Stephen Wells

This article by the Institute of Public Affairs, from 2012, explores how hate speech laws have their origin in Soviet Union laws, and Soviet advocacy. It specifically mentions the ICCPR and CERD treaty, both of which the Commonwealth invoke as justifications for these hate organisation laws, and how the Soviets advocated that ‘freedom of speech and the press should not be used for the purposes of propagating fascism, aggression and for provoking hatred as between nations’. The article lists out a whole series of quotes and instances from the Soviet Union where they sought to insert clauses that abolished free speech, and largely got what they wanted with both the ICCPR and CERD treaties. The Australian delegation at the time, even argued ‘people could not be legislated into morality.’ https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-article/the-soviet-origins-of-hate-speech-laws

Hopefully the barristers and lawyers will use this in the case to counter the "evidence" presented by the government aquired from the Soviet agent.

A woman in her 60s has now been attacked for her political opinions. Given we have teenagers now calling for the murder of a cuckservative milquetoast "anti-establishment" figure like Hanson, I think it would best to be prepared. The murders of Charlie Kirk and Ann Widdecombe, and the violence against a random woman in her 60s, are no longer going to be seen as exceptions to the rule, but rather prescient of what is to come to Australian politics! Follow at: @FUCK_THE_ABC on Telegram

This is all fine and Dandy though because these people support multiculturalism and so anything they do is government approved.

Update on Ryan Turner's deportation. After spending roughly 8 months in detention, Ryan Turner will be returning back to the UK in the next few weeks. This isn’t due to the failure of his ongoing court case to get his visa back, it’s still very much in the works, he can continue to fight the case from the UK and will be for potentially the next 18 months while he pursues the government up till federal court. It is due to the fact for 9 weeks he's been in solitary confinement with 1-3 hours a WEEK yard time due to ongoing troubles with him not backing down on his personal believes whilst outnumbered 200/1 and it is leading to some issues among other detainees. To give context on one instance He pulled down an ISIS flag inside of his accommodation and was punished for it whilst the people who put it up are still free walking around in general population. "From the day I get to the UK up until the day of my court case I will continue to argue for free speech, and freedom of association in the UK and mainly Australia, this will incur fees and I’ve already been hit with a $18,000 bill for being inside of detention that I need to pay before I return to the country even if I win my court case." Although Ryan is willing to stay and fight the case, it is not productive nor reasonable to expect him to do 2 years in solitary for the "crime" of teaching men how to box. If you would like to financially support the continued effort and help him re-coup some loses before goes back to the motherland, then you can do so here https://www.givesendgo.com/ryanturner

There's a big debate unfolding online over Carl Schmitt's concept of the political, and friend enemy distinction. Conservative slop podcasters (and most likely haven't even read Schmitt) are calling it "third-world tribalism", and completely misrepresenting Schmitt. Friend enemy distinction isn't third world tribalism, its the very basis of what all politics ultimately is. Schmitt defines the enemy as the public “other” that poses an existential threat to a community’s way of life. The friend is defined by the shared political grouping against that threat. A people, or political idea will cease to exist politically if they do not apply this fundamental distinction. Those that refuse to apply it will always lose out to an opponent that does. Schmitt's theory also proposed that liberalism masks the friend/enemy distinction that is fundamental and unescapable in politics. That liberalism encourages a system of debate and talking and endless attempts at compromise, which is impossible and the friend enemy distinction immediately reasserts itself once conflicts become existential. This is why conservatives, who are liberals, hate Schmitt and seek to attack him and misrepresent him, because they can't answer or dismantle his critiques about liberalism.

At the end of the day our greatest threat and therefore our biggest enemy are libtards who poison the minds of our people and prevent them from coming into the tribe with us.

ARE JUDGES IMMUNE TO EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS? “Humans have done terrible things under the excuse of every ideology under the sun, not because ideologies are evil, but because human beings can be.” https://xyz.net.au/2026/08/are-judges-immune-to-emotional-arguments/

Published on the XYZ for easier sharing

This is a very good point, that our problems are social and political, so National Socialists will not be disincentivised by criminal penalties. The system treats National Socialists like we are the same as organised crime, and that they can just apply the same measures. Crime is incentivised by the money involved, and discouraged by strict criminal penalties and state harassment. For most of society, other than just antisocial bottom 1% people, the idea of being harassed by the state, and eventually going to jail isn't worth the potential money compared to the risk involved, especially when you can just earn money through legitimate means. So threat, jail and harassment works. Our issue is social and political. We have to live in this society, and we are incentivised to make it better for the betterment of our children, and our immediate living circumstances. Just smashing us with the police isn't going to have any effect, because the same exact societal circumstances still remain, and actually worsen by the day, which only motivates us to work harder to fix them. https://t.me/totallyawesomefriends/3889

Australia should be looking at the UK as a warning, not a model. We're already seeing governments introduce broader restrictions on speech, greater regulation of what Australians can say online, and new powers targeting political expression and association. These things don't happen overnight. Freedom is chipped away piece by piece, law by law, until behaviour that was once considered part of ordinary political debate can attract the attention of police. We don't want Australia going down the same path. On August 30, Australians across the country will march for free speech and demand stronger protections for one of our most fundamental freedoms. Sources: UK House of Lords Library, The Times FOI reporting, Free Speech Union.

To all supporters of the White Australia Party's right to exist, the Government's High Court case defending its hate group laws, appears weak and heavily reliant on emotion rather than legal argument, logic or reason. I hope the barristers representing the White Australia Party take the Government's arguments more seriously than its supporters do. Not because the Government's arguments have any merit, but precisely because they rely on emotion. Logic and reason are learned traits of humanity not instinctive ones. In study after study, experiment after experiment, it has been shown that the majority of people from all walks of life, if left to their own devices, will make decisions based on emotion over reason most of the time. The White Australia legal team should not trust that the High Court judge is any less immune from such influences and should not leave him to his own devices. As retarded as the Government's arguments are, they still need to be addressed and not simply dismissed as irrelevant. Yes their arguments have nothing to do with the Constitutionality of their laws and that point should be made too, but those arguments still need to be countered anyway unless the Judge himself rules them inadmissable. The crux of the Government's case is that the German National Socialist Government committed genocide and that it was the ideology of National Socialsm itself that caused it. This needs to be debunked as false equivilency. Even accepting the Holocaust narrative as fact, this does not mean that today's National Socialists in Australia would become genocidal if not outlawed. At the time of the High Court's decision striking down the banning of the Communist Party, the only example of Communists being in power was also a government of mass genocide. Further, since 1951, we've had 50 million starved to death under Mao, the killing fields of Pol Pot, even the eating of zoo animals to avoid starvation under Chavez. By any metric Communism is a much more genocidal ideolgy than what has been alleged against National Socialism, yet it is not outlawed in Australia. Communists in Australia insist that they would be different if they came to power and the Australian people, not the Government of the day or the judicial system get to decide whether or not to believe them. The White Australia Party also claims it has no genocidal ambitions and it should also be the Australian people who decide on the truth of that as well. If "what history shows" is the basis for outlawing an entire ideology, then history also shows genocide under monarchy and liberal democracy. Humans have done terrible things under the excuse of every ideology under the sun, not because ideologies are evil, but because human beings can be. The distinction should be pointed out in this case. If the White Australia Party is to win their High Court challenge they should not ignore the Government's arguments, just because they are emotional. For the emotional programming western civilisation has been subjected to against Nazis has been the most prolific in history and we should simply assume that everyone has been influenced by it to the point of throwing reason aside. The Judge should be shown what the prosecution is doing and why. The absurdity of the Government's case needs to be confonted, spelled out and the propaganda bubble shattered. Just because Courts are supposed to function on evidence and reason, doesnt mean they actually do. The White Australia legal team should be made aware of this and prepare accordingly.

Another way of saying this is dont let the enemy dictate the terms of the battle. The Government want us to be violent because that is a battle they can win.

She’s wong again https://t.me/NoticerNews/3923

Malaysian rug muncher should be sent to Persia to sample their flying carpets.

Older gentlemen in the UK has been sent to prison for going on a rant on a plane about how Hitler did nothing wrong and explaining in detail why. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2239394/jet2-flight-chaos-offensive-passenger Clearly this Older Patriotic Gentleman was just partying and minding his own business until the British No-Fun-Allowed Police found out. https://t.me/totallyawesomefriends

Drunk and disorderly on a plane whilst in the process of landing is not good. The content of his verbal abuse should be irrelevant though and 10 months is a disproportionately severe sentence compared to those given to non whites for actual acts of violence.

Also "enforcing laws against them will stop them". How's that working out? We live in the most legally dangerous time in human history to oppose jews. Yet it still keeps growing despite the show trials. Despite popular history, the NSDAP was heavily cracked down upon in Weimar Germany. Yet for every NSDAP member they threw the book at. 2-3 more replaced them. It didn't do shit in Germany, it won't do shit in the entire Western world. Since this isn't a criminal issue like organized crime, it's a social/political one. Except they won't even do the bare minimum of reforms to try and rob the steam out of things because they're that arrogant and greedy. When the West inevitably falls to people like us. To quote George Lincoln Rockwell on this: "Where will the jews run to this time? They have no where else to run to." https://t.me/totallyawesomefriends

7 years ago I was defending a Jew online against vitriol aimed against him. A group has to work really hard to turn someone who defends them into a National Socialist Anti Semite. I didnt just spontaneously morph from one extreme to the other. Nor was there any peer pressure to change. Quite the opposite. No, the behaviour of powerful Jews and Jewish groups were entirely responsible for the change.