That was the setting I was given when ABC decided to skip water with stones. The article (at https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/pressure-on-spy-boss-to-ease-up-on-foreign-interference/102010914) gives us ‘Pressure on spy boss to “ease up” on foreign interference’, a radio piece no less. It boils down to “In his annual threat assessment, the head of Australia’s security agency also revealed he’d been directly pressured by public servants, academics and businesspeople to “ease up” his focus on foreign influence” and apart from the one typo I saw, I also wonder who these people are. They are as I personally see them and as I have mentioned them the ‘stakeholders’ connected to corporations. I wonder who the Australian business people are, what THEY have to gain. I mentioned a long time ago that the media is filtered by Shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers. As I personally see it, it is the advertisers (with interests in Russia) and stakeholders with Russian connection that are the problem. In the first (and I apologise for the language) “Who the fuck do these academics and businesspeople think they are to oppose the security of Australia?” In the second, who are these public servants and business people? I think we need to put them out in the limelight and see what stakeholders become visible when we shake those trees. It is bbad enough that we are confronted with stakeholders stopping news from getting to the people, but when it comes to foreign influence in Australian governance, it becomes a whole new ball of wax and questions should be asked. The fact that this is now an issue, but we get limited exposure to this is another matter and we need to get this into the limelight.
Mikey Mike (the spy catcher) has a bad enough setting as it is, lets cooperate with him, we owe him that much. He is trying to keep Australia safe and fair dinkum honest. In addition to that, if WE face it, make no mistake that there are equal issues in the United Kingdom, Canada (where currently unconfirmed rumours have it that Pierre Poilievre is engaging with trolls to get his visibility out there), India and optionally New Zealand, but the last reference is more speculation from me than fact. So Australia is not alone and as I see it Mike Burgess (ASIO), David Vigneault (CSIS) and Ken McCallum (MI5) should pool resources and see which stakeholders have more than one shoreline they are fishing at, them and the direct connection they have. I think it is time to light up that collected Riffraff. I am still all for electing the actual traitors with a Accuracy International AXMC (the .338 edition) but apparently that is an illegal act (darn). And I admit, traitors make my blood boil and the blood gets a few degrees warmer when it is done for money. A first step is required and personally I think that illuminating these stakeholders will make them rush like the roaches they are for any place offering shades. When we have there visibility we can see who THEY are connected to. That does not mean that the connection are guilty, but it gives us the frame of an image and that image optionally colours the roadmap to something that could be a solution. Yes, there are issues with ‘could’ and ‘optional’ but in the dark we know nothing and we owe Mikey Mike more, or t least a stage where he can operate and three groups with self serving interests are not the way to go, especially when it is about the safety of a nation. It is even more when you consider that this could affect the whole Commonwealth. In this I could be wrong, I really could be, but should we allow this level of interference to go unattended to? I say no and it is time that you realise that in the Commonwealth stakeholders are given too much leeway and that needs to stop (or massively dampened). We need to realise that we have a problem and the first step to solving that problem is admitting we have one.
So have a great Friday and make your Friday a ‘Friyay’.