Aidan Cornelius-Bell
I’m a social scientist and activist looking to create systemic change that serves the proletariat. I care about compassion, justice, genuine equity, reciprocity and radical social change.
Dear friends,
This morning’s headlines included an article titled: “Australia has ‘no alternative’ but to embrace AI and seek to be a world leader in the field, industry and science minister says” [1]. The chief scientist has never been an appointment of visionaries; indeed, the office’s entire raison d’être has been capitalist reproduction, but nationally we’re being guided to skate to where the puck was. Who needs leadership when you have both the chief scientist and the LLM regurgitating an algometric reconfiguration of hegemonic narratives. Is there a thread here?
If we were to embrace, nationally, an agenda which promoted (re)training to better understand and develop applications of artificial ‘intelligence’ we might offer some students an opportunity to become very wealthy. But, by and large, to expect any kind of systematic or publicly beneficial economic growth as a result of Australians taking to the AI “science” space would be lunacy. Though, this is far from new, the chief scientist has always been a mouthpiece for the hegemony: eurocentric, bourgeois, and anti-ecological. We know the dangers of unfettered, unregulated, and ‘wild’ AI [2]. And we know that neoliberal market policies love those very things. So, here, we have a dangerous combination of factors: promotion of engagement with AI, a neoliberal anti-human “market”, and a bourgeois mouthpiece suggesting further engagement with ever more anti-humanist praxes. Let’s backtrack for a second.
Artificial intelligence technologies are not inherently evil, bad, or problematic. However, as we’ve discussed here on mind reader, their application and their use are currently extremely dangerous. From water usage that accelerates us even faster toward ecological collapse, to regurgitation of appropriate knowledges and hegemonic narratives, through the undermining of human artistic talent the current AI technology set does far more harm than good. More recent exposés have shown a decline in worker productivity (if you believe such things) and growing concerns over impaired cognitive functions. Naturally, all of these things could be countered by an ecological-forward ontology: valuing the role of nature, environment, animals and people in ecological harmony. But that’s not the values of the political economy under which we live.
You might see an opportunity here to subvert the hegemonic narrative – in which case, well done. As an educator, these kinds of narratives about what ‘should’ be done have dominated the field in western thought for as long as there was ‘education’ (in a hegemony’s civil society mode). As a supporter of building counter-hegemonies, I might suggest that we use this new narrative to teach young people and students about how LLMs and other AI technologies work – including coverage of the ecological dangers inherent in their current formulation. We might also use this as an opportunity to challenge hegemonic forms, relating with students over sources of training data and asking them to (re)imagine these toward more equitable outputs. But that’s not how this will be done broadly. Indeed, there is unlikely to be any serious education in the AI space done in public education due to the economic landscape which created the current raft of popular technologies.
AI scientists on the ‘bleeding edge’ have, for many decades now, been employed privately, even secretively. Once they ‘make a name for themselves’ (are wealthy, male and somewhere in the ballpark of knowing one or two things) they are paid lucratively, and their outputs are nondisclosure’d and locked up by corporate giants. While arXiv papers [3] from corpos pepper the scene of AI and Data Science, these are frequently a partial picture, describing abstract techniques or ‘proving’ what we already knew about these ‘sciences’ [4]. Of course, there are some who are involved with the development of AI technologies who have left the corporate scene, with an even smaller handful of these committing to public discourse about AI technologies and participation in teaching through higher education institutions (even if such an audience remains an extremely narrow slice of ‘publics’). However, the vast majority of AI technology remains stunningly locked up [5].
Regardless the landscape of current AI technologies, there are growing calls to rethink how AI is currently working [6], and ever more papers about the environmental, social, and human cost of AI. As corporations increasingly dominate narratives about embracing AI futurism, the public (worker) excitement about these technologies dies. This is not subaltern cultural repression directly, rather a hegemonic subsumption of technology and a more public embrace of the despotic “leadership” ever on display under capitalism. Any initial excitement from workers about the possibilities of AI technologies in their personal or work lives has surely been replaced by distain, disinterest or complacency. As more hegemons gesture towards futures of replacing workers with algorithms, worker disinterest or resistance grows. This is an indicator of the trajectory of our culture more broadly, not about the specific technologies used in AI.
What might a future which re-centres ecology and humanism actually look like? If we were to continue honing the underlying technologies such that environmental destruction was not requisite to technological growth we might have a start. Unfortunately, while some AI and Data Scientists work towards this kind of thinking, the majority of the corporate world has jumped on technologies which consume gigalitres of water and hundreds of kilowatts of (unclean) energy daily. The race to embrace AI as a core part of the modern workplace has meant that rather than spending time on perfecting the underlying technology (i.e., the approach to AI, not the models) we have seen exponential growth of hardware (and, therefore, water, power, etc.) requirements. The call from the chief scientist is one to supply corporations and despotic leadership with ever more resource intensive models – not to innovate for the future. Moreover, while some ‘change management’ professionals with an AI focus may be employed, increasingly we are seeing workers literally phased out in favour of quantitatively worse AI deployment.
While it is not uncommon to see neoliberal corporate subservience in STEM areas [7], blatant calls to engage further with skating to where the puck was will only set back our learners and young people – not to mention gut knowledge workers. If we had a vision for the future that demanded ecological and human justice we might find an application of novel forms of AI technologies which are fundamentally different than the current destructive forms. We lack, in this country, a unifying vision for the future. Instead, we’re seeing corporate bootlicking and hegemonic capitulation across every sector.
I’m not particularly interested in detouring through all the evidence of the despotic shift in our governments, governance, corporate arena, and anti-everybody sentiment. But look no further than: Labor’s continuing approval of new coal and gas projects which have impact reports suggesting massive contributions toward >3º warming; or to the stark Trump fascism in California; Greta’s deportation after attempting to bring aid to those being genocidally murdered by Israel in Gaza. I’ve seen bandied about a saying: “if you ever wondered what you would have done during Hitler’s genocide, think about your actions during globally rising fascism and genocides today”. It’s a bleak picture. LLMs have been trained on an ontological corpus which normalises this anti-human and anti-environment sentiment, and all it can do is regurgitate the same narratives it has been fed. There is no creativity under current AI technologies, only rabid fanatical hallucinations.
In solidarity,
Aidan
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/12/australia-ai-no-alternative-industry-and-science-minister-tim-ayres ↩︎
https://mndrdr.org/2025/at-the-nexus-of-knowledge-appropriation-and-ai https://mndrdr.org/2024/on-forestalled-innovation https://mndrdr.org/2024/the-power-of-ai ↩︎
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about ↩︎
especially because of the widespread belief in “science” as a religious substitute; and adherence to empiricist positivism which disregards human ethics and values for the fallacy of “objective truth”. ↩︎
Dear friends,
I have been thinking a lot about the ABC’s federal election coverage. Partly, concerned about how they continue to adhere to a 2PP system when clearly the Liberal/National coalition is seriously trending towards minor/fringe party, and partly about the way they continue to aid the shifting of the Overton window (rightward). But, today, I have a specific concern. I am concerned about the vilification of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Woo up – I can hear you saying from here – and while I naturally disagree with her on: bordering on 100% of her policy stances; her internal and external displays of racism; and her general lack of empathy and compassion – racialised responses to her are worthy of criticism. To be clear, I believe that any member of the LNP, actually anyone even so much as voting for the LNP, has a complete lack of empathy (maybe licking too much lead paint as a child). Their policies are more often than not extreme right, and they deserve no mercy.
However, Senator Price is not an idiot because she’s Blak, she’s an idiot because she’s a LNP Senator.
The media and liberals (note the small l) racialising and vilifying an Aboriginal person on the basis of identity is never okay. To get where we’re headed, we need to do a little digging into subliminal and covert racism first. Then we’ll “circle back” to how the deployment of the ABC’s vilification worries me theoretically, and it’s got nothing to do with being apologetic for the LNP – far from it. Rather, we need to examine the discursive normalisation of racism “when it’s someone the public mightn’t like”.
Covert racism is everywhere in Australia [1]. We may well be one of the most racist countries on the planet. This, naturally, extends and manifests significantly in political discourse in the country, both explicitly (think Pauline) and through subtle mechanisms that escape immediate detection, while reinforcing racialised power dynamics. The manifestation of this where Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander politicians are concerned, regardless of conservative or progressive political ideology, is a complex dynamic. Where Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is concerned, this emerges wherein criticism becomes entangled with racialised expectations of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander political expression.
Unlike overt racism characterised by explicit bigotry, covert racism, here, operates through “neutral” language that subjects Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander conservative figures to distinct scrutiny not applied to their non-Aboriginal counterparts [2]. The delegitimisation occurs not through rejection of their Indigeneity per se, but through implicit suggestions that their political positions represent a form of false consciousness or cultural betrayal. These frameworks are rarely, if ever, imposed upon white politicians whose ideological positions face opposition.
Covert racism, within progressive discourse, conflates otherwise genuine policy critique with racialised expectations of how Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander politicians “should” position themselves politically. The paradox rests where those who rightfully criticise racist structures simultaneously perpetuate ‘subtle’ forms of racial essentialism by presupposing authentic Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander political expression should necessarily align with progressive ideologies. Critical race theorists call this ‘progressive paternalism’, where well-intentioned advocacy nonetheless reproduces colonial power dynamics by constraining Indigenous political agency within predetermined boundaries. Thus, even within anti-racist movements, unexamined assumptions about racial authenticity and political expression continue to reproduce racial hierarchies which they, in other circles, purport to aim to dismantle. Okay, so, back to the election coverage.
A pattern of differential treatment emerged in how panellists engaged with Senator Price compared to her white conservative counterparts. While Coalition figures were afforded space to articulate their positions – even when they were outright lies – with minimal interruption, Price faced a barrage of challenging questions delivered with sceptical undertones and frequent interjections over her which undermined her authority. This asymmetrical application of journalistic scrutiny manifested, as described above, in persistent ways. This included dismissive body language, interrogative tones reserved specifically for her segment, and a readiness to contest her statements that wasn’t mirrored in exchanges with white conservative parliamentarians. The panelists’ tendency to respond to Price’s perspectives with immediate challenges rather than the consideration extended to others revealed an unconscious double standard that positioned her contributions as inherently less credible.
The differential treatment operated at the intersection of gender and racial bias, where Price absorbed disproportionate criticism that could have been directed at her party’s collective policy positions [3]. Almost as though the ABC were withholding their blows on white politicians who are equally, if not more-so, responsible for the policy platform – because it’s “okay to criticise a blackfella”. Naturally, paradoxically, Price would likely endorse such an attack on herself, just not of her policy platform, and so this should read in no way as a defence of her (it’s not). While white, typically male, Coalition representatives made similarly, if not more extreme, controversial statements without significant pushback, Price’s assertions were framed as requiring additional verification or dismissed through subtle facial expressions and tone shifts that signalled disbelief to viewers.
These ever present and ongoing patterns of racialised responses to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples might be described as heightened scrutiny bias, where marginalised individuals in positions of authority face intensified examination of their competence and credibility, particularly when their political alignment doesn’t fit with the paternalism of the liberal centre. The implicit message conveyed through these interactions suggested that Price’s perspectives, values, and positioning were less legitimate than those of her white colleagues, despite her equal standing as an elected representative.
Liberals (qua political alignment) often perpetuate a problematic dynamic through their selective accountability mechanisms that unconsciously reproduce colonial hierarchies. Despite “progressive” intentions, many liberals apply standards to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander conservative figures such as Price that presuppose a singular ‘authentic’ Indigenous (political) identity, one they decide is aligned with “progressive” values. This essentialising implicitly denies Indigenous people the same political complexity and ideological diversity afforded to white Australians. The disproportionate scrutiny directed at Price, while allowing white conservatives to escape similar interrogation, doesn’t show principled consistency, but that there are unexamined expectations about how Indigeneity ‘should’ position a person ideologically. And, while perhaps it “should”, on the basis of ethics and morals, condition one toward left-wing platforms, it is still no less “valid” to be Indigenous and conservative, nor should this cast into question one’s personhood.
To move toward genuinely decolonial politics, liberals need to reconstruct their approach to political critique by prioritising consistent standards across racial lines. And heavens know those anti-racist standards need to rise. The ABC’s tacit “equal voice” empowering One Nation, Katter, and Trumpet of Patriots, while marginalising the Greens requires significant scrutiny. This should be done alongside interrogating unconscious racial expectations about Indigenous political expression, which currently characterises ‘acceptable’ racism and is supported by the media, which is unacceptable. A decolonial approach separates substantive policy critique from identity-based delegitimisation, ensuring that criticism focuses specifically on policy positions rather than implicit questioning of authenticity. While we’re examining things, we should also take a moment to think even further on paternalism particularly in how it was mobilised by ABC panellists when discussing Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander politicians, concerns, and priorities both in election coverage and out.
For Critical Indigenous Studies, paternalism remains a chronic colonial mechanism that circumscribes Indigenous political agency through the guise of protection or benevolent guidance [4]. Scholars, including Distinguished Professor Aunty Aileen Moreton-Robinson and Professor Larissa Behrendt have identified how paternalism operates as a living form of colonial governance by positioning non-Indigenous actors as more capable of determining Indigenous interests than Indigenous peoples ourselves. This paternalism is clear in assumptions that Indigenous conservatives, for instance, must be operating from false consciousness or internalised oppression rather than any political conviction [5]. Again, we’re not agreeing with the LNP, just disagreeing with racial characterisation.
The paternalistic gaze, which works concomitantly with differential treatment and covert racism, functions to domesticate Indigenous political expression by casting certain forms as legitimate. Paternalism continues the colonial project, replacing explicit subjugation with subtler but equally damaging epistemic violence that presume to know what constitutes ‘proper’ Indigenous politics and identity [6]. Decolonial scholars the world over emphasise that genuine self-determination necessitates recognising Indigenous peoples’ right to political diversity, including the right to hold conservative positions without having our Indigeneity questioned or our agency undermined through paternalistic modes which position non-Indigenous observers as better arbiters of Indigenous authenticity than Indigenous people.
Critical Indigenous Media studies has documented how mainstream Australian media consistently reproduces colonial power relations through its differential treatment of Indigenous political figures [7]. When examining figures like Price, media discourse frequently employs deficit discourses that position conservative Indigenous peoples’ voices either as exceptional outliers or as fundamentally compromised by their association with conservative politics. The issue, again, being the racialised application of such views. The representational violence is subtle, linguistic and visual. From interruptions, to skeptical facial expressions and challenging tones, there are collective signals to audiences that certain Indigenous political expressions require additional scrutiny.
All these behaviours from the media, heck even your friends, enact a form of epistemological violence that positions Indigenous knowledge and political expression within subjectified boundaries and hierarchies of expression. The deploying of a verification process, predominantly by white institutional gatekeepers, reinforces colonial hierarchies that position whiteness as the unmarked standard against which Indigenous political expression is measured, evaluated, and frequently found wanting. It’s racist. It’s wrong.
So, let’s do better. Let’s end racism – especially on the left, friends,
Aidan
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press. ↩︎
Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the savages, savaging the disciplines. Aboriginal Studies Press. ↩︎
c.f. Fforde, C., Bamblett, L., Lovett, R., Gorringe, S., & Fogarty, B. (2013). Discourse, deficit and identity: Aboriginality, the race paradigm and the language of representation in contemporary australia. Media International Australia, 149(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1314900117 ↩︎
Behrendt, L. (2016). Finding Eliza: Power and colonial storytelling. University of Queensland Press. ↩︎
Martin, K. L. (2012). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the implications for researchers. Post Pressed. ↩︎
Rankine, J., & McCreanor, T. (2021). Mass media representations of Indigenous peoples. In P. Bilimoria, J. Bapat, P. Hughes, & D. Keown (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary Indigenous religion (pp. 226-237). Routledge. ↩︎
Langton, M. (2008). The end of 'big men' politics. Griffith Review, 22, 48-57; Bond, C. (2019). The irony of the Aboriginal banking apologetics. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(3), 243-249. ↩︎
Dear friends,
Long time no correspondence. I hope you are well.
Broadly speaking we tend to categorise political moments into shapes, types, and kinds, which have a belonging to an orientation, left wing, right wing, ‘centrist’, brutal, violent, ugly, aggressive, loud, irritating, whingey, and so on. These labels, at least to me, conjure certain frames of thinking – stereotypes, if you like.
On reading a NLR Sidecar post from late last year, I found myself thinking about the way that propaganda is used by both ‘left’ and ‘right’, particularly the mobilisation of tropes around groups of people. These tactics, specifically propagandist tactics, belong to the entire political spectrum. And the tactics used are separable from a tradition, even if configurations may trigger certain feelings of a party, group, or association with political affiliation (i.e., republican use of identity politics to divide “and conquer”). The tactic, under the surface, remains relatively similar. But let’s get slightly more specific, take a slow stroll towards the analysis today.
Conservatives, broadly, the right wing are loosely interested in mechanisms which centre individualism and (their conception of) ‘merit’. This often means market-focussed ‘solutions’ to problems no one was looking to solve – or hierarchical assertions to hold orthodoxy of exploitation in stasis. The broad scale conservative mechanisms include market-based solutions and private enterprise, ‘traditional’ institutions (‘family’, ‘church’), adherence to hierarchical structures and established authority, regressive change. Tactics, which flow from these mechanisms include tax cuts and deregulation, propagandist appeals to tradition and ‘cultural’ values, extreme focus on conceptions of law and order, individual responsibility, adherence with extremist religious groups, and so on. Modalities, the tools to achieve and back these tactics, often include church and community group organising, conservative media networks, think tanks and policy institutes funded by wealthy backers, pushing action with benightedness for legal frameworks, school, church and state legislature campaigns.
Liberals the ‘centre’ are mostly interested in mechanisms which balance individual rights with institutionally managed reform. This typically means regulatory solutions that preserve existing power structures while offering extremely mild incremental improvements – or technocratic assertions to maintain institutional stability. Characteristic liberal mechanisms include loosely regulated markets for the bourgeoisie with government oversight, public-private partnerships, exemptions and shameless excuses for the capitalist class, ‘democracy’ favouring institutions and enterprise, and conservative policy making. Tactics tend to include ‘compromise’ (almost exclusively for the bourgeoisie, ever favouring the capitalist) and ‘bipartisanship’ (read: negotiation with conservatives), focus group style messaging, light weight government programs, means-tested social services, and bourgeoise regulatory frameworks. Modalities might be professional lobbying, mainstream media engagement, non-profit advocacy organisations funded by ‘philanthropic’ foundations, ‘expert’ consultation, and electoral politics only through established parties, spurning any progressive or independent parties.
Leftists, the left wing, pursue mechanisms that prioritise collective liberation and shared prosperity over individual advancement. Our approach centres on redistributive economics that dismantle oppressive hierarchies to encourage equitable communities to develop. Rather than ‘reform capitalism’, leftists advocate for transformative alternatives: democratic worker cooperatives that empower employees, participatory democracy that gives voice to all citizens, mutual aid networks that embody genuine solidarity, and more. These mechanisms generate powerful tactics, mass mobilisation and general strikes that unite working people; community self-defence that protects the vulnerable; direct action that immediately confronts injustice rather than waiting for bureaucratic approval. Our modalities reflect this a commitment to transformation; vibrant underground networks and liberatory education circles complement dynamic social media organizing; independent journalists and visionary artists create compelling counter-narratives to corporate media; resilient solidarity economies build thriving alternative institutions while simultaneously eroding extractive capitalist structures. Where conservatives move for racist, sexist, ableist and anti-queer ‘traditions’ and liberals settle for capitalist appeasement unashamed of the radical misbalance of power of a system that ‘works well enough’, leftists imagine and actively work to construct better social relations rooted in dignity, justice, and collective flourishing.
Notice a shift in the tone, there? This, in itself, is a (deliberately inflated) propagandist technique – a divisive strategy meant to disparage centre and right wing folks, that could easily be turned on its head, so let’s do that, as much as it pains me, take two on the first paragraph will illustrate this modality:
Conservatives champion mechanisms that celebrate individual achievement and personal responsibility. Their time-tested approach centres on market-driven solutions that reward innovation and hard work while preserving cherished foundations. Rather than impose top-down mandates, conservatives attempt to trust in the wisdom of ‘free enterprise’, the stability of traditional institutions like family and faith communities, and the strength of established social structures. These mechanisms inspire empowering tactics, tax relief that lets families keep more of their earnings; regulatory freedom that enables entrepreneurial activity; robust law enforcement that ensures safe neighbourhoods (it physically pains me to write this, gross); strong moral frameworks that guide personal conduct. Their modalities reflect deep community roots: vibrant church networks that provide spiritual guidance and practical support; influential media voices that defend timeless values; respected think tanks that develop principled policy solutions; grassroots campaigns that engage citizens in local governance. Where leftists pursue untested theories and liberals expand bureaucratic control, conservatives steadfastly protect individual liberty, honour enduring traditions, ... right, that’s absolutely enough of that.
The exercise above attempts to reveal something crucial about political communication: the same underlying structures: mechanisms, tactics, and modalities, can be dressed in radically different rhetorical clothing. What we’re looking at is a crude example of propagandist techniques, which are remarkably malleable. The shift in tone between my original leftist framing and the conservative rewrite gives us an insight into how political writing shapes perception and, ultimately, political reality – consider literally everything that comes out of the Murdoch press, and how it is ruthlessly conservative in (under)tone.
This flexibility of framing should give us pause, particularly when we consider how these tools are strategically deployed across our media landscape. Every political actor, from Pauline Hanson’s “plain speaking” to the Greens’ crafted messaging around “pushing Labor”, employs these mechanisms, tactics, and modalities with increasing sophistication. Fundamentally, however it is how consciously and cynically these mechanisms of coercion are deployed. This can be a fine line, an Instagram reel can quickly begin to ‘feel’ political and give the viewer the ick and on they flick, but a strategic narrative and communications strategy can enable genuine change – left or right be damned.
For instance, we might consider how Sky News mirrors Fox News’ playbook, or how the ABC’s ‘balanced’ reporting often legitimises extremist right-wing positions in the name of both sides journalism – shifting the Overton window ever further to the right. Even ‘progressive’ outlets like The Guardian deploy their own rhetorical strategies, selecting which stories to amplify and which voices to centre. Lok no further than the coverage on the US-backed genocide Israel is committing in Palestine – while The Guardian is allegedly a left-wing outlet, its coverage utterly supresses the mass murder of Palestinians and political supporters therein. Moreover, the atrocious political circus which was the voice referendum showed this in stark relief. The same constitutional mechanism was framed as either divisive identity politics or modest recognition, depending entirely on who was doing the framing. Where does the power lie, and must we keep wondering?
These tactics are also ever present in social media, a capitalist prison manufactured for the unwitting consumer. Bombarded daily with advertising and baseless consumerism, the social media channels increasingly throw in extremist political positions – ever favouring the right wing. That TikTok about housing affordability might be grassroots activism or carefully crafted political messaging, and increasingly, it’s actually both. Instagram reels explaining economic policy tend not to be able to use the same addictive formats as right-wing hate speech, so are discarded either by the algorithm or the consumer, while YouTube doesn’t distinguish between genuine political education and sophisticated propaganda, though it prefers the latter for ‘engagement’ metrics.
Each political actor, regardless of their ‘stated’ ideology, operate within colonial capitalism. Yes, even the Trotskyists. Whether it’s the Coalition defending mining interests, Labor’s ‘pragmatic’ climate policies (i.e., approve coal mines and fuck the future for everyone, Albo needs another property), or even some leftist movements that fail to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty, or ignore the far reaching grasp of capitalist realism, the underlying system shapes what is considered realistic or even reasonable political discourse.
This system has steadily shifted the Overton window rightward over decades. What was once considered extreme right-wing policy, like mandatory detention of asylum seekers or privatising essential services, is now bipartisan ‘common sense’ (c.f., Gramsci). Meanwhile, policies that were mainstream in the Whitlam era, like free university education or ambitious public housing programs, are dismissed as ‘radical’ or economically ‘irresponsible’. Even basic social democratic proposals are branded as far-left extremism by Labor diehards, media commentators, and outlets tone guides who have internalised a constant breeze to the east (or, ‘rightward drift’). The result is a political landscape where the centre keeps chasing the right, while genuinely progressive ideas are confined to the margins of acceptable discourse by Labor and it’s hegemonic bloc.
This is where critical media literacy is essential. Understanding that every headline is political, be it about ‘African gangs’, ‘economic analysis’, and even feel good stories about individual charity obscure systemic failures, this should be basic skills. Alas, critical media literacy, hell even technology literacy, is largely eradicated from the Australian Curriculum, and fewer than ever teachers are empowered to teach critically.
My question to you, then is, do we accept and continue to use these tools, these modalities, mechanisms or tactics to perpetuate existing systems of exploitation? Can we imagine and build something radically different? Do we need new tools (c.f., Lorde) and how can we co-construct these in the face of capitalist realism? In an era where political communication is increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous, developing critical consciousness is a survival skill, one that we need a decolonial, anti-capitalist, and fundamentally humanist approach to – at least that’s what I reckon. But you can’t solve all the worlds problems in a single post, ey.
Much love, solidarity, and hope,
Aidan
Dear friends,
Today I have some whinges about poverty, ‘Australian’ culture, and some of the deeper socioeconomic possibilities we face in the coming election. This is based on an ongoing stressed ponderance of Australia’s contemporary cultural milieux and the politicisation of identity. There are some myths to dispel here.
Australia has a culture. In fact, we are a deeply multicultural country. Prior to British invasion, Australia was made up of more than 250 cultures and unique languages, expressing thousands of different sociocultural patterns and behaviours passed generationally for more than 60,000 years. The arrival of Britain added 10-20 more cultures, and since we’ve had an exponent of different cultures coming and growing, largely while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have continued to be suppressed and obliterated by genocidal and neocolonial practices. But, all the while, there has been an enduring commitment to the rhetoric of a “fair go”. A way of being and understanding that at surface level is about equality.
As we can observe, the “fair go” certainly hasn’t been for us First Peoples, nor has the fair go really applied to the “average” Australian – the white, middle class, heterosexual, cisgender, professional class. In fact, so rarely has the reality reflected a “fair go” that I have genuinely wondered how this slogan got such a good run – everyone from politicians to tourism agencies making use of it for upwards of 160 years. Yet the lived reality, particularly for the working class – and then any doubly marginalised folks within this have suffered in this country for the most recent 250 years of our long history. We’ve discussed at length on mind reader the amplification of exploitation and extraction through colonial capitalist frames. So, in reality we have a “fair go” for next to no one – great.
Moreover, in recent years we’ve drifted extremely, particularly on poverty – with the poverty line at 50% of the median household income and almost 16% of the population living on or below this. In addition, more than two million are experiencing food insecurity [1]. We’re also facing increasingly conservative times, which further undermines and exploits those living at the fringes and struggling with the extreme cost of living in this country.
Our allyship with the United States is a particular danger here. Over the last hundred or more years, Australia has built an increasingly interdependent economy, social climate, military, and geopolitical relationship with the imperial giant. Partially for protection reasons, using schoolyard logic of: “I’m less likely to be picked on if I’m friends with the bully”. And partially because one colonial nation befriending another allows the amplification of that expropriative DNA throughout the execution of societal landscapes. After all, as Britain moves towards decolonial futures, the colonies are left to be racist on own [2]. And racist to the extreme with folks like Trump and Musk driving hatred and division on identity categories that are literally nonsensical. But hey, we might get some obsolete submarines in 30 years.
Back here, we are facing an election between major parties who can be essentialised to “Trump Lite™” or “neofascism: a for you page”. Here, rather than housing and education as a provision for all, access to and equality of rights, and a growth in socially supported services and we are seeing two parties vie over the lightest form of oppression in the hope that this lands with the Australian people. Meanwhile, ‘Teals’ and the Greens offer alternative visions for the future which are disconnected from the realities of the working people – partially because the Liberals and Labor have shifted the Overton window to such a place that discourse about anything vaguely humanitarian is immediately dismissed as utopianism.
Other major social forces such as students being saddled with debt and provided a less-than-quality education remain niche issues that even the ministry responsible could not care less about. We have a HECS system so ravaged by successive years of Liberal governments, and Labor ‘endurance’ (rather than even reverting Liberal changes like they promised) that it saddles students with exorbitant debt – debt so large that the “indexation” on it is enough to prevent Labor from wiping indexation accrued debt because of the useful ‘profit’ it generates for them.
The point I’m striving towards is that Australian ‘culture’, in the mainstream, is so utterly political that the people have been successfully cleaved from any recognition of its politics. So, let’s do an experiment, answer me these questions:
- Are there specific cultural, economic, or social structures in Australia that you feel have shaped your life without your input?
- How has your geographic location within Australia influenced your sense of belonging or displacement?
- What generational experiences define your relationship with Australian society?
- Are there tensions between your personal values and ‘mainstream’ Australian cultural values?
- How have recent political changes, or lack thereof, in Australia affected your sense of identity?
- Are there spaces or communities within Australia where you feel most authentic versus places where you feel you’re performing an identity?
- What Australian narratives do you find yourself both part of and resistant to?
- How do intersections of your identity (gender, ethnicity, race, class, sexuality, ability, etc.) position you uniquely within Australian society?
If there’s nothing political in your answers, or rather nothing that has been politicised, then congratulations you are the bourgeois man. In all other cases, the politicisation of identity is simply fodder for the perpetually turning mill grinding human flesh for the advancement of the economy (noting the latter is only the economy for the 1% – and if you’re one of those people sacrificing themselves “for the economy” think about how much you’re giving up, your family, your friends are giving up so Gina can have yet another cattle farm).
So what does voting for the “extreme left” (as Dutton puts it) actually do? Because, yes, some of the critique lobbed at the Greens is deserved, but never for the reasons they state on the tin.
First, let’s clarify – in Australia our voting system is preferential. If you vote 1 the Greens, and vote 2 Labor. This does not mean that your vote is discarded if the Greens are not elected – rather, your vote has flowed to Labor, and subsequently if you, for some asinine reason, 3 the Shooters and Fishers, well if the Labor candidate were unsuccessful in your electorate, your vote would flow to them, and so on ad infinitum. It’s easy to be swayed by the USA’s “only vote for the major parties” system, so don’t buy it.
Second, the actual platform speaks for itself, and it speaks volumes that this is what is considered “extreme left” by a party named after a progressive moderate philosophy. But let’s rehash the platform because no one can be bothered clicking a link in 2025:
The Greens are, and always have, advocating for affordability of basic necessities in our extremely wealthy country by implementing several key policies: incorporating dental care into Medicare and providing free GP visits; addressing the housing crisis through rent control, mortgage regulation, affordable housing construction, and negative gearing reform; combating climate change with public renewable energy, subsidised solar power, ending fossil fuel expansion and native forest logging; tackling cost of living by regulating supermarket prices and improving public services; and funding these initiatives by taxing big corporations and billionaires, noting that currently one-third of large corporations pay no tax [3].
By voting for this platform, by voting Green at the upcoming federal election, you are not “radically” modifying the status quo – it is unlikely that a Green candidate will even be successful in your electorate. Rather, what you are doing, is signalling with your preferential vote – your preference – is that we give a shit about each other, rather than giving old mate Gina and unkie Rupe another tax cut and continue careening towards climate death. That’s all.
It’s a bleak world out there – so maybe you should consider voting Green (or Teal, I’m not your boss),
Aidan
https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/what-we-do/ending-homelessness/what-is-poverty-and-does-it-exist-in-australia ↩︎
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britain-and-decolonisation-in-south-east-and-south-asia-1945-1948 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire https://www.kcl.ac.uk/abroad/module-options/britain-and-decolonisation-1 (I was almost joking, but they do seem to think they’re doing repatriation and undoing the damage of spreading the global cancer that is capitalism) ↩︎