It's now clear that Anthony Albanese is probably a deviously lying neo-Nazi. She strongly supports at least two major neo-Nazi organisations: the Chinese Communist Party and HAMAS, doesn't care about anti-semitism, and is very clearly a fascist, who doesn't believe in freedom of speech, and therefore in democracy either. Why is she opposed to some modern day Nazis in Australia? It's probably only because they are relatively honest.
Albanese's totalitarian "hate speech" laws, reminiscent of Nazi Germany's Enabling Act, were probably secretly aimed at increasing belief in Nazism and radical Islam, for political reasons. Ie. she's probably like a fireman who starts fires, just so she can be seen fighting against them.
Pauline Hanson's comprehensive speech was scientific and compassionate - surely one of many. She is clearly not only prime ministerial material, but also already a statesman.
Pauline Hanson is actually a Centrist politically, but is smeared as a Nazi by the actual neo-Nazis in power. Hopefully she will be able to save Australia from the rising level of Islamic and Communist tyranny in the West today.
Hate speech is actually a good thing, since (in a decent society) it results in scientific argument and artistic ridicule against the bigoted ideas. Hate speech laws on the other hand, martyr both scientist and bigot alike, making bigotry seem scientific. Censorship laws that are supposedly opposed to hate speech, are in fact a cowardly resignation to it.
Australia is currently being gradually swamped by Communists and Islamists, but more than that it's being overwhelmed by a huge rate of immigration generally. If it wasn't for the cowardly lies of the Media, Pauline Hanson would currently be Prime Minister, as she, and we all, deserve.
One of Andrew Bolt's best analyses, that reveals the main issue in the spat between Elon Musk and the Australian Government over the supposed need for online censorship: that of national sovereignty. Different nations have different cultures and therefore different forms of basic decency and common sense. In the U.S. it is common sense to need to passionately defend the basic decency of the First Amendment against cases of devious political censorship - especially when a nation's mainstream Media and its government is conspiring to effectively promote Islamism (for electoral gain).
Media Watch has a tendency for Left wing bias, like the rest of the ABC, but the first story of this episode is a major exception. It calls out Australian politicians' and the Media's cowardly Globalist persecution of Elon Musk, and seriously questions whether the video she refused to censor globally should have even been geoblocked for Australians.
Stella Assange is almost as much of an inspiration as her deeply courageous husband, Julian. The man has been punished for one reason alone: her ground breaking journalism is an ongoing political threat and embarrassment to the U.S. aristocracy.
Nb. a journalist is essentially a public spy - ie. someone who spies for everyone, not just a government elite. It's generally totalitarians who don't appreciate the difference.
Unfortunately our Aussie lingo is less used nowadays. The reason why it works is that it discriminates against social outsiders (without discriminating on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, wealth, disability, etc).
Like all human beings out of Africa, the Aboriginal people were migrants. They came to Australia and managed to learn how to survive, and thrive. In the process they drastically changed the environment to suit their needs and desires, just like the Europeans did (in Europe, and much later in Australia).
The only good thing about my home state's totalitarian hate speech laws is that they don't apply to criticism and ridicule of Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Communism (which includes Feminism, Nazism, etc), since they're all historically oppressive political ideologies.
Last modified: 2026-07-07 10:51:59 UTC.