SPEAKING FREELY ABOUT 18C

SPEAKING FREELY ABOUT 18C

A unique Nationalist perspective on a contentious law

18C sucks. It was brought in to keep the Jewish community happy. They are not, because they don’t believe it goes far enough. But now a plucky NSW Liberal Democrat senator, David Leyonhjelm, has issued a complaint to the Human Rights Commission after anti-White left wing journalist Mark Kenny described the senator as “an angry White male”, which was clearly intended in the pejorative. Leyonhjelm hopes to use the issue to prove that the law burdens free speech and that the law will view any action by White people as absurd since it exists purely as a stick to wave at us. We think the senator is trolling brilliantly. But there is also another point of view, which we publish here in the interests of open nationalist dialogue. UNA prides itself on affording all nationalist points of view a platform, short of allowing in movement wreckers, cucks, and Zionist stooges. Here then is the well acquitted opinion that 18c is irrelevant to smart nationalists. Feel free to comment, readers.

UNA Editor-in-chief.

download (10)
This is what is known as a “low act”

Given the hullabaloo over the revival of the section 18c debate in the new parliament, we as Nationalists feel somewhat compelled to offer some opinions on the subject. The contentious passage in the Australian human rights laws is explained by the Australian Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) on their website:

“Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.”

Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.

The words “offend, insult” have long been a target of conservative and libertarian pundits and politicians, they would argue that offence to certain words or acts is only taken as a matter of personal choice; the sticks and stones principle.

That is a reasonable argument but in reality, the two political camps most invested in this approach have differing motivations.

pjimage
We’re not saying that David Leyonhjelm is Blofeld, but you have to wonder

The conservatives seem to think, rightly as it happens, that 18c places too much power in the hands of their ideological enemies, or in other words, the Left.

This is a reasonable proposition because the HREOC is mainly staffed by university academics, lawyers and bureaucrats — all professions stacked to the brim with pinkos and fellow travellers.

Frankly, it doesn’t mean much. Generally speaking, we would like to think that 18c has no real bearing on what we do since we have a well-developed political position, which is expressed in an articulate manner, with wit, good humour, intelligence and tact.

This writer’s impression of the Libertarians published case, given that their chief spokesman senator David Leyonhjelm has the writing style of a twelve-year-old, is that they want the state power to censor speech wound back because, as the deeply ironic young people in our movement say, “Muh Liberty!”.

Well and good, let’s say senators Bernardi, Hinch, Hanson, Leyonhjelm and company prevail, what does that mean for Nationalists?

download (9)
Despite not being born here, this French-Laotian earns $300,000 of Australian taxpayer dollars every year to go around telling us how Australia would be better off without White people

Frankly, it doesn’t mean much. Generally speaking, we would like to think that 18c has no real bearing on what we do since we have a well-developed political position, which is expressed in an articulate manner, with wit, good humour, intelligence and tact.

Nevertheless, from time to time, trouble comes knocking anyway. “Racism” has a way of finding us even if we don’t normally engage in the crass identity politics of the present zeitgeist.

That is the point we would most like to impress upon our readers: repealing or modifying human rights laws will do little to aid the Nationalist struggle against entrenched power, globalist capitalism or its Universalist monoculture.

Our class, ethnic and political enemies have limitless funds which they can employ to disrupt dissident political groups, buy supportive media commentary for their anti-Australian worldview and, if need be, drag activists into endless and costly court cases.

Nationalists, who have kept abreast of events in North America over recent decades, can attest to the fact that even with the protection of the first amendment to the U.S constitution, successive Nationalist or even conservative groups have been dragged into civil suits by “Civil Rights” groups and bankrupted, or worse.

True, removing 18c takes away one advantage to our enemies in that they can no longer rely on free advice and legal backing from HREOC, but we can’t stress this point enough; THEY ARE RICH AND WE ARE NOT.

Even if our self-appointed adversaries do happen, at some point, to be workers themselves or people without means Nationalists can be assured that they will have human rights lawyers and wealthy social justice warriors beating a path to their door with offers of financial support and pro-bono legal representation.

Nationalists, who have kept abreast of events in North America over recent decades, can attest to the fact that even with the protection of the first amendment to the U.S constitution, successive Nationalist or even conservative groups have been dragged into civil suits by “Civil Rights” groups and bankrupted, or worse.

18c
The Jews know that freedom to identify race means the freedom to defend ourselves from White Genocide

Free speech does not guarantee freedom for the dissident Nationalist. Sure, Bernardi, Hanson and Leyonhjelm may benefit from changes to the laws but they are all system players, they are insulated by parliamentary privilege, wealth, and good standing with the elites.

Another effect of repeal or re-wording of 18c may be to embolden the nitwit civic patriots, demented Bogan bigots and Hollywood Nazi Provocateur fringe dwellers that incessantly pester Nationalists and create strife where none need exist.

In truth, though, how much worse could they get? Operators like Nick Folkes, Antifa Neil Erikson and Sherm “The Germ” Burgess are already so over the top that the only conclusion Australian workers can reach is that these dipsticks are protected from on high; they’ve already proven that they’ll press on with their desperately narcissistic behaviour regardless of any injunction from the human rights crowd.

Our alternative to political Islamism is political Australianism, however, the fact is that, with the curious exemption of Hizb Ut Tahrir, most powerful political Islamist tendencies are proscribed organisations in Australia, their leaders and devotees cannot legally travel to, raise funds from or organise in this country.

We are the movement of alternatives, of real solutions to difficult problems, and our ideas, while dangerous to the globalist money powers, are not normally offensive, even by the standards of the “loony left”.

Our alternative to Islam, for example, is Christianity. We would say to these “good” Moslems that the way of Jesus Christ is superior to the way of Mohammed and leave their conversion to Christian Nationalists.

Our alternative to political Islamism is political Australianism, however, the fact is that, with the curious exemption of Hizb Ut Tahrir, most powerful political Islamist tendencies are proscribed organisations in Australia, their leaders and devotees cannot legally travel to, raise funds from or organise in this country.

If and when an authentic, antipodean Islamist political movement should arise, Nationalists stand ready to challenge, dominate and defeat by political means any incursion by such groups onto our turf on the political margins.

For Nationalists it will always be business as usual, 18c certainly doesn’t protect us, for it was never intended to, yet it doesn’t hinder us or place any real obstacles in our path.

Our enemies will still routinely employ dirty tricks, slander and intimidation to suppress alternative ideas and a genuine worker’s movement we accept this as our lot and press on.

We should never play the victim, even facetiously to make a point as senator Leyonhjelm does. Every hateful libel, every lie against us is a learning experience. We are apart from the circus of post-modern identity politics. We march to the beat of our own drum.

images (8)

Advertisements