The Australian government, with the help of the corporate media, think tanks and lobby groups, is going to spend the next few months clamping down on its citizens.
Seemingly overnight, multiple tragic stabbing events have reignited discussion about producing new legislation aimed at minimising what the law-abiding Australian public can view or post online, and strengthening existing laws.
The same proposals also seek to violate free speech, remove religious freedoms, limit political expression and freedom of movement, and give additional powers to police and intelligence agencies to enable them to violate privacy and impede freedom of association.
In short, we are dealing with an Orwellian scenario, where Big Brother seeks to punish you for thought crimes and remove your ability to have informed consent about almost anything.
Perhaps this all seems like the type of thinking usually found in the murky depths of the internet, among those who spend way too much time looking into conspiracy theories.
But all the information is in the public domain and available for anyone to see for themselves, and using the categories below I will explain how the government is using crisis and propaganda for political expediency.
The Hegelian Dialectic
Following recent stabbing attacks in Sydney, there has been talk of tightening legislation to “enhance safety and freedom for Australians”.
However, relying solely on legislation isn’t effective in preventing crime or ensuring safety and freedom. Increased legislation can lead to more restrictions on freedom.
In essence, the more laws there are, the less freedom you have. That’s not to say that I advocate for complete Somalian-style anarchy, but there are growing trends which indicate the government in Australia is incorporating Hegel’s dialectic.
Hegel’s dialectic describes a process in which everything changes based on a triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Hegel observed that modern society was never stagnant, that it was always moving forward in a particular direction, and noted that the pathway of this progress could be altered through the use of rhetoric, propaganda, censorship, distraction, and so on – meaning that those in power influence the culture and morality of a people.
This is the pathway by which democracy leads to socialism or Communism.
The ALP government appears eager to capitalise on tragedies, following a pattern of problem, reaction, and solution. This tactic has been observed during events like the Covid-19 crisis and the Voice to Parliament referendum.
Now, there are concerns about the state weaponising regulatory bodies and legislation to stifle conversation and outlaw dissent. These events illustrate how a solution to a new problem is given to the public through the corporate media, by the government.
A great past example of this is Queensland’s Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) laws and anti-association bill. The very next day after a motorcycle gang brawl on the Gold Coast made headlines, draft legislation was presented by the government to outlaw association of known biker groups and give special powers to police to detain and harass members for being in a group of three or more.
As it turns out, the draft bill had already been written and was sitting on a shelf gathering dust. They just had to wait for the right time to present it to the public and rush it into legislation, with the aid of corporate media propaganda.
This is how Hegel’s dialectic works, where the solution to a problem is the real agenda and solving the problem is not really part of the agenda at all, or is a secondary concern.
Another example arose following the alleged stabbing of Bishop Emmanuel Mar Mari in Sydney, the day after riots broke out in response to the alleged terror attack in the bishop’s church.
Special powers were granted to police to detain and search people, and to enter homes without a warrant. These powers were made possible due to the NSW police officially designating the incident as a terrorist attack.
However, the homes that were raided did not belong to members of the Muslim community, who may have radicalised the attacker or provided him with weapons. Those who were raided were people who were alleged to have participated in the riot that broke out, or who said naughty things on social media.
Despite special powers being granted state-wide for two weeks to police to investigate the “terrorist attack”, ASIO boss Mike Burgess announced in a press statement with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that there was no evidence that the attacker carried out his alleged crime on behalf of any other people, or as part of a group – he allegedly commited the act alone and of his own free will.
A joint police and counter-terrorism taskforce was even created as a result of the terror attack declaration, although no mosques were raided, and no members of the Islamic community were detained or questioned.
The special powers seemed to have only been used to go after Christians and members of the Assyrian community who allegedly took part in the riots, when that kind of public disturbance alone would never have been enough to grant such extraordinary powers to police or justify the creation of a joint taskforce.
Misinformation and disinformation hysteria
A key concern of the government, in response to the alleged stabbing at the church and a knife attack at Bondi Junction days earlier, seems to be ramping up internet censorship and preventing the public from discussing certain topics or viewing certain content online.
What should be a time of mourning, or a time to have a serious discussion about immigration, has turned into a frenzy of trying to eradicate free speech.
Last Thursday, NSW Premier Chris Minns, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland announced their plans to revamp and strengthen Labor’s upcoming Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, and apply pressure to all social media platforms to remove content they dislike.
Mr Minns announced to the media that “if extra Commonwealth laws are required to take down webpages that are spreading [misinformation] then that is exactly what needs to happen”.
The problem with the notion of “misinformation and disinformation” is that it doesn’t require unequivocal proof, and can simply be defined by the government of the day.
This was evident during the Covid-19 pandemic and the Voice to Parliament referendum, where social media accounts were suspended, people were arrested, and access to information was restricted.
This not only threatens freedom of speech and expression but also raises moral concerns. Who will be the arbiter of truth in a dystopian future of government censorship akin to North Korea?
According to the police, they will be the arbiter of truth.
NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb in a public statement said: “Police will be the source of truth and not social media and misinformation”. She also advised people not to share things they find on the internet which might contradict official opinion.
The Albanese government’s plans to stifle dialogue and impose its draconian censorship agenda is reminiscent of a North Korea-style totalitarian dictatorship. This is facilitated through the expanded powers granted to figures like the Ms Rowland, and the unelected, American-born, former lobbyist Julie Inman Grant, who serves as Australia’s eSafety Commissioner.
On May 16 this year Ms Rowland, who is currently seeking to criminalise “misinformation”, which is determined by her regardless of the facts, put out an
official press release titled “Record investment to improve the safety of Australians online” where she wrote:
“Our world-leading online safety regulator will receive an additional $132.1 million over four years, providing eSafety funding certainty so they can support a safer experience online for Australians – including for vulnerable people and children.”
Yeah right! Because we all know the far-left loves children.
Further down in the press release, we read the following:
“This record funding means eSafety can keep up with growing demands for their services, and take strong action to have abusive and illegal material removed from the internet.”
So, what is this eSafety Commission? Well, according to their website “eSafety is an independent statutory office supported by the Australian Communications and
Media Authority (ACMA)”.
So, in a way, they are kind of like RMIT Factlab, but with teeth, and given legal authority. And they are headed up by a former lobbyist, who worked at Microsoft for 17 years, Ms Inman Grant.
Now, for those of you who don’t know, the World Economic Forum have her listed on their website as a member, where they name her as one of the “WEF’s Agile50”, who are, according to their website, “the world’s most influential leaders revolutionising government”.
That’s an interesting choice of words, isn’t it? And Ms Inman Grant participated in the World Economic Forum’s annual meetup in Davos, in both 2022 and 2023.
In a recent interview given to the corporate media, she announced she wants to use legislation and coercion to “minimise the amount of content Australians can see”.
In addition to these new powers, funding and proposed legislation, the recent passing of the digital ID bill is also of note. This is something nobody wanted or asked for. The digital ID system will group together a person’s driver’s licence, Medicare card, passport details, Centrelink details and other credentials.
How this legislation will be used is not yet really known, due to the bill being rushed through and not debated, with the public only given one month to complete submissions.
A general commitment to transparency and due process was absent. Many critics believe the digital ID system will be used to stifle dissent online and punish people for holding views the government does not like.
This was the sentiment shared by Sky News in an article they wrote on the topic.
A blatant refusal to address immigration
In Australia we are experiencing issues with housing affordability, rental price increases, a cost of living crisis, crime, and unemployment.
All of these have been directly caused or impacted by the rampant levels of unrestricted immigration into our country. We have had an unsustainable influx of unmanageable immigrants into our nation, that we don’t have the resources or the infrastructure to support.
Many of these migrants are coming from parts of the world that make them unsuitable for life in Australia, and assimilation into our culture seemingly impossible.
If the Prime Minister truly cared about Australia’s well-being, he would shut the gates and incorporate a net zero immigration policy.
But of course that will never happen.
Mr Albanese was even asked in recent days if Australia’s multiculturalism project was under pressure due to the recent incidents. His response was overwhelmingly what you would expect from the high priest of immigration.
He went on to mention that his experience with migrants in his community was great and that they were good people, projecting this onto all of Australia by declaring that this was the overwhelming experience of all Australians.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth!
Rather than giving facts, Mr Albanese would much prefer to rely on anecdotal evidence and the use of intellectual fallacies: “Oh, well, all the migrants in my community are great!”
I don’t know what community that is, but even if it was true, that is not the reality of the situation in Australia, where crime rates have gone through the roof, sexual assaults and stabbings have become an epidemic, and where ethnic tensions have escalated to the point where Australians no longer feel safe in their own suburbs and towns.
According to Dr Frank Salter, of the British Australian community, our elected representatives have put their political ambitions ahead of the well-being of the Australian people.
Political leaders must accept that ethnic and religious tensions between different migrant groups in Sydney was a result of their own policy of mass immigration, he said after the eruption of religious violence this week.
Dr Salter condemned the act of terror and the attacks on police, saying authorities must examine why young Assyrian men turned on emergency services in the aftermath of the attack. Multiple officers were injuried in the rioting, and dozens of police vehicles damaged.
He added that he was concerned that Mr Minns decided to curtail free speech in an effort to reduce tensions by censoring supposedly misleading social media posts.
“Instead, Minns should have admitted that the runaway ethnic diversity afflicting Australia’s large cities is undermining social cohesion,” Dr Salter said.
Mr Albanese also commented on the stabbing and subsequent riot. He claimed that Australia is generally harmonious. The prime minister insisted that there is “no place” for extremism in Australia.
“Mr Minns and Mr Albanese should know that reality often defies wishful thinking. The baleful effects of ethnic diversity are well confirmed by social science research. It is time that politicians began taking responsibility for the fallout resulting from their reckless policy of mass indiscriminate immigration.” Dr Salter said.
I tend to agree with the assessment of Dr Salter, however I don’t see a future where the ALP does anything productive to address or fix the issues that our nation is going through when it comes to immigration, the housing crisis or rising ethnic crime rates.
There is also a big concern about the increase of ethnic lobby groups, voting blocs and crime gangs in Australia, which seems to be ignored by the government. In part, I believe this is due to the banks and the property and development industries which lobby politicians to keep immigration and home prices high, and housing availability scarce.
In addition to this, many vocal critics of Australia’s immigration program have suggested that there is a plan to deracinate the Anglosphere as well as Europe, in an attempt to give rise to global governance.
Many consider the concept of “White genocide” to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory, but bearing in mind the stated goals of the United Nations with their replacement migration strategies, the utilisation of affirmative action by the governments of Western nations, the implementation of critical race theory, and pseudo-historical notions of colonial genocide being taught in schools which are not supported by the historical source material, it becomes increasingly difficult to not consider this as another reason behind the rampant immigration being experienced across Europe and the Anglosphere.
