How long will the American Moronocracy last in the New Year?
Noel Wauchope, 15 Dec 25, https://theaimn.net/how-long-will-the-american-moronocracy-last-in-the-new-year/It’s hard to grab hold of the idea – of which of the morons in the USA administration will crack first?
I think that it has to be Pete Hegseth, the Minister for War. Perhaps “crack” is not the appropriate word. “Be thrown under the bus” might be more accurate.
The immediate problem is the rather gripping thought – of the vision of injured fishermen hanging desperately onto the debris, the wreckage, of their bombed boat. And then getting bombed again, and killled. Now, apparently, there exists a video of this wretched event.
CBS reported on December 4th, that U.S. lawmakers met behind closed doors, and viewed a video of a second strike on the boat. Well we, the public, are not allowed to see this video. Democrat Rep. Jim Himes said:
“what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.“
“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.”
Even without seeing the video, our imaginations are struck with the horror of this event. And if it was not so terrible, why the need to cover it up?
And it’s not just that picture which is covered up. There’s also the trail of denials, blames, contradictory statements about that attack, – an incident that clearly breached international law, in the Geneva Conventions , The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np1dG7qjzZM
The Washington Post reported that Pete Hegseth had given the order to “kill everybody,” but this was later denied by Admiral Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, and also by Hegseth and the White house.
The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza Medina, believed killed by the US military in a boat bombing in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 15, has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accusing US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of murder over the unlawful attack. The complaint also notes that President Donald Trump the commander in chief of the US military, “ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein”.
That legal initiative mightn’t get anywhere, but the entire chain of command could be held liable for killing the survivors of the boat strike. The United States clearly imposes a duty to refuse unlawful orders.
That thought must be striking a bit of terror in the minds of the military officers involved, – and indeed in any U.S. military officer who might one day be given a similar order.
Anyway, wriggle around as he might, Pete Hegseth is at the top of decision-making on the whole illegal bombing of civilian boats in international orders. Unless you count Donald Trump as the top decision-maker. Trump would like this issue to just fade away. But if it doesn’t – well, then, perhaps a head should roll.
In his first presidency, Trump made a record number of his associates’ heads roll. But here’s the difference – some of them were quite skilful, and capable.
Not these days. Some examples :
Notably RFK Jr, is totally unsuited for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tulsi Gabbard , with no strong background in Intelligence, is Director of National Intelligence, Attorney General, Pam Bondi has a background in criminal law, but is most notable for unflinching dedication to Donald Trump, no matter what. Director of DOGE, Elon Musk – well, he had to go in the inevitable clash between two grandiose egos. Steve Witkoff’s background as real estate developer, gave him no expertise to qualify him as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State does have experience in politics, but is notable for having a fanatical war-hawk’s hatred of Cuba and China,
What all Trump appointees do have in common is unswerving devotion to Donald Trump. And that’s not going to be enough to sort out the Trump administration’s messes, with more surely to come.
But now, to come back to Pete Hegseth. Yes, he does have university degrees in politics. But even with university degrees you can still behave moronically. And Pete Hegseth sure does. He has a history of alcoholism, and an accusation against him of sexual assault. Even his mother accused him of being an abuser of women (though she later retracted this).
Hegseth was forced out of two veterans groups, due to his alcoholism, and accusations of financial mismanagement. Colleagues at his former employment at Fox News reported his drinking problem there.
Apparently Hegseth promised to stop drinking if confirmed in the job as Defense Secretary. There are rumours that he hasn’t stopped. But anyway that’s not his only problem. There was his careless use of commercial messaging app Signal to talk about an impending operation in Yemen.
All this has got Republican law-makers worried. And the mid-term elections will be coming up. Trump might just have to start the head-rolling, if this boat-bombing issue doesn’t go away.
And Pete Hegseth is the obvious first candidate.
By the way, the Internet is awash with stuff about Trump being not only a deranged narcissistic megalomaniac (which we all knew anyway), but on top of that, claims that dementia is setting in on him. (How long will the moron-in-chief last, anyway)
Israel Apologists Hasten To Use Bondi Shooting To Attack Anti-Genocide Activists
Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 15, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israel-apologists-hasten-to-use-bondi?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=181641440&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Two shooters attacked a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on Sunday, killing fifteen people and injuring dozens of others. Police report that the shooters were a father and his son; the father was killed by police, and the son was captured.
The shooters appear to have been Muslim, but, much to the inconvenience of those who would like to use this incident to fan the flames of western Islamophobic hysteria, the man who selflessly risked his life to disarm one of them was also a Muslim father of two named Ahmed al-Ahmed.
As usual we’re seeing a lot of speculation about false flags and psyops regarding this incident, but I prefer to hang back from such commentary until I’ve seen some solid evidence.
I do have some thoughts about the public discourse we are seeing about the shooting right now, though.
Point 1: Obviously it is evil to massacre civilians for being Jewish.
Point 2: Obviously Israel’s massacring of civilians must continue to be opposed, and will continue to be opposed.
Today the worst people in the world are trying to pretend Point 1 and Point 2 are contradictory.
It’s so gross watching the tail-wagging excitement of Israel supporters in response to this shooting. They’re so happy they have another rhetorical weapon with which to bludgeon pro-Palestine voices into silence. They can barely contain their glee.
Benjamin Netanyahu immediately scrambled to hold a press conference proclaiming that the attack was the result of Australia taking some steps toward the recognition of a Palestinian state.
New York Times warmonger Bret Stephens penned an article titled “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like,” arguing that the shooters “were taking to heart slogans like ‘resistance is justified,’ and ‘by any means necessary,’ which have become ubiquitous at anti-Israel rallies the world over.”
Iraq-raping war propagandist David Frum wrote a similar article for The Atlantic titled “The Intifada Comes to Bondi Beach,” saying the beach “has been repeatedly targeted by pro-Palestinian demonstrators” and denouncing the fact that “Many in the western world have interpreted post-October 7 anti-Israel actions within the framework of free speech.”
The virulently Islamophobic Australian senator Pauline Hanson swiftly slapped together a statement claiming that “the weekly anti-semitic protests across our nation” and “our obnoxious universities” were “warning signs” that such an attack was coming.
Sky News hastened to give a platform to Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sharren Haskel in an interview where she declared that “this is what it means” to allow protesters to chant “globalize the intifada”, saying that “if you let that continue and run in your streets” you are inviting further terrorist attacks. Haskel has previously called pro-Palestine protesters in Australia “useful idiots” for Hamas.
Political dynasty princeling Chris Cuomo took to Twitter to assert that people who’ve been accusing Israel of genocide helped “fuel the hatred on bondi beach.”
The Jewish Chronicle’s Stephen Pollard tweeted a video of pro-Palestine protesters in Birmingham with the caption “It you deny the connection between this and what happened at Bondi Beach you are part of the problem.”
A viral tweet from Australian right wing social media personality Kobie Thatcher features a video of a pro-Palestine protest with the caption “This was Sydney, Australia just 6 months ago. These scenes should have been an urgent warning.”
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has used the attack to demand that Prime Minister Albanese shove through the authoritarian speech suppression plan put forward by Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” Jillian Segal earlier this year, arguing that “We have seen public landmarks turned into symbols of antisemitic hate. We have seen campuses occupied and Jewish students made to feel afraid.”
From the earliest moments after this attack Israel apologists have taken it as a given that it was an act of terrorism in response to Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza, but then framing the people peacefully protesting those atrocities as the problem.
They’re openly acknowledging that the genocide is violently radicalizing people, but instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that Israel should therefore not commit genocide, they’re citing it as evidence that people should stop protesting the genocide.
The Shadow Cabinet: How Encrypted Lobbying and the Erosion of Record-Keeping Are Undermining Australian Democracy
14 December 2025 Andrew Klein AIM , https://theaimn.net/the-shadow-cabinet-how-encrypted-lobbying-and-the-erosion-of-record-keeping-are-undermining-australian-democracy/
This article examines a developing crisis in Australian public integrity: the systematic use of encrypted and unminuted communications between lobbyists and the highest levels of government to evade transparency laws. Drawing on recent investigative reporting and parliamentary analysis, it argues that this practice, occurring alongside legislative efforts to weaken the Freedom of Information (FOI) framework and a failure to implement robust anti-corruption measures, represents a calculated retreat from ethical transparency. This creates a “dark space” in policymaking, fundamentally at odds with the stated mission of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the basic democratic contract of public trust. The article concludes that this constitutes a form of institutionalised obscurity that protects political interests at the expense of democratic accountability.
Introduction: The Promise and the Practice
The election of the Albanese government was heralded with a promise to restore trust and integrity after a decade of scandals. The establishment of the NACC was its cornerstone. However, a parallel track of conduct suggests a different priority: the management of political risk through the control of information. This article synthesises evidence revealing a pattern where commitments to transparency are actively undermined by operational secrecy, creating a profound dissonance between public rhetoric and private practice.
The Architecture of Evasion: “Going Non-Traceable”
At the heart of this issue is a reported, routine practice within the Prime Minister’s office. Lobbyists and stakeholders are advised to use encrypted messaging applications (such as Signal) and direct phone calls for substantive policy discussions, explicitly to avoid creating a discoverable record under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). This guidance creates a two-tiered communication system: a formal, sanitised record for public consumption, and a shadow, substantive dialogue where real influence and negotiation occur. The justification – protecting “fluid thoughts” – is a stark departure from the principle that the formation of public policy should be a matter of public interest, not private conjecture.
Weakening the Scaffolding: Legislative and Systemic Failures
This operational evasion is not occurring in a vacuum. It is reinforced by systemic and legislative actions that degrade the infrastructure of transparency:
- The FOI Amendment Bill: The government is pursuing amendments that experts from the Australian Law Council and the Grattan Institute describe as “the most significant retrenchment” of transparency in decades. Key changes include a strict 40-hour processing cap – a logistical impossibility for complex requests – and the introduction of new, subjective grounds for refusal. This legally enshrines the difficulty of access.
- Chronic Record-Keeping Failure: A 2023 National Archives of Australia report found systemic failure across the Commonwealth in managing digital records. In 90% of recent audits, agencies received negative comments. Only one agency had a clear policy on capturing ministerial and departmental messaging for the official record. This is not negligence; it is a pervasive institutional disregard for the archival compact.
- Rejecting Anti-Cronyism Reforms: The government sat for two years on a review into “jobs for mates” in public appointments. When released, it rejected core recommendations to depoliticise the process, such as banning last-minute appointments before elections. This demonstrates a preference for preserving patronage networks over implementing substantive integrity reform.
The NACC in the Dark: An Integrity Watchdog Without a Trail
The establishment of the NACC was meant to be a circuit-breaker. However, its efficacy is premised on the existence of evidence – a paper trail, a digital record, a minute of a meeting. The practices detailed above are designed to eliminate that trail. The NACC’s own definition of “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” includes breaches of public trust and any conduct perverting the impartial exercise of official functions. Influencing policy through hidden channels, deliberately shielded from public and archival scrutiny, aligns precisely with this definition. The NACC’s first major survey, finding 15% of public officials were aware of corrupt conduct in their area, hints at the scale of the challenge it faces in a culture of obscurity.
Analysis: The “Trust Gap” and the Corruption of Process
The outcome is a critical “trust gap.” The public is asked to trust in institutions that are architecturally designed to avoid being held to account. This goes beyond traditional corruption (bribes for favours). It represents a corruption of process, where the very mechanisms for democratic oversight – FOI, archives, parliamentary scrutiny – are rendered inert. The government controls not only policy but the narrative of how that policy was formed, presenting a fait accompli to the public while hiding the machinery of influence. This creates a space where the lines between lobbying, policy development, and undisclosed conflicts of interest dangerously blur.
Conclusion: Gestures Versus Substance in the Democratic Contract
Australia is at an integrity crossroads. It has the gesture – the NACC – but is dismantling the substance required for that gesture to be meaningful. A democracy cannot function on a “need-to-know” basis where the government decides the public does not need to know how it is governed. The use of encrypted lobbying and the erosion of record-keeping are not administrative quirks; they are political strategies that sacrifice long-term public trust for short-term political convenience. Rebuilding trust requires not just new institutions, but a radical recommitment to transparency as the default, not the exception. Until the “dark space” of policymaking is illuminated, the promise of integrity will remain, like the lost records themselves, unfulfilled.
References……………………..
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 