From clickbait about neo-Nazis to the paranoia around COVID-19, the line dividing Left from Right has never been so bold. Paradoxically, nothing is straightforward.
Who is to say what is right and left anymore, since both camps have strayed into a non-traditional territory. A unified central bloc manipulates perceptions. Nothing is what it appears or called what it genuinely is. Two issues where the disparity occurs are COVID-19 and so-called far-right extremism. The two have more in common than you think.
THE COVID SOCIETY
The Left supports the authoritarian order during the indefinite period of the COVID panic. Those on the Right outright despise the government for these measures.
The government-industrial-media-tech complex labels ordinary folks without them understanding the machinations of how and why. Regular folks, who live and let live, lack the experience to comprehend guardianship. They do not, as a rule, see this face of the state.
We define normal as engaged otherwise than in politics. These people generally believe the information fed to them via traditional sources controlled by this bloc.
The majority do not analyse the information communicated to them as a peripheral noise. How can it discern the subtleties of disruption that distort the divergent messages questioning the reality presented? How could they understand the motivating biases of the agents that serve it? How would they know the backstory to a lot of this?
An effective way of understanding this disruption of communication is through the term noise. Noise is anything that interrupts the passage of a message from the sender to the receiver. In this case, that noise is generated deliberately by the government-industrial-media-tech complex.
For instance, take the definitions employed by the Daily Mail in coverage of Saturday’s Freedom Rallies. The DM described protesters as ‘anti-vaxxer conspiracy extremists’. Scathing language in the text subsequently condemned them, perforce approving the authoritarian tactics of the state governments of Victoria, NSW, and Queensland. Sure, it is only the Daily Mail, but it is among the few online news sources without a paywall. As such, it has a wide readership.
The DM’s message is blunt; those who question government policy on COVID are extremists. However, the DM is also a noisemaker, distorting the nature of the protests. Their report is both twisting and disruptive of an opposing view. Our contempt for the media arises from an expectation of something better. Yet, as the wise guys say, it is what it is. The media creates folk devils and fans moral panics by its very nature.
Labelling ordinary Australians as extremists put the protesters outside of mainstream society and cast them as others.
The DM’s intention was never to balance their reportage by sharing the view of the protesters; it invalidated their voice. Before committing this act of rebellion, they were ordinary Australians. By standing together against rules they disagree with, they became extremists.
Given COVID changes everything, judicious reportage is essential. Instead, legacy media trumpets government policy. Abroad is a different matter. The rest of the world is astounded by what some describe as totalitarian control.
One commentator joked that Australia is going full circle back to a penal colony. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson compared us to North Korea.
The opportunity to capitalise on the uncertainty attending this inexplicable phenomenon is too great, which goes for either end of the political spectrum. A virus is not a matter of politics but public hygiene. Nevertheless, the government now wields public health as an instrument of power.
We live in an enforced bubble. More and more information adds to the overflow. If you believe that COVID-19 is as dangerous as they claim, you will regard with loathing those flouting the rules. If you are uncritical of the source of those messages, you will approve of the riot police using brute force against the protester rabble. You will side with autocracy.
The government uses fear to manipulate the populace by suggesting any breach of their oppressive measures will kill our loved ones. A complex matter gets reduced to a tick and a cross, right and wrong, good and bad. The protesters questioned whether all of this was in the interests of public safety or to facilitate extending government power. By mistrusting the source of those messages, the protesters were in the ‘other’ camp.
The police unleashed non-lethal weaponry on the crowd for the first time, and the media judged the circumstances as justified. The DM dubbed the rally the ‘most violent’ ever in Melbourne. This exaggeration served as both clickbait and propaganda, grifting the public they allege they are informing.
Denial is at play here, too. The government’s dismissal of protesters as ‘idiots’ and ‘extremists’ while insisting upon more and more restrictive lockdown measures may seem like the State Premiers have things under control. But they have lost control. Firing rubber bullets at the crowd, spraying a young girl and her parents with capsicum spray, is not the sign of a Premier in control. It is the hubris of one with power.
Despite the ticker tape of transgressions by the government, every time they ask us to forget what happened earlier because this time it is serious. This time it is a matter of life and death. The virus has changed everything, just as 911 did. The advent of COVID-19 has mitigated the essential freedom of the west.
The term ‘politics of fear’ has been used. Those born after 911 will have known only a surveillance state. The war on terror triggered the surveillance state. The war on truth sparked the war on terror. History repeats itself once again. While we are distracted by fear, something else is going on.
THE LEFT-STATE AXIS
Why is the Left an auxiliary of the state? Why has it betrayed its historical position? Whereabouts did it lose its principles to side with the oppressor? Moreover, why does it persist in the fantasy of oppression?
The Left is as broad and nuanced as the Right. We oversimplify because this is the present nature of the beast. It is baffling to find anarchists siding with an authoritarian government and condemning rebels.
Slackbastard is Australia’s most prominent online anarcho-communist, but he is more. More than anything, he is a committed anti-fascist. The state regularly uses him as an expert on the far-right. His modus vivendi is to dox members of the Far-Right and issue sardonic commentary on socio-political issues. His opinions are often remote from reality. One wonders whether he deliberately exaggerates according to his self-styled role or whether he believes what he writes.
Tweeting after the Melbourne Freedom Rally, he labelled protesters ‘plague rats.’ The use of this term has dehumanised his targets. He has robbed them of their sincerity and conviction. Remember, this is an anarchist who took part in the Melbourne S11 riots. Those were protests against the World Economic Forum (WEF) held over three days in September of 2000.
Given the close relationship the advent of COVID-19 shares with the WEF’s Davos Agenda, which has opportunistically used it as a springboard for its great economic reset, how does a character like him suddenly do a swift ideological 180-degree shift?
He is not alone either. The cream of social media’s anti-fascist community shares this baffling view of protesters and ‘anti-vaxxers.’
Sure, anti-vaxxers, in general, are hard to fathom, but they are bundling together covid-deniers, anti-vaxxers and Covidiots (sic) with the far-right. They are not the only ones.
ASIO’s submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence [the committee] highlighted Issue Motivated Groups (IMGs) as presenting a potential threat.
They say, “COVID-19 has exacerbated a range of anti-government, anti-5G, anti-vaccination and pro-conspiracy narratives.
They define IMGs as “…a range of highly personalised beliefs that drive people to respond — typically in protest — to a given cause, event or development and can unite either temporarily or long-term.”
What is the threat? ASIO says it only becomes involved when IMGs seek to use violence. They fail to differentiate those distrustful about Pfizer and Astra Zeneca from those who blanketly reject all vaccination. Verily, they conflate IMGs with far-right extremists. So does the Left.
Fresh in the news is a report by Nick McKenzie, a Walkley-award winning journalist.
McKenzie has a reputation as an investigative journalist and is best known for exposing corruption, highlighting human rights issues and investigating the criminal justice system.
His latest exposé on far-right extremists dovetails with the committee’s inquiry into the extreme-right. He sent an undercover operative inside the National Socialist Network (NSN), a neo-Nazi group based in Melbourne. Footage from the investigation led to the outing of the group’s leaders, employers sacking members, and recommendations for the group’s proscription under the Terror Act. It fits nicely with the committee’s objectives.
The same mob historically produces this style of report. McKenzie formerly worked for the leftist Fairfax Media, which had an ideological commitment to narratives about neo-Nazis.
McKenzie and his employer, Nine Entertainment Co, are involved in a defamation suit brought against them by Australia’s most decorated soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith. McKenzie and Nine lost a defamation suit to Chinese businessman Chau Chak Wing earlier this year. Accolades aside, such is his credibility.
Nonetheless, he has no credibility issues as far as ASIO is concerned. Mike Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, gave his first recorded interview during McKenzie’s report, aired on Nine’s 60 Minutes, and published in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.
All in all, it went to show, the threat of far-right extremism is real, but the media and ASIO are on the job. They have it sorted. But we shouldn’t be complacent because more are out there. Anyway, that is the narrative. Yet, what is McKenzie’s relationship with ASIO, and how serious is the threat?
ASIO is partnered with the international intelligence alliance Five Eyes, comprising Canada, the UK, the USA and New Zealand. The USA lists far-right extremists as the greatest threat to domestic security, ahead of Islamicists.
Not publicised is how the FBI cultivated these groups or MI5 in England.
Atomwaffen Division, for instance, originated in the USA and is banned in multiple countries.
Australia has, puzzlingly, outlawed the Sonnenkrieg Division, the UK branch of Atomwaffen, even though it has no presence in Australia.
Atomwaffen has a gut-churning history. We will not recount it; needless to say, no Australian nationalist would touch them. All else aside, we know such groups are honeytraps.
Take the owner of Martinet Press, Joshua Kaleb Sutter, one of the movers and shakers of Atomwaffen. Sutter worked with the FBI since 2003, earning over $140,000. They financed Martinet Press, which produced off-colour material. In 20018, they paid him $82,000 to mould AWD into a national terror threat. Court documents in a case against another AWD member, Caleb Cole, reveal his status.
The Base featured in McKenzie’s production. Not mentioned is how its leader, Rinaldo Nazzaro, was a former FBI employee who worked for Homeland Security. Wherever these groups exist, such connections are invariably exposed.
Globally, the pinch is on to suppress far-right extremists or white supremacists. It is a big thing of now. Lucky for Nick McKenzie and ASIO, they had the NSN on hand. Pity the NSN, whose members chose to join an organisation that ticked every box of groups proscribed as extremist.
Bear in mind that no such push exists against Black Lives Matter, Black Bloc Anarchists or Antifascist Action, which collectively rioted, vandalised and burned federal buildings in America over the past year and a half. Despite the number of deaths, regardless of the degree of ideological extremism, the media describes their riots as ‘peaceful protests.’ It is an open joke, and not just among the Right.
The hypocrisy of the situation has seen former liberals speak out against the Left, forced conservatives to admit anti-White racism, and polarised America, coming after Donald Trump’s single presidential term.
The far-Left is protected and financed by the Democrats, big tech, and corporations. The question is, why? One only has to look again at the Davos Agenda, as it’s all in there.
The Davos Agenda is a rejigging of capitalism along social lines emphasising the environment in a global blueprint.
The advent of COVID facilitated their plan of an economic reset. They equate inclusivity with economic prosperity, minorities (including LGBTQ) with public safety, civil liberties with colour. They are concerned with the distribution of equality on a racial and gender basis.
If you understand the term woke, you apprehend its goals. If you grasp its goals, you will recognise its methods. If all of this makes sense, you will gain an insight into the globalist thinking of the Left, the international obligations of the state, and domestic terror policy.
We can account for incongruities in our argument. For instance, how can Australian domestic policy accord with the Davos Agenda if America is laughing at our lockdowns?
International and domestic troubles are ravaging the US. These stem, in part, from the stated goals of the Davos Agenda. As the withdrawal from Afghanistan erodes American global prestige and weakens the US in the eyes of its competitors, we can only employ the proverb about those who live in glass houses.
The debris of social collapse litters the domestic terrain of America. Sprawling homeless encampments plague its cities, militant leftist groups occupy neighbourhoods in liberal cities, and law and order have collapsed under the weight of an insurgent political force. America has surrendered control of its borders.
Meanwhile, you may ask, does the inference of ASIO’s use of Nick McKenzie as a defacto agent influencing the fortunes of the NSN vindicate that group?
No, most certainly not. Australian nationalists incessantly warned against involvement. But how can our fine heritage, depth of political ideals, and reason compete with sloganeering, the lure of subculture, and the hypnotic pull of the Hitler cult?
How can those denying the toys of this cult influence wayward individuals brainwashed by an amorphous movement manipulated by state agents dependent on a villain?
These fools fell hook, line and sinker into the jaws of the state. Worse, they made bait of themselves. Does that mean we support the state proscribing them?
Nationalists have no truck with neo-Nazism, as they term it. It is anathema to us. When they call themselves nationalists, they appropriate our designation and all it represents. They move into our territory and feed off gullible minds. They shun their national identity for a fantasy. We detest them.
By all the evidence, ASIO was inside their group far longer than the report by McKenzie reveals. They allowed it to exist so therefore they could easily manage any threat posed by them. But this was not about a threat; it concerns an ongoing narrative of their societal system. A threat must occur to justify funding an organisation dedicated to domestic security like ASIO. The Hilton Hotel bombing in 1978 was a case in point.
A trigger word used in conjunction with the far-right extremists is ‘accelerationist.’
What about the accelerationism of the globalist agenda – diversity poking us in the eye from TV commercials; in movies; the use of diversity-agenda stock photos to illustrate news stories; white boys made to stand in a class by left-wing lesbians and apologise for being who they are?
Have they thought about the state adopting LGBTQ colours and symbols and besmirching the national masthead by flying them together? How do they ask the majority to act passively after apportioning unequal social status to minorities who then go on to abuse that privilege?
Do they consider the impact of the constant attacks on national identity? They censor our books, rewrite our history, cancel contrary voices, and demonise their opponents. They rub our noses in diversity. Yet, the neo-Nazis are the evil accelerationists?
We posit that they are the symptom and not the cause.
THE MORAL DIMENSION
We come to the question of where politics ends and morality begins. For the Left, violence is a means to an end, especially for Anti-fascist Action.
The Anti-fascism movement owes as much to the dynamics of subculture as it does for the far-right extremists in youth-dominated neo-Nazi cults.
Yet, how can a collective that sides with an autocratic state machine purport to be against fascism?
Remember how Andy Fleming (sic) labelled anti-lockdown protesters “plague rats?”
Also dedicated to anti-fascism is the White Rose Society. Are they opposed to injustice? Do they condone all political violence, or are they interested solely in tribal demarcation?
As nationalists, we have endured the most Kafkaesque experiences at the hands of the state and media.
We have watched while they charged one of our own for crimes the alleged victim not only perpetrated on him beforehand but right up until this time, with the matter set for trial, he persists.
The prosecution knows the story, and the police know the truth. It just doesn’t matter because our man is on the wrong side of the political coin. He is guilty of thought crimes, while offences against him don’t count. Ideology negates victimhood. It’s not just a matter of selective prosecution but political and ideological persecution. Why is one good and the other bad when all that separates them is a worldview?
How do you de-radicalise someone who has been through this?
The White Rose Society is a misleading moniker implying a bigger collective. Tasmanian academic Kaz Ross adopted the name.
Far more reasonable than Slackbastard, Ross and her alter-ego are nonetheless tribal in their preoccupation. They are anti-fascists that dox ‘far-right’ extremists. Is the threat of all forms of terror their concern? If so, are they worried about all terror, or just the imputed terrorism of their tribal opposite? We put the question directly to the White Rose Society. We had a superb subject to use as an example upon which to base our question.
In December 2020, two persons were captured on a CCTV camera vandalising the Tempe headquarters of the Australia First Party. One is male and the other female. They threw rocks over the fence, hurled bricks through the windows, and left a reasonable amount of damage. The following week, the same pair returned while the building’s owner, Jim Saleam, President of the AFP, was upstairs working.
He came downstairs to find a young man in a hood smashing up his home. As soon as he saw Dr Saleam, he charged at him with a hammer in hand. He had no hesitation attacking the veteran nationalist.
However, Jim turned out to be much more sprier than the assailant counted on. In an ensuing scuffle, he injured Jim. But realising he lost control of the situation, the young terrorist fled the building.
Detectives arrived and examined the crime scene, a constable took his statement, and the police seized footage from surrounding homes and businesses. Despite all the powers at the disposal of the police, nothing has come of it.
The victim supplied information about the likely whereabouts of the pair to the police. Still, the police have done nothing.
Just as with the other nationalist we mentioned. Same pattern, same police station, same attitude.
As tiresome as it is to say, what if the shoe was on the other foot? What if Jim Saleam attacked an anti-fascist? What if the NSN had done this? The story would be national news, but not one outlet reported this story; two overt acts of political terrorism by Leftists. And yes, the persons involved are anti-fascists. We identified them as active with anti-fascists from the inner-western suburbs of Sydney.
The White Rose Society has ignored our request for comment. We gave ample opportunity for them to respond. We shall not put words in their mouth because silence provides the answer.
Therefore, we adduce, no moral thread binds these anti-fascists; it is entirely tribal.
Likewise, Mike Burgess must be aware of the attack, as well as the framing of the aforementioned nationalist brother. But this is not about right and wrong, and if it is not, then there is no moral dimension to any of this.