The contrivance of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security betrays its underlying motivations once a fair whack of the submissions has been scrutinized. Bear in mind that the committee has yet to release its findings.

After browsing the submissions, the Inquiry appears as a fishing trip, undertaken with the expectation that enough simpatico voices would garner a foregone conclusion and support for criminalising those groups and persons it finds ideologically abhorrent. Depending upon the outcome it probably means yet again tinkering with already established laws.

We can’t know the minds of the committee members, but the thoughts and attitudes of those who’ve tendered submissions reveal an array of actors arranged according to sectional biases, front-line experience, expertise and academic opinion.

Firstly, to start by nominating ‘extremism’, they were onto a sure-bet to keep the public entertained and the agencies engaged in a popular project. By  juxtaposing ‘far-right’ extremists alongside ‘Islamic extremists’, even with differentiators, the discussion is not about whether ‘are they,’ but ‘how bad are they?’ The absence of far-left extremists – except in a few interesting cases – is palpable. Moreover, will there ever be a Parliamentary Joint Committee on cancel culture?

Are any of these contributing agencies willing to concede that cancel culture is extremism? The fact that none does is an indicator of the Inquiry’s ideological slant. Rarely arises the suggestion from the Inquiry’s contributors that society itself may shoulder any of the blame for ‘extremism’; that its vices and extremes ‘radicalised’ those who they’ve categorised. Much of the terminology employed in this ‘discussion’ is coded. It implies the inclusion of Islamic terror, which no doubt it’s addressing, but because of the generalisations and the tacit emphasis on ‘far-right extremism,’ most of it is a conversation about the latter. Self-analysis is not included in the committee’s terms of reference nor would it be. Yet, without it, the reasons these groups exist are un-explicated.

We are brainwashed into believing that the multicultural model of society that was phased in from the late 1960s onwards is the completion of all roads travelled by Western civilisation; the final uncontestable model of society that is a template for all peoples, invested as it is in democracy and the egalitarian concepts that underpin enlightened thought. None of those contributors to the Inquiry countenance that the system that they represent may be as inherently sick as those ‘extremists’ contend.

As such, those ‘far-right’ voices, disaffected by the system are errant. Yet, they are only errant by the rules of those who changed the character of our country and its system. How about a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Globalism, Cultural Marxism, Corporatism and Multiracialism?

A society can never advantage everyone, and those who enjoy its rewards will scoff at those who protest alienation. At least, up to a point; today’s Western Society nominates approved victims. Others are dismissed as dangerous enemies if their grievances are expressed in too cogent a fashion or are likely to resonate.

Interestingly, they overlook that the multiracial society is responsible for both so-called far-right extremists and Islamic extremists. Nationalists (Australian nationalists as defined by the Council of Australian Nationalists) were in existence, and the mainstream, before these terms were ever coined. We were known as ‘Australians’ and our party was the Labor Party, and it was nationalist too. Nationalism and the labour movement were a double helix. Our Prime Minister was a nationalist, and he was the greatest Australian Prime Minister ever; his name was John Curtin.

Even if you didn’t support the Labor Party back then you understood the so-called White Australia Policy was vital to preserving our ‘lucky country.’ How can our tradition be ‘extreme’ when once it was the unifying policy of our newly-minted nation understood and approved by our formal colonial master, Great Britain? Its critics and the historians who judge it do so from a modern ideological position at variance with how it was intended. Yet, as Western countries slide deeper into the squalor of America’s failing multiracial democratic & corporate system, the folly in surrendering that unique policy becomes clear, at least by those resistant to conditioning.

Noticeably missing in the submissions so far are the relevant actors or ‘the accused’, the voices of those engaged in groups suspected of being the subjects for proscription. Just as with our court system, the accused is the least relevant player among the ‘important’ actors of the court. The onus of proving innocence is upon him, while the evidence that may establish his innocence is disallowed on a perfidious assortment of technicalities peculiar to our courts, in which the Crown is concerned solely with successful prosecutions.

Many of those academics who’ve offered submissions refer to conspiracy theorists. The FBI now ranks Conspiracy Theorists as legitimate terror threats. They mention QAnon but not the BLM. Funny that. With the militantly corporate Marxist-front of BLM (and its Critical Race Theory’s accusation that all of our society is systemically oppressed by White People) being excused from its definition of ‘extremism’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ how could anyone be blamed for doubting its intent? Moreover, conspiracies aren’t paranoia but a verifiable part of our modern story.

However, it would be apocryphal to suggest all are united in agreement about these ‘extremist threats’ or even that action taken for the sake of political theatre is not doing more harm than good.

In the first case, we are intrigued that both the NSW Police and Victoria Police name the far-left as a potentially violent threat. They would know, of course, as they’ve oft-times had to confront the screaming rabble of the far-left during demonstrations, etc. None of this counts as violence to the academic tribe in their submissions, who share the unanimous opinion that the far-left poses no threat simply on the basis that they don’t discuss such acts online. Their empirical research comes from monitoring chats by far-right groups on platforms like 8chan, 4chan, Gab, Facebook and all the rest, while taking everything they read seriously.

They’ve never ventured to ask any of us who’ve been attacked by Antifa or had our homes ransacked by them, about these politically motivated incidents. Perhaps this is because the far-left aren’t reported by the media as the police seldom follow up complaints made against them. This makes what both the NSW and Victoria Police say laughable.

To highlight such, we will soon publish the story of a nationalist whose complaints about a leading Melbourne anarchist — who was also a contributor to a major newspaper as well as being a lawyer — were ignored by the NSW Police. His experience is the perfect adjunct to the true story behind AFP national president Dr Jim Saleam’s two bogus convictions in the 1990s, and the connivance of the state and legal system which incarcerated an innocent man. We cannot name him for legal reasons.

This nationalist, who our friend alleges had defamed him, also used a carriage service to threaten harm, stalk him, harass him, and he believes arranged for him to be assaulted, yet NSW Police, despite acknowledging the complaints, did nothing. When his home was attacked as part of this conspiracy and the culprit’s image was caught on CCTV, the data provided to NSW Police, no action was taken. Others had reported threatening behaviour and assaults by the thug identified in that footage. Does the fact that the thug was later revealed to be a CFMMEU member, a communist and involved with Antifascist Action Sydney explain why he was never brought to account? In a sick twist, the mastermind of the aforementioned crimes of stalking etc against the prominent nationalist, himself made a police complaint against the nationalist. It was a continuance of his obsessive, vexatious and politically motivated campaign. However, these subsequent complaints hung in abeyance while the same matter carried out in Victoria’s lower court as a Personal Safety Intervention Order (PSIO).

Following the Christchurch incidents, a secret meeting was held between Nine, NSW Police and (we assume) Victoria Police and he was subsequently charged — with the full police and media theatre. It constituted a plain case of selective prosecution. Despite a whole portfolio of evidence that contradicts the anarchist’s claim to victimhood, no one from the police was interested in investigating his allegations regardless of how it affects the principles of justice. Even though the matter is before the court the unnamed person is still making threats against the accused. Fearing no reprisals, he’ll face none because this is the ‘system’ that ‘far-right’ groups have the temerity to organise against in protest. This is but one story, for there are others, involving not only threats but actual bodily harm perpetrated against nationalists. While video exists of the perpetrators, again, police inaction is as inevitable as the sun rising in the morning.

This fits a pattern that governs the way those from the far-right etc are treated, seemingly, as a process of policy.

The big banks cancel the accounts of individuals who don’t toe the Woke line. When a person becomes the subject of public exposure the banks play their part by cancelling their account and banning them from opening another with either them or any of their subsidiaries. And don’t try to petition the Human Rights Commission either because those on the ‘far-right’ don’t have any as far as they’re concerned. Is this whole process not extreme, undemocratic, and contrary to all notions of civil rights? This news is met with undisguised schadenfreude by the Left which claims a patent on civic consciousness. The line between them and the ‘fascist’ ghosts they chase is indeed thin.

This creation of ‘others’, persecuted because of their political beliefs, who effectively have no rights nor recourse to the law exposes the two-faced nature of this society. Nevertheless, it’s a relief that the police acknowledged the far-left as extremists, albeit while aiding and abetting their extremism. Don’t expect such admissions from the media or academic tribes.

For example, how is it that ‘Andy Fleming’ AKA Slackbastard is used by mainstream media as an authoritative source on the ‘far-right’ simply because he’s been stalking it lo these many years? When he is opposed to everything that the media stands for? Why is it that it’s never disclosed to readers that he is what would be termed an extremist himself, and who advocates ‘anarchy’, viewing crime as necessary civil disobedience? A man who wants to tear down society? How can we seriously expect to have them judge us when such unapologetic hypocrisy abounds?

To the average Australian, the media appears as a neutral platform, one that they can rely on as an impartial source. No media is neutral, and those who conspired with the state over our nationalist friend withheld from their readers the journalist’s extreme-Left background. Moreover, no effort was made by the editor to confirm the outlandish allegations made against him. In short, it was flagrant confection. But the alarming thing is the fusion of the state and media to provide a ‘product’, in this case, an extremist, at a time when the Christchurch Shootings had occurred.

This man had no involvement with those shootings nor did he condone them, but because he was available, they set aside all propriety to fashion him as one and dangle him before the public. It aided the media’s agenda, alleviated concerns about police efficiency, and perpetuated a narrative. The trouble is, the real story has never been told. When it finally is — just as with Jim Saleam — all of those who participated in the sacrifice of this man and the mockery of justice will present as the real Nazis (sic) and not the good guys.

When all is said and done, the committee won’t be censoring a nascent threat posed by far-right groups but rather the discussion they raise, in which race predominates and is totally at loggerheads with their Critical Race Theory. As with the committee and its aims, the topic of race is everywhere, but such a controversial conversation isn’t in the offing. Instead, it’s a monologue championing Aboriginals and coloured people and only one truth (sic) is ceded in the universal narrative, that they’re all victims of White racism and systemic oppression.

Certain groups don’t help by adopting the appurtenances of a fascist cult and obfuscating this Australian message with ersatz-Nazi cliches and doomsday rhetoric. Their perspective is wrong on multiple levels, but should they be proscribed? When one side is allowed to conduct themselves with the blessing of the state as its auxiliaries, it is unreasonable by all that we regard as fair to demonise one group, no matter how misguided they may be, while tacitly condoning the other for the same vices (sic).

This is assuming, of course, they intend on proscribing the National Socialist Network (NSN), but we would bet our grandmother’s gold-handled coffin that’s where this is heading.

No Base-style group is active in Australia despite ABC’s recent efforts at scandalising. Nevertheless, the NSN and its predecessor the Antipodean Resistance were birthed from the same social networks. That makes their model an FBI fashioned Trojan horse, something those kids will never understand. Yet, those members of the NSN would do well to critically analyse their not-so-charismatic leader, Thomas Sewell, and whereabouts he is dragging them since a browse of his Telegram page is (aside from all the actions that we’ve documented recently) a gift to the committee. We’re not even saying how, but just that he is either losing his mind or all along was a deep-state narc. We suggest the former.

What’s worrying about the NSN is how much they appear to fulfil the profile of radicalised persons as characterised by one of the charts in the submissions. We put this down to their choice of a group more than each possessing the ascribed characteristics.

The Addressing Violent Extremism and Radicalisation to Terrorism Research Network (AVERT) included the following in the lengthy submission. Owing to its breadth, we shall only critique three paragraphs selected from the text.

Other groups in Australia, like the Lads Society, which has now morphed into an explicitly neo-Nazi movement that has extended into the ‘European Australian Movement’ (EAM) and the ‘National Socialist Network’ (NSN), share these characteristics of organisational ambiguity. They also have a strategic ambiguous stance on the use of violence to further their goals. While they claim that they do not explicitly call for violence, at the same time they do not denounce, and in fact often promote, the use of violence by others that share similar goals. The same strategic ambiguity around the use of violence applies to the Proud Boys, who have been involved in riots and street violence. It is also a feature of Islamist organisations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HUT).

That’s not entirely untrue. Tom Sewell vociferously denies that ‘violence’ plays any part in his or his groups’ agenda, yet he needlessly (allegedly) assaulted a black security guard. He then played up to the Zionist lobby by producing memes to excite Dvir Abramovich, a professional hate-whisperer. His further exploits we don’t wish to bring up but they contradict his position to the point we can’t even disagree with this paragraph although we’d very much like to in normal circumstances. Our interpretation of these shenanigans is that he’s a full-blown publicity addict going through withdrawals. He is out to impress with his diehard commitment to ‘the cause’ as such veering over the line while daring others to join as he goes out in a blaze of glory.

What can’t be taken as gospel is whether or not the extended network is likely to be as bipolar as Tom Sewell. When the media recently reported on the homes of (suspected NSN) members in South Australia and Brisbane being raided by counter-terrorism, the number of homes reported as having been raided was wildly exaggerated, and the police uncovered nothing more harmful than literature. The ‘bomb’ that was so sensationally claimed to have been found was merely a bottle of crushed sparklers. The exercise was, once again, propagandistic. Nonetheless, theirs are crocodile tears, as they sought the attention they are now receiving.

Right-wing extremist rhetoric advances doctrines focused on the supremacy of “white” ethnic and racial groups; the threat to the “Australian” way of life purportedly posed by minority ethnic and racial groups (including theories such as the Great Replacement, which casts minority population immigration and reproductive rates as a deliberate driver for the elimination of European background peoples), and the demonisation of particular ethnic, religious and cultural groups (including Jews, Muslims, African-Australians, Indigenous Australians and Asian-Australians) as unworthy of citizenship and full participation in a “European”-background country like Australia.

The above is a discussion that Australia never had before the White Australia Policy was scrapped. We are not ‘right-wing’ nor are we extremists, but the core tenet of Australian nationalism is that Australia belongs to Australians. The idea that anyone from any background of any skin colour and culture can become Australian by dint of possessing a certificate is a bureaucratic argument that disregards the reality of Australian identity. It is as laughable as suggesting that just because I move to China and live there for many years I may call myself Chinese. It is a dogma that denies Australianity (sic). If the Australian people exist, and they do, it’s abominable to suggest that we may do so only as another minority community squeezed in amongst a polyglot of disparate tribes.

Who decreed thus? Where was it written in our constitution? Such suggestions belong to egalitarian ‘democratic principles’ not to an evaluation of indigenous people and their inherent rights as the parent race. Imperialism may make such assertions but not nationalism. As to ‘the great replacement’, we very much agree with that ‘theory’ because we have the benefit of eyes and brains, unfettered by an imposed worldview. The idea is that multiracialism is ‘thus decreed’. We have the benefit of history and heritage to challenge that, which is neither delinquent nor deviant, but our sovereign duty.

The impact of doctrines like the Great Replacement Theory, and the hateful rhetoric through which they are disseminated and promoted, has the potential to severely undermine Australia’s social cohesion. It is not enough to dismiss such groups, and the narratives they espouse, as a “lunatic fringe”, as some very recent commentary in the media has attempted to do. Regardless of the actual numbers of individuals who are committed adherents to such doctrines, the amplification of such views through social media, and also traditional media reportage, has the capacity to instil fear, alienation and disengagement by Australian minority communities who are explicitly targeted and attacked by such rhetoric.

Again, everything advanced by this organisation proceeds based on assuring the cohesion of the multiracial society. We are Australians, that cannot be contested, what can be contested is that ‘minority communities’ are deserving of being allowed to be. Once more, the burden of maintaining an unnatural society reveals itself. Were one to redact the policy of multiracialism, all of the problems, all of the committees, all of the legislation, the summits, the quangos, the aggrieved and the violence goes away. Is that proof positive of the failings of an artificially created state? Does that not also demonstrate that the Great Replacement, by high immigration rates from non-European nations, is the actual policy? Are they quibbling over whether it is intended to eradicate Europeans because by their statistics it amounts to the same thing?

We have not committed violence, but we’ve had it committed against us because of our beliefs. We have not oppressed, but we’ve been oppressed by the state for holding those beliefs. These ‘minority communities’ have any amount of quango, government bureau and law enforcement offices upholding their rights, but we do not even have rights. Likewise, no teacher in any Australian classroom is demonising students from a minority background but we’ve had at least two incidents where straight, white, Christian male students were made to stand and be stigmatised for their race, religion, and sex. So, where does that leave the rhetoric of all of these ‘humanist’ organisations who are, like the antagonists in those classrooms, holding to account Whites daring to stand up for themselves?

In our opinion, this is an exercise in cementing cancel culture. It comes out of the same ecosystem as Critical Race Theory and the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan. It is wholly a one-sided Inquiry that’s terms of references have decided its outcome in advance. In short, it’s a show — an inquisition with a directive to find heretics and condemn them. Rather than frighten groups it may have the unintended consequence of uniting them.

Online terrorism is spawning an industry; academic ‘experts’ are crawling out of the woodwork and their dubious research methods don’t matter so long as their conclusions find White people at fault. It has obvious parallels to the Critical Race Theory industry, the engine of the fraudulent Black Lives Matter movement, which is the accelerant now being used to set the West ablaze, both figuratively and literally.

The bias is evident in the academic tribe (a para-state Auxilliary) when you consider, for instance, that in its submission the ominously titled Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies, an amalgam of new-wave universities and multicultural community groups. They outline their purpose, associations, and commitment:

Through our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Home Affairs, we are working in partnership with the Department’s Research and Evaluation Working Group of the Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee (CVESC) to provide empirically based research and capacity-building to inform their policy decisions, highlight countering violent extremism best practices and advance relevant understandings of violent extremism both in Australia and internationally.

CRIS referenced as evidence of growing (far-right) extremism the storming of Capitol Hill. They wrote,

The storming of the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 serves as a warning about how conspiracy theory and extremist rhetoric in the virtual realm can manifest as violent extremism in the real world. And the recent show of force by a group of 40 or so men associated with the Australian white supremacist, neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network in the Grampians National Park in rural Victoria, emboldened by public displays of strength by far-right militia in the US, UK and Europe, highlights the volatile nature of Australia’s far-right milieu, the increasing threat it poses, and the ways in which events on the other side of the world resonate in Australia.

Nowhere does their report make mention of the BLM, Antifa and Black Bloc inspired unrest that ignited in 2019 and is still blazing across US cities. Nowhere is this axis of extremists to be included in any of these submissions, nor the fact that their activities have inspired copy cat protests, groups and individuals in Australia. Nowhere does this country’s media (outside of Sky News) even claim them as extremists. Again, does this biased omission not present grounds for those affected by the deeds and aims of this movement to counter their rhetoric and action, especially when its intentions are so clearly spelt out, and are, by the very definition of the word, racist.

Would it not occur that by enabling this socially corrosive movement through the double-standard of omission the state would logically volunteer itself as a subject of suspicion?

In the US, for instance, a police officer in a New Jersey town was sacked for referring to the BLM as extremists on social media. He didn’t shoot an innocent person, didn’t choke a Negro with his knee, didn’t violate anyone’s civil rights – he expressed an opinion from one at the coalface who was dealing with BLM. And he was forthwith cancelled. He is not the only officer to face suspension or termination of employment for doing so.

Macquarie University submitted this:

  • The research shows that while the far-left have been responsible for the great number of terrorist groups and movements during the 20th century, today this movement is not engaged in significant terrorist activity in Australia. Far-left Marxists and Anarchist groups in Australia do present a political challenge, however they largely reject the wholesale use of violence to achieve political change (in contrast to the far-right in which violence to outgroups is central to their identity and movements). Antifa and Black Bloc use of violence in Australia has largely been confined to counterprotesting at far-right rallies, when fascists have taken over public spaces. There is little support within far-left movements to use violent tactics to achieve political outcomes distinct from targeting fascists. Far left online and offline discourse is more concerned with building a broad popular political movement in Australia (as occurred in the early 1970s during the Vietnam War), and for the most part considers the use of violence or terror tactics to be antithetical to that goal.

Again, reliance on social media as their ‘empirical evidence’ of a terror threat spares the intrepid researcher from having to step out of their slippers so the veracity of their ‘conclusions’ is self-evident. Likewise, their airbrushing from Australian history the political violence of the Left is instructive of where their bias lies. The Socialist Revolution is in two stages and the socialists on the ground are the ‘storm troops of capital.’ Their program is to 1) beat the fascists 2) stage the socialist revolution. For 50 years they’ve been ‘beating the fascists’ but the social revolution never seems to come. It inevitably stalls at the ‘beat the fascists’ stage.

Neverminding that, the submission’s authors forget the rampant violence of the S11 protests at the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in 2000, where police were attacked, businesses damaged, and journalists assaulted. Their senseless violence was acted out on a stage where its ‘context’ could hardly have been manipulated. Neither do they mention the potential for the hardline vegans, and environmentalists to make a bold statement through an act of terror. They’re certainly capable of such and their rhetoric hovers deadly close to it. And while the ‘incels’ and ‘male supremacists’ are mentioned among other worries, nothing is said about the supercharged feminism from the likes of Clementine Ford who has publically stated her wish to see men killed, and complained that Covid-19 “isn’t killing men fast enough.” She hasn’t been cancelled, another double-standard.

We are not about to list every instance of far-left extremist violence to satisfy our point. Nor shall we quote local socialist luminaries who’ve made blatant calls to violence. Nevertheless, it’s only to be expected that a ‘progressive’ institution such as Macquarie University would approach the topic predisposed to sympathising with the far-left, to which many from the academic tribe belongs.

Suffice to say, the casual way they speak of Antifa and Black Bloc using violence at far-right rallies when “fascists have taken over public places” means they’ve already ascribed anyone attending a rally that may be anti-Islamicist as a ‘fascist, when, in fact, they might simply be responding to media hysteria and/or objecting to the multicultural system which invited them. The presence of a few ‘others’ attaching themselves to such events is inevitable, but the few do not change the character of the gathering.  What we do take issue with is how Macquarie University makes it sound as though doing violence on generally described ‘fascists’ is the will of society. That it’s excusable and not the politically motivated violence, which otherwise defines terrorism.

Meanwhile, big tech platforms have signalled their willingness to act as the Nurse Ratcheds of this ideological clinic. The level of ambiguity in their submissions indicates they’re just waiting for the government to provide equally vague laws for them to ensure they’re seen to be compliant with ‘society’s consensus’ when they provide data, cancel accounts, and neutralize even conservative channels. In doing so, they will be validating ‘Woke’ culture and redefining the West, by force.

We are guided by lists of designated terrorist groups compiled by democratically-elected governments with a transparent process for adding and removing groups. We believe democratically elected governments are better positioned to adjudicate the sensitive issue of defining who is or who is not a terrorist. We recognise, however, that there are far fewer government-listed organisations for right-wing terrorism or violent extremism. Therefore activity or content created by individuals or groups that do not appear on any designated terrorist lists will be still be assessed according to local law and terms of service for the product in question. In other words, content that celebrates or promotes terrorist acts depicts graphic violence or which validates our hate speech policies will continue to be removed regardless of whether the content was created by an organisation that has been designated a terrorist group.

Google –

Because terrorism cannot be solved by the tech industry alone, the Christchurch Call to Action has proven to be a landmark global multi-stakeholder initiative, one that convenes and unites governments, industry, and civil society in novel ways behind mutual commitments to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online, while upholding the principles of freedom of expression and an Open Internet.

Twitter –

Although our enforcement will not always be perfect, we have made significant progress in detecting and removing terrorist and extremist groups on our services. We have banned more than 250 white supremacist organisations globally and we have removed nearly 900 militarised social movements from our platform. Some of the individuals and organisations designed in Australia include Blair Cottrell, Neil Erickson, Tom Sewell, the Lads Society, the United Patriots Front, True Blue Crew and the Antipodean Resistance.

Over the last twelve months, we have prioritised building partnerships with Australiabased

organisations to assist in promoting counterspeech in Australian communities and to bring their specialised expertise to share trends about what they are seeing in Australian online communities. This engagement has taken a variety of forms, including

● undertaking concerted engagement with representatives from the Australian Jewish and Muslim communities to seek feedback on what they are seeing in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia

● establishing an Australia-specific Combatting Online Hate Advisory Group in October 2020. The Advisory Group contains representatives of marginalised communities, and experts in different forms of online hate such as white supremacy. The Advisory Group has met twice and will continue quarterly meetings, to provide a forum to discuss how industry and civil society can work together closer in combatting online hate in Australia.

Under our Community Standards, we have developed a number of policies that prevent hateful and extremist material on our services, including: (1) our dangerous individuals and organisations policy; (2) our policy on militarised social movements and violence-inducing conspiracy theories; and We regularly update our policies, in consultation with our community and relevant experts. In the last 12 months alone, we have made a number of important changes, such as:

● introducing a new ‘hateful stereotypes’ policy

● prohibiting any claims that deny or distort the Holocaust

● disallowing ads that claims that a group with “protected characteristics”

is a threat to the safety, health or survival of others

● expanding our ads policies to better protect immigrants, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from hateful claims. (3) our policies on hate speech and violence and incitement.

Facebook –

As to ASIO, they will keep exaggerating ‘terror threat’ levels because their relevance is dependent upon doing so. Where they should be concerned with every Chinese agent, here they are, at a time the nation is at its most vulnerable, diverting their attention to manufacturing a phantom menace. Not much more need be said of the Australian Federal Police.

The State Police Forces, while more willing to be frank about these supposed threats, are an instrument of the political powers.  What they say and what they do — or don’t do as in the case of the far-left — renders any honesty irrelevant. What did ASIO do the last time it feared it was about to be shut down because there weren’t enough foreign spies to go around? They staged the bombing of the Hilton Hotel and framed Tim Anderson.

Cutting to the heart of the matter, the Law Council of Australia delivered its surmation. Rather than critique their submission, we’ll reprint the portions that we find salient. Of them all, these are the fairest assessments:

The Law Council is concerned that the focus of the Committee’s third term of reference on specific legislative amendments may reflect a predisposition towards legislative intervention before the necessity of such a course of action has been established.

It is important to distinguish the threshold of legal necessity from mere administrative or operational convenience. It is also important to carefully interrogate any claims that there is a defect in applicable legislation, to ascertain whether the perceived ‘defect’ is, in fact, an issue of practice, policy or culture. Similarly, it is important that deliberate legal safeguards to protect human rights are not perceived incorrectly as unnecessary ‘barriers’. This includes the established principles of criminal law and procedure in respect of the design, investigation and enforcement of offences.

While the criminal law has a legitimate function to denounce and deter wrongdoing, and to protect the community from dangerous offenders, its significant limitations as an instrument of social policy must be acknowledged. Criminalisation should not be conceived as a primary tool through which to prevent radicalisation and extremism from propagating, or to facilitate behavioural change by disaffected individuals.

The imposition of serious criminal sanctions, and other major restrictions on a person’s activities within the community, can readily have the opposite effect. Prolonged incarceration risks placing an individual in a learning environment for further crime, and isolating them from positive influences and support systems within the community. The Law Council has also previously cautioned that restrictions imposed by control orders, including requirements to wear visible tracking devices, such as ankle bracelets, can hinder a person’s re-integration and rehabilitation by exposing them to stigmatisation that may adversely affect their employment prospects, community participation and mental health

It is important to recognise the extraordinary nature of ‘status offences’, which target the nature of the organisation with which the defendant engaged, rather than requiring proof of a defendant’s specific intention to further the terrorism-related objectives of the organisation.8 This is compounded by the fact that, when a person is prosecuted for a terrorist organisation offence in relation to their engagement with a listed terrorist organisation, the prosecution is relieved of the requirement to prove that the organisation was, in fact, engaged in terrorism-related activities. Rather, all that must be established is the fact of the listing at the time of the alleged offence, and the defendant’s knowledge or recklessness in relation to that circumstance at that time

The adversarial nature of this ideological witch-hunt could all be avoided. All we need do is stop worrying and learn to love the diversity; accept there are no men or women and that gender is fluid; reflect on our white privilege; appreciate that Moslems are welcome but racists are not; reject our toxic masculinity; acknowledge that black lives matter; honour this country’s traditional owners; say sorry; bear in mind that white silence equals violence. Maybe then they’ll welcome us back into the fold and let us work as a waiter in a café where with enough hours each week we’ll earn enough to rent a single room apartment and high-definition flat screen smart TV where we can watch amazing shows on a streaming service such as Dear White People. The ball is in our court.

One thought on “PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE A SUMMIT ON HOW TO WOKE AUSTRALIA”
  1. I note that Antifa are not to be investigated by the committee despite their bad record of violence in the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

error: Content is protected !!