Australia’s Authoritarian attempts to Punish Free Speech.

 

This should be stated at the beginning: Australia has no real foreign policy. All decisions and actions in other countries is dictated by the US government and their security agencies. We have followed the US into every war they have started. When the US barks “jump,” Australia askes “How High”? This is a matter of record. Currently there is a diabolical push in the US, Britain, Brazil, and Europe to suppress free speech on various social media platforms. Just last week, Australia’s current Minister of Communications, Michelle Rowland, stated that the government is about to pass a bill to combat disinformation and misinformation by fining tech companies for allowing “dangerous” speech on their platforms. This a draconian move, and anti-democratic to its core.  

The government has glibly stated “harmful information.” Certainly not surprising, Australia’s lapdog media has not pushed back in the slightest, instead excitedly asking when the bill will be passed. For the record, these individuals in the media work for the State and their corporate masters. A simple question would be: Can you give us an example of “harmful information” that you have seen on social media? My guess the Minister would be hard pressed to answer.  

All the Australian people receive from this Minister are generalities and political rhetoric:  

Michelle Rowland said. 

“According to the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, 80% of Australians say the spread of misinformation on social media needs to be addressed. 

“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy,” Rowland said. “Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.” 

First, really? 80% of Australians believe the spread of misinformation on social media needs to be addressed? Any rational minded individual would take that statement with a grain of salt. Particularly when most people get their information from corporate media.  

Again, what is “harmful information?” And most importantly, do we as the people trust someone like Michelle Roland, a non-elected official to decide what is misinformation, disinformation, or harmful information?  

Australia is falling in line with the authoritarian governments of the US, UK, and Europe in their fascist push to censor what information can be seen and heard. Brazil has already blocked X from its citizens.  

As someone who has lived in a few countries, it is the corporate media that pushes disinformation and propaganda. The information around the invasion of Iraq, for example, the dirty war in Syria, and the destruction of Libya by NATO forces, was all promoted by mainstream media, and all proved to be lies to promote war. Again, this is a matter of public record.  

The great irony with these democratic countries and their anointed officials, is their all using the tried-and-true method to push censorship: “We are protecting democracy.” Silencing voices is not democratic, it is authoritarian.  

I believe we should wise-up and recognize those people who promote censorship in the guise of “keeping us free.”  

Michelle Rowland is one of them.  

 

Amor Towles - Table for Two - Comment.

 

Amor Towles is a unique and remarkable writer. 

Towles previous works: Rules of Civility, A Gentleman in Moscow, and The Lincoln Highway are all different, (perhaps penned by a different author) and all possible masterpieces, all examples of fine modern prose. 

Remembering as a young student of reading: no matter the structure of the prose, the story is the thing.

Towles has combined both; elegant prose and stories that bring the reader to characters never met and their circumstances we can relate to because we are human experiencing the same condition: life. 

Table for Two is a collection of six stories under the title, New York. Under the title of Los Angeles is a novella, centering on Evelyn Ross, a character from Towles first published novel, The Rules of Civility.

To rank the short stories and the novella in a type of NYT's best to worse top ten pop song chart, would be a disservice to the work. All stand alone, all are on an island unto themselves, all written in a different voice. 

As readers we have our biases. 

That said, Evelyne Ross in LA is special. Ross is a woman I would love to meet. 

Travelling on a train from New York to the mid-west, to then on a whim, Ross decides to continue to LA, and meets a cool, retired cop. Set in the 1930's, a mysterious, attractive woman would set off alarm bells as to the woman's intent and character. Only after a few exchanges, Charlie is interested, and instinctively understands he has met a soul of distinction.

LA is told from the perspective of several characters who by choice or otherwise, become a part of Evelyn Ross' world.

Reading Ross' (Towles) LA in the 1930's, living in the Beverly Hills hotel, meeting old film stars, gives the reader a glimpse into old Hollywood, old LA, and that mythical magic, that has now disappeared. 

As a student of reading, Towles' A Table for Two gave me hope that great writing, soulful storytelling, is alive and well.  

Fascist Censorship in Western Democracies. Opinion.

 

The Democratic- Western World is going full Fascist. 

Censorship is a central tool of authoritarian regimes. 

Recent world events prove this point. 

The earliest example crossed the planets media headlines: X Blocked in Brazil. Only a few days prior, the CEO and founder of Telegram, Pavel Durov, was arrested in France on charges that on the face it makes no sense. The fact that the man is Russian born might be one of the reasons he sits currently in jail by the pleasure of the French republic.  

A more flagrant example is in the United States, where any negative word about the democratic party's 'anointed' presidential nominee (Kamala Harris) is attacked or shadow banned on the internet. This kind of censorship is anti-democratic, particularly in the political sphere, because to silence one's opposition, is to silence a portion of the people.  

Especially fascist is the Brazilian Supreme Court judge (not elected by the people) who has banned X from the people in his country, Alexandre de Moraes. Why does this unelected judge have so much power? Well democracy be damned. 

As an aside, fascism arrived at the 20th century after WWI claiming to free the people from their economic hardships. Though presenting themselves on populist agendas, their intentions eventually became quite clear. All opposing their rule must be eradicated. The difference today is this fascism does not come with shiny black boots and well-tailored uniforms. It has come in the disguise as "democracy" and 'woke' issues; slick Armani suits and $400 silk ties; leaders preaching diversity and inclusion; 'national security' and faux- threats from imaginary enemies.  

In any informed fascist regime, controlling the narrative is paramount.  

During the 2020 US presidential election, a story about a discovered laptop owned by Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden, had surfaced. The laptop contained dubious financial behavior in foreign countries such as Ukraine. The story was immediately suppressed and labeled ‘Russian disinformation.’ The permanent state, that is the CIA, FBI, etc., ran to their lapdog media groups, including social media platforms such as Facebook to censor the story and label it as Russian influence on the election. These media puppets complied, and the US voting population was left in the dark. Thus, by controlling the narrative, Biden won the election. This begs the question: without deep state interference and censorship about the laptop, would the election have gone the other way?  

For authoritarianism to work effectively, control of information, pushing only their narrative, labeling all dissenting views as disinformation, misinformation, or the newly created Mal- information, is central to ensure certain outcomes in elections, regime change projects, and “democratic” elections.  

The great and sad irony of these representatives of ‘democracy,’ is that they are using censorship to ensure a free democracy when their actions are the exact opposite.  

The latest news of Brazil banning X is a perfect example of this double speak. The Superior Court Judge, Alexandre de Moraes, could be seen on Brazilian television speaking to a section of parliament, spouting the well-used cliches of protecting democracy and freedom in his country by banning X. The real story is X refused to close the accounts of several elected officials in Brazil at Moraes’ request. Moraes is an unelected dictator using his unexplainable power to censor and silence those who oppose his political ideology. X is a threat to his power.  Democracy be damned.  

It is imperative that the general population recognize this blatant shift towards fascism in our western democracies.  

By controlling the information about our political leaders, pushing lies about other countries to start new wars, misleading the public on a variety of key issues, as a society, we cannot make informed decisions at the voting booths.  

This out-in-the-open-shift towards fascism in our western democracy is beyond disturbing. Anyone who believes in the core tenets of the US Constitution, should be protesting this censorship from the rooftops.  

Though seems to me, it is eerily quiet.