can't cite any evidence - because it's top secret- need to know, your eyes only stuff. Catch 22. But ethnic Chinese Canadian lives are being ruined. Reminds me of McCarthy, Joe and Charlie both - cry and laugh. And Louis IV's Lettres de Cachets: an anonymous and secret letter about your "crime," and you were off to the Bastille. And Julian Assange: report a government crime - and you're the criminal. We call ourselves Homo Sapiens: nobody else would.
Homo sapiens are by and large the most vicious,violent, ruthless creatures on the planet. We're being led by the premier elite of them. Doesn't give me a good feeling. Good Kitty,(my cat ) agrees.
They tells us a totalitarian state is OK as long as it's privatized. Then we found out that the government funds the "private" companies to do what the state is forbidden to do. But it's still OK, right?
At best, Democracy and Freedom are platonic ideals that exists only in some timeless, absolute realm that we perceive dimly (or not at all). That is why they are the perfect foundations stones of all western propaganda. Here in this matrix, Democracy and Freedom are chimeras, and the most authoritarian governments are always those that most frequently use the terms Democracy and Freedom.
North Korea? You mean in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? At least with regard to the term "democracy", I might have to expand my generalization even beyond western propaganda. But you may be right about "freedom", since that is such a vague word it may not even be translatable into some non-western languages.
Well, either the majority pushes the minority around (democracy) or the minority pushes the majority around (dictatorship, oligarchy). And then there's anarchy.... What do you recommend?
The whole point of a written Constitution, no power or group should be above it. We see the US deep state now no longer follows much of the US Constitution at all, and the legalized bribery in Washington has destroyed any kind of semblance of Representative government.
Then you have many right-wing ideologues arguing social darwinism. Where there should be no rules or regulations whatsoever. That a free society should spontaneously run itself - and one should only take responsibility for their own self-centered interests. Like teenagers who want to paint the town red and not have to take any responsibility for the infringement of freedoms they are imposing on everyone else (who want the freedom of not seeing their town painted red, or polluted, or run by corporate child labor lords). A free society requires responsibility, collaboration and cooperation - which is the opposite of social darwinism, or the irrational fantasy of anarchic libertarianism.
I don't see that any segment of the US gvt follows the Constitution, especially not the SCROTUS. The only "rights" that have persisted are the few that are defended vigorously. The way I think of it is, "how many squad cars has the Constitution got?"
Kamala (the VP) openly stated that "those Maga people think we need to go by the constitution but we threw that away long ago"! Or words to that affect. Bush Jr. said "It's just a piece of paper" so it is very clear none of this filth has any care for the rights of the people.
It used to be better a number of decades ago. But the judicial branch has been corrupted far more since, so yeah, the US Constitution is in tatters. They make judicial interpretations defying rationality now, to give more to the corporate overlords of the land and subvert fundamental rights we all used to enjoy more in the past
jamenta: Your last sentence describes anarchic libertarianism. Libertarians believe in no or limited government where every person can pursue his or her own interests with the caveat that they cannot infringe on the liberties and rights of another individual.
All transactions are voluntary.
Adam Smith explains it very well how each individual pursuing his own interests benefits society. The division of labor leads to prosperity for all.
Timmy Taes: Libertarians want freedom, but don't want to accept the responsibility necessary for "freedom". Which means some form of non-corrupt, representative governance. Government itself is not wrong, it is necessary for a free society, to protect the freedom of everyone - not just a few billionaires, or adolescent libertarians.
A representative government is voluntary by the consent of the governed. Obviously, this is not the case with a corrupted government.
"Individual pursuing his own interests" also includes participating and accepting the responsibility of allowing other individuals in your free society to also pursue their own interests. It doesn't happen spontaneously - or by the invisible hand of a corrupt, unregulated market place. We obviously can see here in the US that unfettered greed is actually quite evil. And Libertarians simply want more of unfettered greed, with no strings attached.
Libertarians don't want to take responsibility for the free society they participate in. And like typical adolescents, insist they should get to do whatever they want without any rules/regulations/governance that will protect the rights and freedoms of other people in a free society. Libertarians want freedom, but insist freedom can come without social responsibility, or that it will magically happen without regulation or governance. It's an adolescent wet fantasy of irresponsibility and selfishness.
The only minority they were meant to protect were the landed and the slavers. Humans need to grow out of needing fictions to get out of bed in the morning.
If you think that is a ridiculous choice (probably because we are all indoctrinated to believe anarchy = chaos), I recommend David Graeber's and David Wengrow's book "The Dawn of Everything", in which they show that anarchy has, in fact, been the dominate form of governance for ages, and which has only recently been entirely wiped from history by the imperial and colonial elites of the west.
I would point out that ancient Egypt was very hierarchical and lasted for millenia. A record? I also opine that feudalism and neoliberalism are pretty much the same thing. In the old days religion served as the propaganda arm but that's just a change in methods. The goals were the same. Industrialization/technology was a huge intensifier but I don't see that the basic system changed much at all.
That's not very historical. The most striking commonality between feudalism and neoliberalism is each one's ornate, Byzantine social structure whose correct performance signifies access to social time and information, and which limits access to property accordingly. But one of those structures is received and inherited, while the other is (at least in theory) history-free and always potentially open to all possibilities. Their theories of property are markedly different; it wasn't until late in the 18th century that English jurists were willing to accept dominium (total ownership against all the world), that centerpiece of neoliberal entitlement, as something anyone but the King can hold, or that anyone could hold against the King.
See Graeber (2007) for many interesting words on hierarchy and what it doesn't actually have to mean:
One of the problems with anarchy is that you have to find people that actually want to do it. The largest functioning anarchies in history that I know about were the Dukhobors, who may have amounted to a few thousand people living in Alberta and British Columbia. Their communities were destroyed by the provincial governments, so we don't know how they would have turned out if they had been allowed to persist and develop. (Which points to another unsolved problem, that of defending your anarchist community without resorting to militarism and violence.) But the primary problem seems to be that people don't want the responsibility which anarchy would inevitably entail.
There are middling ways between anarchy and the total state. Graeber and Wengrow constructed a simple schema based on three fundamental freedoms (roughly corresponding to exit, voice, and loyalty) and the three institutions designed to suppress and dominate them (police, bureaucracy and sports). Total states are built with all three, but working societies have been built with any one or two.
In theory, the best way to defend a non-state community is to be prepared to destroy the contested resource, or otherwise to render it non-exploitable if captured, as the Romans salted Carthage. But sticky ethical situations can develop, especially when lives are implicated. In practice, the best defense seems to be avoidance.
Doing whatever you want to do - without any collaboration and cooperation (i.e. a representative government or set of governing rules) in the society you live in - would be the very definition of irresponsiblity. Anarchic Libertarians want their freedom, but don't want to take on the responsibility for what actual "freedom entails" in a civilized, free society. Responsibility means - you agree upon a certain set of rules for your society to freely prosper. And that freedom does not come at the expense of the freedom of others within that society. Among these rules is fair use of resources, the right of privacy and freedom from harm from your neighbor. The freedom to fresh air and fresh water. The freedom of a fair and non-exploitative marketplace. None of which will spontaneously occur without collaboration and cooperation. And we now see, absolutely does not occur with the underlying premise that self-interest and greed will balance itself out. We now know the end results of a greed centered society in the corruptly regulated, corporately controlled US society we now live in - where the billionaires have bought our so-called representative government, and the so-called "free" marketplace has been manipulated with Wallstreet scam artists, exploitative labor practices, and uncontrolled plunder of planetary resources. Getting rid of all responsibility, which is what the corporatists and billionaires ultimately aim for - the ideological fantasy Ayn Randian utopia, will lead to social darwinism in a Mad Max world of privatized corporate police forces and privatized militaries, and a privatized justice system - a kind of neo-feudalism that would be even worse than the feudal times humankind once lived through for centuries.
There is nothing at all responsible about anarchic Libertarianism. It is the complete opposite of responsibility. It is a self-centered ideology that at its base, argues for more social darwinism. It is a fantasy type of barbarity that is only pushed by billionaires and their ideological puppets.
Says she whose arguments are word salads of emotion, unexamined assumptions, liberal pieties, and an off-putting, pompous, Karen-like tone that belies the real value of what you have to say.
"In Europe, talk of legalizing spyware so governments can get the identities of journalists' confidential sources."
In the US they just do it in secrecy. The first Greenwald story from the Snowden files was that the DEA used illegal spy info to catch drug dealers. That story disappeared instantly. Even Glenn never again mentioned this. Doubtless this system continues to this day.
Er...our current Foreign Minister? Penny Wong? The only one I can think of of the top of my head, but there are others at lower levels of Govt in various states.
Darwin has a large Chinese population ( many of who were born there, so they're Australians ) and they are highly regarded in the community.
Now that Darwin is filling up with US troops I worry for those people.
As long as the government allows any "independent" media at all this is always the way it has been done. You have a gvt. censor in every newspaper office.
The only difference in the USA is that you send them email and it's supposed to be voluntary. It sort of is : the Twitter files shows that Twitter didn't always obey. On the other hand, a popular source that Twitter evaluated as "bullshit" was allowed to stay up because US propaganda was relying on it. So how independent was it.
No, like all partisans you project your own moral crimes on others so that you can vicariously experience the punishment without experiencing the pain.
In a free country, there should normally be no forbidden remarks, except those that undoubtedly call for the commission of a serious crime: murder, rape, acts of violence. It goes without saying that what we call homophobia, transphobia and other pseudo-phobias are not, in a free society, offenses at all, but opinions which have the right to be expressed and which can of course be contested. That's debate in a free society.
And it goes without saying that these terms, such as homophobia, are invented not just to frame the debate, but to prohibit it. By getting people used to accepting this kind of censorship, in the name of so-called tolerance - since anyone who isn't an LGBT lobbyist is necessarily an intolerant individual - we're getting them used to accepting the idea that the state decides for them what's good information and what's bad. This is how the warmongering media hype is authorized and encouraged, and how any sane person should refute it without bothering to think too hard.
It's a word invented by trans activists to present themselves as victims. When you read the linked article, you're tempted to use the expression "mentally ill" to describe "Jennifer".
It's true that the use of the word "transphobic" is equivocal, as using it seems to validate the activism it invokes. But I wouldn't dare to put the author on trial for censorship in this article.
Not putting anyone on trial, merely expressing my confusion that a person who is better than most at spotting propaganda uses a term that many consider to be exactly that.
Mr. Knott will soon be tying himself up in "knots" trying to keep up this level of propaganda on the Australian public. Everyone worldwide needs to keep up the pressure on him and the other propagandists & warmongers until they crack, implode, explode or generally just slither away and go back where they came from. Nothing less will do to keep our planet and future generations safe.
The propaganda foundation has been laid for a US/NATO nuclear war with Russia, triggered by some kind of false flag "dirty bomb" at the Zap. nuclear power plant.
It goes something like: "Prig. coup has exposed Putin's weakness.Russia in disarray. Ukrainian offensive succeeding in driving out Russian forces. Desperate Russian soldiers holt nuke plant hostage and attack it to prevent being over-run by Ukrainian tanks."
They'vew already shown they can lie on. a massive scale with Kertch Bridge, Norstream pipeline, dam, and the so called Prig. "coup". US Senators Graham and Blumenthal (a liberal Democrat from a liberal northeaster deep blue state) have introduced a Resolution to trigger NATO Article 5 obligations in the event of detection of nuke release, literally inviting Ukraining Nazi's to terrorize the plant to trigger US/NATO intervention. Zelensky is tweeting claiming Russians plan to blow it up. WW III ends the world.
I would totally agree with this - these deranged politicians are killing us all ... (Mr Putin talked AGAIN about Red Lines and contrary to the US the Russians DO NOT have a first strike doctrine, well good luck to the 'rules based international order' - obviously NOBODY 'up there' with 'some' brains left ...)
The Russians are "signalling" that they may change their no first strike policy. Surely DC welcomes this with delight. And no, I'm not being facetious.
Substack is based in San Francisco. I think it is tolerated as it can be excluded from mainstream cyberspace. No google search hits, links shadowbanned, that sort of thing. (I haven't investigated this so please inform me if wrong.) If Substack writers gain significant traction this level of exclusion would be subject to reevaluation.
Western Media Manipulation, as described below, but first . . .
- It is one thing to write in generalities. Being specific not only will have one censored but also picked up.
- Laws made retrospective will have certain writers classed as Enemies of the State.
- Internment Camps were constructed during the CoVid campaign.
_________
And so . . .
"The careless, self-serving decisions made by those in charge in certain Governments and Commerce has brought us to the present realities and they seek to protect themselves via controlled Mainstream Media narratives, the exclusion of those deemed unacceptable as well as applying the ever present iron fist of punitive state power to physically remove people. Timescales for some events can still be seen in years, yet for other events, they gather pace".
Washington's Ukraina Grandioznaya Skhema. The Graveyard of This Empire.
_________
- Priming a state for war is preceded by an intense, extended narrative campaign that stays on message.
- Australia has no problem with China. The United States does - the loss of geo-political primacy.
- Others, like The Ukraine, will be sacrificed on that alter.
- A war with China is a war with China and Russia, the latter with the most battle tested War Machine on the planet, while the rest use proxies, conduct terrorist operations, work at simulations and war games that are one step up from parade ground marches.
At this point, an Australian war with China seems mechanically difficult. How do Australian war planners expect to get to China? And with what? How will they defend their mostly coastal country from counterattack? These are not idle or rhetorical questions for war fans.
1)Watch Pilger's video. It won't just be Australia. 2)Are you saying that politicians consider consequences and don't act before thinking things through?🤣
Thank you Caitlin for coming home and turning the lens on the steady loss of freedom and democracy here in Oz. Happening in plain sight - "she'll be right mate".
Yes, someone has to decide what is misinformation, but presumption of innocence went out the window with RoboDebt, when those on welfare had to prove they didn't owe the the eye watering debt the Dept of Inhuman services said they did. So I'm sure there will be no requirement for the accusers in these cases to prove that it is disinformation or hate speech.
Every politician, media pundit, priest, or business person who clamors for war needs to be shamed, laughed at, and removed from whatever position they hold.
Big Brother seeks only to protect and guide you. Why do you refuse his love?
Because it reminds me too much of my ex wife's form of love.
Big Corporate Capitalism seeks only to rape, exploit, and discard you. Why do you refuse HIS love?
I dunno. Maybe I need therapy.
Remember, "love is not having to say you sorry"..
"Love means never having to say you're sorry." is the correct quote.
Make that your
Gregory T: I can tell that you are not a writer. Every word has to be perfect. "Love means" is more powerful than "Love is". "You're" needs the apostrophe. "Your" denotes ownership. "You're" means "You are".
Words are how we think, express ourselves, and create the present, past, and future.
Words matter which is why the Evil Ones are always corrupting words.
Timmy Taes - Excellent comment!
Thank you for explaining the grammar. So much ungrammatical usage in multiple comments all over the Internet. Another one: "try and". It's not trying and (doing something else); it is trying to (do something). Logic explains that try to is correct, and try and is nonsensical.
Elaine: Thanks for pointing that out.
So words are also a means of deceiving ourselves and others.
Starry Gordon: Like any tool, words can be used for good or evil.
Canada insists there is evidence of China's interference in Canada's elections and security but can't cite any evidence - because it's top secret- need to know, your eyes only stuff. Catch 22. But ethnic Chinese Canadian lives are being ruined. Reminds me of McCarthy, Joe and Charlie both - cry and laugh. And Louis IV's Lettres de Cachets: an anonymous and secret letter about your "crime," and you were off to the Bastille. And Julian Assange: report a government crime - and you're the criminal. We call ourselves Homo Sapiens: nobody else would.
Certainly cats would not.
Homo sapiens are by and large the most vicious,violent, ruthless creatures on the planet. We're being led by the premier elite of them. Doesn't give me a good feeling. Good Kitty,(my cat ) agrees.
They have good judgement- don't like too many of us.
Thanks, and apologies for typo: Louis XIV, not IV: Must be Covid!
They tells us a totalitarian state is OK as long as it's privatized. Then we found out that the government funds the "private" companies to do what the state is forbidden to do. But it's still OK, right?
Patrick Powers: What is a "Free Democracy"? The majority pushes the minority around. No freedom there.
At best, Democracy and Freedom are platonic ideals that exists only in some timeless, absolute realm that we perceive dimly (or not at all). That is why they are the perfect foundations stones of all western propaganda. Here in this matrix, Democracy and Freedom are chimeras, and the most authoritarian governments are always those that most frequently use the terms Democracy and Freedom.
I dunno that North Korea emphasizes freedom and democracy.
North Korea? You mean in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? At least with regard to the term "democracy", I might have to expand my generalization even beyond western propaganda. But you may be right about "freedom", since that is such a vague word it may not even be translatable into some non-western languages.
Well, either the majority pushes the minority around (democracy) or the minority pushes the majority around (dictatorship, oligarchy). And then there's anarchy.... What do you recommend?
US Constitutional rights are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. They are not being enforced.
The whole point of a written Constitution, no power or group should be above it. We see the US deep state now no longer follows much of the US Constitution at all, and the legalized bribery in Washington has destroyed any kind of semblance of Representative government.
Then you have many right-wing ideologues arguing social darwinism. Where there should be no rules or regulations whatsoever. That a free society should spontaneously run itself - and one should only take responsibility for their own self-centered interests. Like teenagers who want to paint the town red and not have to take any responsibility for the infringement of freedoms they are imposing on everyone else (who want the freedom of not seeing their town painted red, or polluted, or run by corporate child labor lords). A free society requires responsibility, collaboration and cooperation - which is the opposite of social darwinism, or the irrational fantasy of anarchic libertarianism.
I don't see that any segment of the US gvt follows the Constitution, especially not the SCROTUS. The only "rights" that have persisted are the few that are defended vigorously. The way I think of it is, "how many squad cars has the Constitution got?"
Kamala (the VP) openly stated that "those Maga people think we need to go by the constitution but we threw that away long ago"! Or words to that affect. Bush Jr. said "It's just a piece of paper" so it is very clear none of this filth has any care for the rights of the people.
It used to be better a number of decades ago. But the judicial branch has been corrupted far more since, so yeah, the US Constitution is in tatters. They make judicial interpretations defying rationality now, to give more to the corporate overlords of the land and subvert fundamental rights we all used to enjoy more in the past
jamenta: Your last sentence describes anarchic libertarianism. Libertarians believe in no or limited government where every person can pursue his or her own interests with the caveat that they cannot infringe on the liberties and rights of another individual.
All transactions are voluntary.
Adam Smith explains it very well how each individual pursuing his own interests benefits society. The division of labor leads to prosperity for all.
Timmy Taes: Libertarians want freedom, but don't want to accept the responsibility necessary for "freedom". Which means some form of non-corrupt, representative governance. Government itself is not wrong, it is necessary for a free society, to protect the freedom of everyone - not just a few billionaires, or adolescent libertarians.
A representative government is voluntary by the consent of the governed. Obviously, this is not the case with a corrupted government.
"Individual pursuing his own interests" also includes participating and accepting the responsibility of allowing other individuals in your free society to also pursue their own interests. It doesn't happen spontaneously - or by the invisible hand of a corrupt, unregulated market place. We obviously can see here in the US that unfettered greed is actually quite evil. And Libertarians simply want more of unfettered greed, with no strings attached.
Libertarians don't want to take responsibility for the free society they participate in. And like typical adolescents, insist they should get to do whatever they want without any rules/regulations/governance that will protect the rights and freedoms of other people in a free society. Libertarians want freedom, but insist freedom can come without social responsibility, or that it will magically happen without regulation or governance. It's an adolescent wet fantasy of irresponsibility and selfishness.
The only minority they were meant to protect were the landed and the slavers. Humans need to grow out of needing fictions to get out of bed in the morning.
Sorry, you confuse property rights (5th Amendment), with other minority and Constitutional rights.
Why are you arguing to perpetuate the cause under some stupid self-regarding mythical theory that you can drive the wood chipper better than they can? The state exists to enforce property. All rights reduce to property rights, whatever you want to call them. https://davidgraeber.org/articles/manners-deference-and-private-property-or-elements-for-a-general-theory-of-hierarchy/
Kings sequestered in their castles and almost never knowing that their divine edicts aren't being followed seems like one of the least odious models.
Ha! You might have something there.
That's an easy choice. Anarchy, of course.
If you think that is a ridiculous choice (probably because we are all indoctrinated to believe anarchy = chaos), I recommend David Graeber's and David Wengrow's book "The Dawn of Everything", in which they show that anarchy has, in fact, been the dominate form of governance for ages, and which has only recently been entirely wiped from history by the imperial and colonial elites of the west.
Technology and industrialization and capitalism changed everything.
I would point out that ancient Egypt was very hierarchical and lasted for millenia. A record? I also opine that feudalism and neoliberalism are pretty much the same thing. In the old days religion served as the propaganda arm but that's just a change in methods. The goals were the same. Industrialization/technology was a huge intensifier but I don't see that the basic system changed much at all.
That's not very historical. The most striking commonality between feudalism and neoliberalism is each one's ornate, Byzantine social structure whose correct performance signifies access to social time and information, and which limits access to property accordingly. But one of those structures is received and inherited, while the other is (at least in theory) history-free and always potentially open to all possibilities. Their theories of property are markedly different; it wasn't until late in the 18th century that English jurists were willing to accept dominium (total ownership against all the world), that centerpiece of neoliberal entitlement, as something anyone but the King can hold, or that anyone could hold against the King.
See Graeber (2007) for many interesting words on hierarchy and what it doesn't actually have to mean:
https://davidgraeber.org/wp-content/uploads/2007-Manners-Defference-and-Private-Property-Or-elements-for-a-general-theory-of-hierarchy.pdf
Some might disagreee:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Easy red flag of too much ideology and not enough rationality.
One of the problems with anarchy is that you have to find people that actually want to do it. The largest functioning anarchies in history that I know about were the Dukhobors, who may have amounted to a few thousand people living in Alberta and British Columbia. Their communities were destroyed by the provincial governments, so we don't know how they would have turned out if they had been allowed to persist and develop. (Which points to another unsolved problem, that of defending your anarchist community without resorting to militarism and violence.) But the primary problem seems to be that people don't want the responsibility which anarchy would inevitably entail.
There are middling ways between anarchy and the total state. Graeber and Wengrow constructed a simple schema based on three fundamental freedoms (roughly corresponding to exit, voice, and loyalty) and the three institutions designed to suppress and dominate them (police, bureaucracy and sports). Total states are built with all three, but working societies have been built with any one or two.
In theory, the best way to defend a non-state community is to be prepared to destroy the contested resource, or otherwise to render it non-exploitable if captured, as the Romans salted Carthage. But sticky ethical situations can develop, especially when lives are implicated. In practice, the best defense seems to be avoidance.
I'd say the eastern American Indian tribes were closest to anarchy. Benjamin Franklin and others thought highly of them.
Starry Gordon: Good points.
Doing whatever you want to do - without any collaboration and cooperation (i.e. a representative government or set of governing rules) in the society you live in - would be the very definition of irresponsiblity. Anarchic Libertarians want their freedom, but don't want to take on the responsibility for what actual "freedom entails" in a civilized, free society. Responsibility means - you agree upon a certain set of rules for your society to freely prosper. And that freedom does not come at the expense of the freedom of others within that society. Among these rules is fair use of resources, the right of privacy and freedom from harm from your neighbor. The freedom to fresh air and fresh water. The freedom of a fair and non-exploitative marketplace. None of which will spontaneously occur without collaboration and cooperation. And we now see, absolutely does not occur with the underlying premise that self-interest and greed will balance itself out. We now know the end results of a greed centered society in the corruptly regulated, corporately controlled US society we now live in - where the billionaires have bought our so-called representative government, and the so-called "free" marketplace has been manipulated with Wallstreet scam artists, exploitative labor practices, and uncontrolled plunder of planetary resources. Getting rid of all responsibility, which is what the corporatists and billionaires ultimately aim for - the ideological fantasy Ayn Randian utopia, will lead to social darwinism in a Mad Max world of privatized corporate police forces and privatized militaries, and a privatized justice system - a kind of neo-feudalism that would be even worse than the feudal times humankind once lived through for centuries.
There is nothing at all responsible about anarchic Libertarianism. It is the complete opposite of responsibility. It is a self-centered ideology that at its base, argues for more social darwinism. It is a fantasy type of barbarity that is only pushed by billionaires and their ideological puppets.
Says she whose arguments are word salads of emotion, unexamined assumptions, liberal pieties, and an off-putting, pompous, Karen-like tone that belies the real value of what you have to say.
Classic psychological projection.
Starry Gordon: Anarchy.
I believe socialist democracy is workable and doable - if we only put a stop to the insane disparity in wealth, and the system that promotes it.
So true!!
In Europe, talk of legalizing spyware so governments can get the identities of journalists' confidential sources.
Watching the various vassals, puppets and satrapies compete as to who can be America's Loyalest Little Lackey(tm).
"In Europe, talk of legalizing spyware so governments can get the identities of journalists' confidential sources."
In the US they just do it in secrecy. The first Greenwald story from the Snowden files was that the DEA used illegal spy info to catch drug dealers. That story disappeared instantly. Even Glenn never again mentioned this. Doubtless this system continues to this day.
I used the word "legalizing" advisedly.
You mean, so they can do it openly instead of covertly?
I have read that the FBI was tapping W. Mark Felt's phone. Bob Woodward was a dufus as far as security protocol goes so they knew who Deep Throat was.
Basically.
Will Australia intern all Chinese immigrants as “alien enemies” as happened to my Italian father when Australia went to war against Italy in 1940?
How many Chinese immigrants are there in Australia and how high are they in government and economic structures?
Er...our current Foreign Minister? Penny Wong? The only one I can think of of the top of my head, but there are others at lower levels of Govt in various states.
Darwin has a large Chinese population ( many of who were born there, so they're Australians ) and they are highly regarded in the community.
Now that Darwin is filling up with US troops I worry for those people.
Minister Wong's zealously bootlicking subservience, remarkable even by vassal standards, may be in an effort to demonstrate her loyalty.
As with any political party you must prove loyalty. To the Party. And that's still not enough for a female member in the Boys' Club.
But she has made some dissenting adjacent comments, so she gets my support, even though don't live in an electorate where I could vote for her.
Wikipedia says 5.5% of citizens identify themselves as being of Chinese descent. 1.4 million citizens.
In southeast Asia the descendents of Chinese immigrants tend to be disproportionately important in the economic structure.
Yes, but not all countries.
I really haven’t watched Australian news for over 2 years so it’s news to me. Pretty sure China doesn’t want war with us.
Amazing how the "Global West" seems in lockstep on this ...
The government compelling corporations to do the censoring is the Chinese model.
and the US model, as clearly described in the Twitter Files.
As long as the government allows any "independent" media at all this is always the way it has been done. You have a gvt. censor in every newspaper office.
The only difference in the USA is that you send them email and it's supposed to be voluntary. It sort of is : the Twitter files shows that Twitter didn't always obey. On the other hand, a popular source that Twitter evaluated as "bullshit" was allowed to stay up because US propaganda was relying on it. So how independent was it.
Jake G: It is the Fascist model.
Yep. Dave Rockefeller's favorite place.
I figured Dave R. was in Hell.
No, like all partisans you project your own moral crimes on others so that you can vicariously experience the punishment without experiencing the pain.
Speaking of projection I am not a partisan.
In a free country, there should normally be no forbidden remarks, except those that undoubtedly call for the commission of a serious crime: murder, rape, acts of violence. It goes without saying that what we call homophobia, transphobia and other pseudo-phobias are not, in a free society, offenses at all, but opinions which have the right to be expressed and which can of course be contested. That's debate in a free society.
And it goes without saying that these terms, such as homophobia, are invented not just to frame the debate, but to prohibit it. By getting people used to accepting this kind of censorship, in the name of so-called tolerance - since anyone who isn't an LGBT lobbyist is necessarily an intolerant individual - we're getting them used to accepting the idea that the state decides for them what's good information and what's bad. This is how the warmongering media hype is authorized and encouraged, and how any sane person should refute it without bothering to think too hard.
I'm surprised Caitlin used the word 'transphobic', it seems incongruous.
It's a word invented by trans activists to present themselves as victims. When you read the linked article, you're tempted to use the expression "mentally ill" to describe "Jennifer".
Indeed, and my point is that using that word signifies adherence to a very broken ideology - something I thought Caitlin was above.
It's true that the use of the word "transphobic" is equivocal, as using it seems to validate the activism it invokes. But I wouldn't dare to put the author on trial for censorship in this article.
Not putting anyone on trial, merely expressing my confusion that a person who is better than most at spotting propaganda uses a term that many consider to be exactly that.
You're right, C. Johnstone's use of the word is disturbing.
Mr. Knott will soon be tying himself up in "knots" trying to keep up this level of propaganda on the Australian public. Everyone worldwide needs to keep up the pressure on him and the other propagandists & warmongers until they crack, implode, explode or generally just slither away and go back where they came from. Nothing less will do to keep our planet and future generations safe.
We may never get to the China war.
The propaganda foundation has been laid for a US/NATO nuclear war with Russia, triggered by some kind of false flag "dirty bomb" at the Zap. nuclear power plant.
It goes something like: "Prig. coup has exposed Putin's weakness.Russia in disarray. Ukrainian offensive succeeding in driving out Russian forces. Desperate Russian soldiers holt nuke plant hostage and attack it to prevent being over-run by Ukrainian tanks."
They'vew already shown they can lie on. a massive scale with Kertch Bridge, Norstream pipeline, dam, and the so called Prig. "coup". US Senators Graham and Blumenthal (a liberal Democrat from a liberal northeaster deep blue state) have introduced a Resolution to trigger NATO Article 5 obligations in the event of detection of nuke release, literally inviting Ukraining Nazi's to terrorize the plant to trigger US/NATO intervention. Zelensky is tweeting claiming Russians plan to blow it up. WW III ends the world.
I would totally agree with this - these deranged politicians are killing us all ... (Mr Putin talked AGAIN about Red Lines and contrary to the US the Russians DO NOT have a first strike doctrine, well good luck to the 'rules based international order' - obviously NOBODY 'up there' with 'some' brains left ...)
The Russians are "signalling" that they may change their no first strike policy. Surely DC welcomes this with delight. And no, I'm not being facetious.
I'm not in Australia, but can we assume that sooner rather than later your articles and substack will also be illegal and dangerous misinformation?
I certainly hope not! Is Substack based in the US or elsewhere?
Substack is based in San Francisco. I think it is tolerated as it can be excluded from mainstream cyberspace. No google search hits, links shadowbanned, that sort of thing. (I haven't investigated this so please inform me if wrong.) If Substack writers gain significant traction this level of exclusion would be subject to reevaluation.
Western Media Manipulation, as described below, but first . . .
- It is one thing to write in generalities. Being specific not only will have one censored but also picked up.
- Laws made retrospective will have certain writers classed as Enemies of the State.
- Internment Camps were constructed during the CoVid campaign.
_________
And so . . .
"The careless, self-serving decisions made by those in charge in certain Governments and Commerce has brought us to the present realities and they seek to protect themselves via controlled Mainstream Media narratives, the exclusion of those deemed unacceptable as well as applying the ever present iron fist of punitive state power to physically remove people. Timescales for some events can still be seen in years, yet for other events, they gather pace".
https://les7eb.substack.com/p/washingtons-ukraina-grandioznaya
Washington's Ukraina Grandioznaya Skhema. The Graveyard of This Empire.
_________
- Priming a state for war is preceded by an intense, extended narrative campaign that stays on message.
- Australia has no problem with China. The United States does - the loss of geo-political primacy.
- Others, like The Ukraine, will be sacrificed on that alter.
- A war with China is a war with China and Russia, the latter with the most battle tested War Machine on the planet, while the rest use proxies, conduct terrorist operations, work at simulations and war games that are one step up from parade ground marches.
We enter into dangerous times.
Murdoch's a nice guy. Just ask Tucker Carlson. Watch John Pilger's " The Coming War With China"!
At this point, an Australian war with China seems mechanically difficult. How do Australian war planners expect to get to China? And with what? How will they defend their mostly coastal country from counterattack? These are not idle or rhetorical questions for war fans.
1)Watch Pilger's video. It won't just be Australia. 2)Are you saying that politicians consider consequences and don't act before thinking things through?🤣
Thank you Caitlin for coming home and turning the lens on the steady loss of freedom and democracy here in Oz. Happening in plain sight - "she'll be right mate".
Yes, someone has to decide what is misinformation, but presumption of innocence went out the window with RoboDebt, when those on welfare had to prove they didn't owe the the eye watering debt the Dept of Inhuman services said they did. So I'm sure there will be no requirement for the accusers in these cases to prove that it is disinformation or hate speech.