Scenes from the revelry of the Yes camp this week uncomfortably revealed just how White it is.
For too long decadence has been sold as a virtue, thus the invidious message coming out of the Same Sex Marriage vote is that us Whites are the ones tearing down our own Christian values, and not some abhorrent foreign parasite. This cannot be ignored unless you buy into conspiracy theories, in which case, the vote was rigged.
We wouldn’t discount that possibility, but, truthfully, it’s unlikely. If you can read the writing on the wall then all signs point to the Yes vote being the overwhelming consensus of half of our fellow countrymen. Resisting this is undignified. Remember how the Alt-Right laughed at Hillary supporters demanding a recount after Donald Trump won the US Presidency? Well, that shoe is now on our foot.
The Queer lobby, in all its incessant variety: the freaks and transsexuals, the trans-genders, fags, dykes, AIDS fairies and all the derivatives of counter-heterosexuality no decent person would know of or comprehend, both they and their SJW champions are White. Post-vote analysis revealed how it was the heavy migrant safe Labor seats such as Blaxland in NSW and Calwell in Victoria that predominantly ticked the No box.
This is a bitter pill to swallow for those of us White Nationalists who’ve been pushing the concept of race realism. We must now soberly confront that reality — that our own race resoundingly rejects our message. It is non-Whites standing firmest for family values, modesty, and moral stability.
You will hear all the reasons why this is the case and the most likely will be that “it’s the Jews”. We know for sure the Jews will be delighting in our discomfort but to surrender our own culpability for the choices of our people — to suggest that we are so pliable that Jewish Supremacists can twist us up like origami figures as they please — is to belie our argument that we were ever a masterful race to begin with.
No, sadly, we did this on our own, and if we are honest about history, then this is just another chronological step towards the White liberal nirvana where we cease to exist just to be sporting to the ‘lesser races’ that outnumber us in the multiple digits. After all, it was Whites who abolished slavery; it was “cisgender” White males who recognised women’s rights and gave women the vote; it was Whites who enshrined ‘civil rights’ favouring alien peoples who are culturally erasing us from our own civilisations, inheritance, and birthright.
Whites are on a constant quest to emancipate one victim or another regardless of whether or not the object of our protection is actually in bondage. Moreover, these deeds pass without thanks, much less acknowledgement.
Given this evidence, it should be much easier to dispel the universal prejudice that insists we are a nation of bigots. It should be, but it won’t, for the same reason that the Yes vote got through — because the problem isn’t so much other races as it is our own. Yes, it is other Whites labelling us ‘a nation of bigots’, and censoring ourselves over imagined misdeeds to those poor races these self-appointed conscience-bearers among us hypocritically condescend to without even realising it. It is other Whites who foment the atmosphere wherein our status is reduced on dubious egalitarian grounds.
See, what we have here is a struggle within the White race itself; a fight for a dominant idea of what Whiteness means. For instance, it is no accident that Nationalists are White, but so is Antifa. Therefore, the war is not outward, but inward, and rather than sink into a negative pit of crippling despair over this rude truth we must make contingencies to readjust our strategy, revise our enemy, and prepare to fight our own kind. Whites are divided in two, and there is no amount of proselytizing that will win that lost half of our race back to us — it simply has to be dominated, or decimated.
If Whites are to survive we will have to turn against family, friends, and foe alike. The Whites who want to live will have to “come with” the Terminator.
Scrawled in pink chalk on a Sydney pathway in the wake of today’s vote on the Sodom Law were two words, “Love Wins.”
This is a propagandistic slogan if ever there was one. We should know since we’ve come up with enough of our own.
Once you’ve understood the slogan’s referential function, deduced its expressive function, surmised its conative function, fathomed its phatic function and flipped by its contextual function you’ll realise what the slogan would properly mean separated from the sentimentality of its addresser is that “institutionalized love wins”. Once you’ve dealt with that dialectic you should be free enough from the propaganda to deduce that this has nothing to do with ‘love’.
Love doesn’t require the formal acknowledgement of an institution to prosper and in fact, it is more likely to stifle and suppress that love.
Moreover, you must grapple with the logic of tearing down the pillars of an institution to institutionalise that which the former pillars existed to ensure did not endanger the institution that was in place to safeguard against what the new institution formally validates. Meaning, there was, beyond what the Cultural Marxists who voted Yes perceive, more to the institution of marriage than “love”. Indeed, it was a social contract beyond enshrining the rights of deviant minorities into law.
But before we use the word deviant we must now readdress the contextual relevance of that word since deviancy can only really be determined by the majority of society and policed by its agents of social control, such as the media, lawmakers, academics, politicians, Waleed Aly and so forth.
Even here we have a problem since the degenerate homos who have won this “right” to smash apart a sacred pact between a man and a woman are not of themselves in the majority but the reverse. It is their agents who are in the majority.
For that matter, the vote only passed by a rabbit’s dick of 7% with some Labor electorates like ‘Calwell’ in Victoria, named after our Nationalist Aussie hero Arthur Calwell, doing us proud by voting No. Now it is down to the traitor political class to pass this bullshit law and applaud themselves for having totally fucked everything that this country once stood for. It is now in the hands of the banks, corporations, and the hedonistic consumers who keep their share portfolios fattening with profit. This same-sex marriage vote was, after all, pushed heavily by media and the corporations.
Anyway, having digressed for a moment, we have ascertained that the majority has granted the minority an unequal representation among the majority. If we tie that back to what social science once understood about deviancy we now have anyone from the former institution who is strident enough to hold firm to their beliefs cast on the outside of what society now upholds to be ‘normal’. The respectable is now the outsider and the deviant is the pillar of this brave new society.
Since we’re talking about institutions, it seems fair to acknowledge that garbage from the baby boomer generation who trampled this filth into our lives — who inculcated these Cultural Marxist codes into the heads of our youth via the institutions they took over — were the ones who loathed the very concept of the institution of marriage. Their lot burned their bras and jockstraps and went in for “free love” and threw things at Servicemen returning from the horrors of America’s doomed war in Vietnam.
Yet, here are the fruits of their decades of campaigning — they have killed the social and religious premise of marriage. They have redefined it and in doing so have set in motion an entire wheel of social changes that will exclude, criminalise, and disadvantage all of those whose ideological and religious convictions now place them as an “other”.
The despised “cisgender” White male; the devout Christian; the fervent social conservative are all now outside of that societal approval and therefore beyond the gates of the institution which ironically once upon a time they were the most ardent advocates for.
Any parent who doesn’t wish their child to be taught the finer points of buggery by a genderless freak reared in the social laboratory of modern society will be demonised, ostracised, and — if they aren’t just patronisingly dismissed as absurdly quaint — used as an example of that which is abhorrent to this newfangled society based on repudiated gender and opposition to the fundamentals of nature. Any Christian who refuses to accommodate a reception or conduct a marriage between freakish gender-confused parties will be sued, vilified, hounded, doxed, and probably beaten up by roaming squadrons of Nazi Dykes, Faggots, and Transgender Chemical commandos.
It will be ironic to see how they must now shuffle their hierarchy of victimhood to accommodate the obvious dissension of devout Moslems, which are still currently a protected species in the Social Justice Warrior red book.
Now they need another cause; now they’ve run out of steam there is another minority group whose interests must usurp that of the majority until there is nothing left but until the day invading armies of Chinese soldiers paint the walls with their soft, squishy, fucked-up, chemically-altered brains.
Yes, folks, we are on the road to being a PC Police State, just like England.
EDIT: After we went to press with this item out came the images from the unscheduled orgy at Hyde Park where fairies, fags, dykes, princesses, lady boys, he-girls and every kind of pervert combo imagined in this age of decadence, got straight down to exposing themselves and cavorting in a manner that would, in saner countries, have them all shot.
What do anarchists and our public broadcaster have in common? That’s a no-brainer, a rapport with ANTIFA!
Monday night’s Media Watch effectively eschewed all allegations made against Antifa in a recent News.com interview with its “founder” Shayne Hunter. By doing so the public broadcaster actually validated the criminal actions of this militant left-wing set.
We will stop for a minute. Did Hunter actually found Antifa in this country? Unlikely, Nationalists are aware of how the media works, a concession to the truth you should not expect from the gunsels operating under the Antifa banner.
But that same allowance is never forthcoming when it involves those on the opposite end of the political spectrum from your partisan ABC reptile.
For example, Media Watch made no fuss about fake news freelance journalist Luke McMahon’s egregious and defamatory attacks on two Nationalists. Any claims of exaggeration in the piece on the Antifa defector have nothing on those whoppers casually printed by Fairfax and gobbled up by everyone from Victoria’s Police Commissioner to the reactionaries who obsessively inhabit the myriad Facebook pages dedicated to the Patriot VS Left sideshow.
Likewise, there was no dissection of the Bendigo Three case in which our mate Chris Shortis was convicted along with two others of inciting serious ridicule or contempt against unspecified Moslems. That same sort of stunt was conducted as a matter of programming content on a weekly basis by their darlings from The Chaser.
These were textbook cases of why Media Watch exists in the first place, to highlight factual and ethical breaches by the Australian media. Yet, while the program and its host Paul Barry quietly condoned those outrages by psycho troll McMahon, he was quick to leap to the defence of Antifa; an obscure client to champion you would think.
The entirety of Antifa’s violent form was reduced by Paul Barry to the incident involving conservative commentator Andrew Bolt in which an Antifa clown attacked him with “shaving cream and glitter” (and got pounded for his folly). These remarks were juxtaposed with footage of witnesses at the London Bridge attack to diminish perceptions of the genuine threat Antifa poses against comparisons with ISIS.
When the Australia First Party’s President’s apolitical son was jumped by Antifa cretins outside his Tempe home in 2015 while they were high on the dangerous drug ice that wasn’t as benign as the flippant Barry implied.
The family of the Golden Dawn members murdered in Greece by Antifa terrorists surely wouldn’t be assuaged by Barry’s playing down of the allegations made by Hunter.
And what were those allegations? He is reported to have admitted to News Corps reporter Corrine Barraclough among other things that:
“It’s more dangerous than ISIS”
“I read that Antifa in the US is training people to shoot and punch. It’s the same here. Antifa in Sydney are doing martial arts (ED-Lol!) to, as they would put it, ‘fight the Nazis’. It’s a paramilitary mindset.”
“The radical left of Antifa presents itself as being about compassion and empathy; it’s a Trojan horse. All conversations are about entitlement and rights, not responsibility. When these people talk about freedom, they really mean freedom from responsibility.”
“Often the people who are drawn to this cult don’t have a strong identity outside it.”
“Antifa would say there is nothing good about Australian society. Their minds project that belief, and everything is filtered through this ideology.”
“Without a doubt it’s a huge and growing threat to Australian society. It’s a miserable mindset.”
It’s hard to know whether the journalist was selectively paraphrasing Hunter or he did indeed make these claims verbatim, but there is nothing in the content of any of those sentences that we would dispute. Well, perhaps “growing threat to Australian society” is a bit rich. Antifa doesn’t pose the threat they merely enforce it at a gutter level. Nonetheless, all the rest is pretty much what Nationalists have said from the word go.
Responding to a predictable salvo by Antifa maximum leader Rob Sparrow on Slackbastard, Hunter issued denials in the comments section of its blog, writing:
“More dangerous than Isis’ (sic) was a hyperbolic comment, in the video below i (sic) explain that content.”
“I didn’t claim i (sic) started antifa, i told the journalist i made a call out in brisbane (sic) to get all the elements of the far left to meet up an certainly took a leadership role in organising the first counter rally against reclaim Australia.”
Addressing allegations of rape made against him by jilted former comrades, he wrote: “The smears of my characters (sic) are disgusting, and many of the people in the radical left if they were honest with themselves will admit that baseless slurs of sexism or racism etc happen all the time when people have disagreements, etc.”
He finishes by defiantly asserting, “Although the news.com.au article isnt (sic) the [choice] of words i (sic) would of used if it had control it (sic), i do not regret it as many people have been bullied by the SJWs, from ex radicals to current lefties to ex far right extremists to former friends and lovers of people who become ideologically possessed. If it helps those people i am happy.”
The fact that the ABC bothered addressing the article when there is so much fake news about demonstrates the interrelationship of the Far Left with your ABC.
As Paul Barry plays White Knight to the toe-rags of Antifa the true Left are more critical of them. In September on www.counterpunch.org in an article titled ‘Antifa in Theory and in Practise’, Diana Johnstone took Antifa to task post-Charlottesville, concluding that, “In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary “fascists” instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program.”
Earlier she observed, “The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others “like us” to fight against gangs of “them” for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines.”
In effect, she is saying the ideological warriors of Antifa are driven more by a desire for a purpose in their rootless lives and they are picking a ‘colour’ much like the Black and Latino gangs. When it comes to the ideological component of their cause Johnstone points out they tend to get in the way and will just as easily turn on left wing voices who they believe through a difference of opinion are supporting those phantom ‘fascists’. This effectively bespeaks the tyranny they oppose.
He defines a very interesting relationship with Antifa in America and the Democratic Party. Black argues, “Indeed, many of the groups involved in Antifa are essentially factions of the Democratic Party. By Any Means Necessary, BAMN — is among the most fervent advocates of the racialist politics of the Democrats. It received national attention in 2014 for its campaign for Affirmative Action, which was waged in alliance with the Democrats and sections of the corporate elite and military.”
In essence, what Nationalists have long been saying, we are now corroborated by the legitimate Left, Antifa is useful tools of the neoliberal Globalist state.
Australian politicians of the globalist caste will flat out deny that, in 2017, we have an entrenched class system which regulates, and in many ways undermines public life and the ability of citizens to politically organise on their own behalf.
To make our case for, dare we use the term “class struggle” in Nationalist politics we should first give our readers a simple explanation of class structures in contemporary society.
Logically, starting from the top, we have the monied families, those now fading clans of colonial aristocrats whose fortunes were made in the 19th and 20th centuries, on the markets, as graziers, miners or other entrepreneurial adventures.
It is hard to know how much influence such folk have nowadays, their exclusive clubs and rural, baronial cliques are, we are told, on the wane as the younger family members sell up the stations to the Chinese, or other foreign concerns and re-settle in the major cities.
The old families may still be influential, to a point, but they are rarely politically active anymore, beyond donating to, or fundraising for, the major parties; with a few exceptions the remaining graziers and sundry other bluebloods are no longer regularly sitting in Parliament.
In any case these “hidden hands”, if in fact, that is the way they choose to operate, are beyond the reach of grassroots activism, for the time being anyway; as dissidents push in from the margins toward the structures of power they may well reveal themselves, though the major parties would do all they could to screen off their benefactors and power brokers from the public gaze.
The Bourgeoisie are usually on the bottom of the second page of the Financial Review Rich List, they are typically well off and their influence stems from their control of the ebb and flow of, not only commerce but information.
The Bourgeoisie are usually on the bottom of the second page of the Financial Review Rich List, they are typically well off and their influence stems from their control of the ebb and flow of, not only commerce but information. In this class, we find people who can move laterally through the key areas comprising the structure of power in this country: big business, government, the arts and media industry and academia.
The next, and more visible class would be what we often term the Bourgeoisie, taking the Marxist interpretation; these are the people who, subject to government rule, man the levers of the system of globalist capitalism, as we now know it.
Members of this class, just as two examples would include people such as Malcolm Turnbull and Bob Hawke, though they may be spectacularly wealthy by working class standards their main power lies in their freedom of movement through these key decision making sectors of society.
Third on our list is the upper middle class, who could loosely be described as the people who keep those five key structures of power running on behalf of the bourgeoisie; they may be senior bureaucrats, lawyers, union officials, journalists or artists of one sort or another.
Well, known figures in the upper middle class are people of the calibre of Andrew Bolt, Waleed Aly, Peter Garrett, Dick Smith and so forth, people who have limited access to the structures of power but who have made a niche as demagogues, mid level entrepreneurs or successful artists.
Well-known figures in the upper middle-class are people of the calibre of Andrew Bolt, Waleed Aly, Peter Garrett, Dick Smith and so forth, people who have limited access to the structures of power but who have made a niche as demagogues, mid level entrepreneurs or successful artists.
It is in this class that we see values and ideology start to play a role in the social status of its members, rather than the raw power of wealth; we could argue that it is the class from which a lot of lower house MP’s, local councillors and, for want of a better term “community leaders” are drawn.
It is also at this level of society that race, religion and ethnic background start to really matter in determining social status; whereas the Bourgeoisie is largely blind to such concerns the upper middle class will routinely impose themselves, in a broad sense, as representatives of particular groups in society.
Of course, the politics of the upper middle class tend to be egalitarian, in that they are bound by ethics, codes of conduct and social mores by virtue of the fact that they, unlike the classes above them, have to make a living largely by their own enterprise.
The Middle Class, having a measure of financial security are able to contribute their time and a share of their resources to causes such as sporting clubs, schools, political parties, churches and other community projects.
Their values are that of the shopkeeper, anyone who has the money can partake of their wares, however, they see themselves as protectors of this broad class of clientele and wish to maximise their sales by catering to every whim and taste of their customers.
So the upper middle-class, when active in the community and thus visible to the two lower classes will style themselves as benevolent and virtuous, taking up the causes of those perceived to be “less fortunate” in the name of equal opportunity for all, as long as everyone knows their station in life.
We come then to the “middle”, whom we shall simply term the Middle Class, for the sake of clarity. These are the people who, while not struggling to make ends meet must still work for a living, generally as employees or sole traders; they may own one or two properties, be able to partake in leisure activities and political activism but they have very limited access to the structures of power save by appeal to those higher up the ladder.
The Middle Class, having a measure of financial security are able to contribute their time and a share of their resources to causes such as sporting clubs, schools, political parties, churches and other community projects. They are the rank and file party branch members, the activists, social justice warriors and club men who, while feathering their own nest are able to devote their energy to achieving specific communal goals at a grass roots level, as opposed to the abstract egalitarianism of the Upper Middle Class.
Below them is the Working Class proper, the skilled workers on salaries, university educated or qualified in a trade or profession in most cases they mirror the Bourgeoisie in terms of drive to succeed and financial self interest, but they are mostly apolitical and place little value on the abstract “virtues” of the Upper Middle Class.The Working Class will join trade unions and social clubs if it is in their interest but in general, they are apolitical; they are worldly enough know that they are cut off completely from the structures of power and they tend to resent to some extent those who are supposedly their betters, especially politicians.
The Working Class will join trade unions and social clubs if it is in their interest but in general, they are apolitical; they are worldly enough know that they are cut off completely from the structures of power and they resent, to some extent, those who are supposedly their betters, especially politicians.
This class of builders, office workers, junior public servants, consultants and sub-contractors are self-reliant in that they practice what might be called Anarcho-Syndicalism; they, for the most part, are able to set the price of their own labour and will form temporary, ad hoc partnerships and syndicates in which profits are made.\
Generally, this class sees politics as means to an end for the upper classes and views government policy as something which is done to them, rather than for them, to that end there is widespread avoidance of “red tape” and corner cutting when it comes to compliance with rules and regulations.
This is the anarchic part of the Working Class make up if we take anarchy to mean self-rule as opposed to the nihilistic connotations of Bohemian “anarchism”; the anarchic worker, as far as possible, games the system and breaks the law insofar as those laws might inhibit his making a living.
This class of people, in general, will fiddle things to their own advantage in a self-centred fashion but not go overboard into outright corruption or the self-destructive criminality seen in the truly marginalised people, they are thus viewed with a degree of hostility by the Upper Middle Class
Marginalised people are the minimum wage slaves, the itinerants, contract workers, the disabled, pensioners and others who are purposely shut out of the financial-political power structure and spoken over by the middle and upper classes.
The final class of Australian we will call the Marginalised Class, as this is the description which most closely fits their situation, for the most part.
Marginalised people are the minimum wage slaves, the itinerants, contract workers, the disabled, pensioners and others who are purposely shut out of the financial-political power structure and spoken over by the middle and upper classes.
A person on the margins of society has no material security in comparison to the other classes, he doesn’t starve, but progress above the station of the casual worker or, in the case of an infirmity of mind or body, the social welfare recipient, is both extremely difficult and, nowadays increasingly rare.
These are the people whose fragile economic lives are rendered precarious by globalism and who are viewed, in terms of their class, as an impediment to the ambitions of the upper and middle classes; we hear them described as idle, ignorant and quarrelsome, words which might have come from some 18th century nobleman as he contemplated “Les Miserables” on the streets.
We will conclude this article at the point of describing the present class structure with a view to creating an axis for discussion among Nationalists and our supporters; this analysis will be built upon and developed as a reference point as we explore strategies for building class consciousness and, as far as possible, class solidarity among White workers and marginalised people.
Due to class relationships and the antagonism of the upper classes toward working and marginalised people the only way forward is to start on the outside and clear the margins of all the political competitors, opportunists, Bohemians, criminals and controlled counter gangs imposed upon our people by the globalists.
Our talking points on what we call “margin-streaming” here come into play, where we attempt to build a political movement in the wilderness of suburbia, beyond the pale, with such resources and personnel as can be scavenged from the ruins of Globalist Cosmopolitanism.
A pessimist might look at the recent Charlottesville “Unite The Right” rally and claim it achieved nothing for “the movement”.
After all a motley crew of edgy racists, libertarians, and other assorted right-wing types going head to head with anti-fascist and Black Lives Matter activists, resulting in the death of one childless thirty-something land whale, two police officers, along with the hospitalisation of 20 others by the one and only Based Car Man (not to mention what happens when one goes up against capsicum spray and unhinged leftists), is hardly what one would call a success with regards to raising the popular image of the right wing and promoting racial awareness.
However, there is another, more optimistic way of looking at what occurred over the weekend. While hopes of a mass movement to seize power from Jewish tyranny in the United States may have died with Commander George Lincoln Rockwell in 1967 following his assassination, and a few hundred or so people armed with tiki torches is a far cry from the millions of votes required to gain control of a country, what happened over the weekend (and the general idea of a show of force) has the potential to not only wake up a few of receptive Whites, but more importantly it has the power to weaken and ultimately contribute to the destruction of the Jew-capitalist system that has long kept the White majority out of power.
While no statistics so far have been released so far as to what the rally cost local and state law enforcement, and thus it is hard to quantify the impact of it in real terms of economic damage to ZOG, given 50 racist liberals dressed up as ghosts cost the city of Charlottesville $32,835 ($41,876 AUD) when they protested the removal of the statue honouring General Robert E. Lee in July with little fanfare, it’s fair to say that with two dead police officers, one dead land-whale, and 20+ crippled by Based Car Man, the Unite The Right rally will have cost ZOG a hell of a lot more than that.
While plenty of moderate conservatives and “sensible government” types will groan at this expense, and expense they will ultimately bear the brunt of, consider the impact to ZOG here in Australia as a result of the various anti-Islam rallies:
“The Melton rally was part of a national day of action by Reclaim Australia against the Islamisation of Australia’ with rallies held across the country. Similar clashes in Bendigo and Melbourne earlier this year each cost taxpayers about $250,000in police resources, however, the Melton rally was even larger and more costly.”
That’s a grand total of more than $750,000 AUD the state government had to draw from somewhere: Whether that $750,000 was diverted away from indoctrinating children into becoming catamites for the sexual deviants employed by Victorian Department of Education (or any of the other sick programmes the State of Victoria employs the sodomites and Trotskyites at LaTrobe University to come up with); or it was drawn from the Victoria Police budget and was $750,000 that wasn’t there to stop the negroes in Dandenong and Melton from engaging in home invasions and carjackings; the boots on the ground approach makes it increasingly harder for Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermum to ignore the problems the Jew-capitalist elite create in our societies, and will ultimately lower their faith in the system and turn them towards our ideologies. As Uncle Bill once wrote:
“A revolutionary attitude is virtually non-existent in America, outside the Organization, and all our activities to date don’t seem to have changed this fact. The masses of people certainly aren’t in love with the System-in fact, their grumbling has increased steadily over the past six or seven years as living conditions have deteriorated – but they are still far too comfortable and complacent to entertain the idea of revolt.” –William Luther Pierce, The Turner Diaries
So while our lack of media control and therefore lack of influence may prevent us from taking power through the way of mass movement, this doesn’t mean there aren’t other means of cultivating a revolutionary spirit within our people. While some moderates might be scared off, and the perpetual contrarians might call the rallies “bad for optics and PR”, this shouldn’t stop further displays of mass force and boots on the ground as means of, as James Mason would put it, “smashing the Pig System” and bringing about Total Aryan Victory once and for all.
Fairfax Media this week published a story entitled ‘Who will help the women being traumatised by anonymous trolls?’
The story comes a week after Fairfax ran a three-part series on trolling as if they actually care. The article detailed the futility certain women faced in trying to report cyber-stalking. It is a serious topic and the underlying message, that the law is so far behind the trolls, must come as welcome news to one of their contributing journalists, Luke McMahon.
Back in April, the editor of The Age green-lighted a hit piece by the mysterious Luke McMahon. The target of McMahon’s poison crayon was Nathan Sykes, a UNA writer and Australian nationalist. In it, he was defamed as, among other calumnies, a “Jewish” Nazi troll. This was news to Sykes who (is not Jewish) since he is, in fact, the victim of the troll — and the troll is McMahon himself.
In a report to be handed to NSW police this week, Sykes will describe how McMahon spent two years stalking him around social media with “shocking slurs” and threats the likes of which Jenny Noyes and Ginger Gorman outlined in their respective articles. An informant told us that McMahon had hatched the idea for the story in cahoots with an even bigger troll, self-described ‘Patriot’ Neil Erikson, early in 2016.
McMahon has gone to great lengths to maintain his anonymity, just like the malicious trolls in Noyes’ and Gorman’s stories. What we do know is that he is based in Geelong, Vic, and operates Media Direct, a bogus online ‘whistle-blower’ agency, which is a front for doxing political enemies of the Left. He is also a welcome contributor to Fairfax although his true status as a journalist has not been quantified.
Apart from his myriad social media identities, McMahon uses the alias “Luke McMasters” and gives his address as the Collins Street offices of Fairfax Media.
Apart from his myriad social media identities McMahon uses the alias “Luke McMasters” and gives his address as the Collins Street offices of Fairfax Media.
McMahon’s criminal trolling continues to this day, as Noyes’ article sits still fresh from publication. Presently, he is active on Twitter and Facebook. On the former, he has established a group of identities, one of which is Nathaniel J.S. Sykes “Unemployed, bankrupt, king of shrill (sic) & I love playing with my dolly.” He uses his other accounts to try to prod reactions from United Nationalists Australia and the Australia First Party. Meanwhile, on Facebook, he is taunting Sykes (via someone else’s account who he believes to be Sykes) to make his police report.
This same Fairfax troll has accounts on leading ‘hate sites’ such as Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and Daily Stormer where he uses his fake identities to try and turn members against certain figures. He keeps several YouTube accounts such as one under the name ‘Aussie Lads’ where he promotes videos created by the extreme Left hate group Antifa, of which he is a prominent editor on their Antifascist Action Sydney blog.
In the course of his trolling, McMahon has had Sykes’s former apartment photographed and messaged him with the pic under an alias, published sensitive documents relating to his bankruptcy on a major website (again, goading him with proof of his deeds), used fake accounts to threaten Sykes with being “cut”, and has given his address and other details to CFMEU-related thugs. No doubt the Left-leaning authors of the Fairfax articles would find no fault with him given that Sykes is a Nationalist and his ideology puts him outside of their notion of human rights.
This is certainly the case with the Fairfax editor who approved the story, and who has failed to acknowledge any of UNA’s submissions to him on the matter. Nor did a demonstration held by supporters of Sykes outside of Fairfax’s Melbourne offices earlier this month elicit a peep. The demo was led by a colleague of Sykes who two years earlier was himself dealt the outrageous Fairfax/McMahon defamation treatment.
No doubt the Left-leaning authors of the Fairfax articles would find no fault with him given that Sykes is a Nationalist and his ideology puts him outside of their notion of human rights.
Christopher Shortis, a practising Christian and a licensed firearm collector (and UNA staffer), was forced into a costly legal battle in a bid to secure his shooter’s license after Fairfax irresponsibly published an article by McMahon designed to portray Chris as being like “Anders Breivik”. Shortis had produced a YouTube video in which he appeared with one of his rifles while addressing an American Christian audience, also sporting shooters with, of all things, a message of non-violence in response to government heavy-handedness in relation to a matter relating to civil liberties.
However, it was not until Chris became a leading figure in the fledgeling Patriot movement, and a prominent member of the United Patriots Front, that McMahon went on the attack. In both Sykes’s and Chris’s cases Fairfax has provided a monstrous weapon for the extremist McMahon to attack his political enemies. Fairfax, like McMahon, has more interest in harming its ideological opponents than caring much for the methods employed.
It is a stretch even to believe that McMahon’s gratification is drawn exclusively from political ammunition: he actually enjoys what he does. Noyes quotes Gorman on the pathology of trolls, “These trolls are not mucking around, they have told me themselves that they are trying to incite people to suicide. They find vulnerable people, they pick on them in a sustained way and they find their weakest point.”
Given the experiences of Sykes and Shortis, it is almost impossible for either to read these stories without being struck by the disingenuousness of their source.
We shall see how eager Fairfax is to report on the sick, vile, pernicious troll that it nurtures knowingly and without judgement of his methods under its mastheads.
An Australian nationalist defamed in a recent news article that labelled him a “troll” is to pursue legal action against the journalist responsible for the fake news item.
In two separate statements now removed from Facebook, but accessible on the UNA blog, the nationalist reveals how the journalist – who works for a major news organisation – has spent two years criminally trolling him on social media.
The alleged harassment has taken the form of the most serious offences, as confirmed by a liaison officer with the Australian Federal Police. These involved using a fake account to stalk and intimidate, and other offences that will be detailed in the statement to be submitted to police presently.
The nationalist, who we will not name, has described the actions of the journalist as “psychopathic” and says that “the only troll in this whole equation is him… and he is a very sick, deranged troll. I owe it to the community at large to see that he is taken off social media, and hopefully put away on a custodial sentence to reflect on his criminal activities.
“He is a very cowardly, insipid, and weak specimen. He is a living condemnation of what has become of western journalism — he is the absolute definition of a fake news merchant. He needs his comeuppance.”
The nationalist is furious at the article, which he argues contains demonstrable untruths.
“The article was mostly made up. It was sourced almost entirely from social media and its main contention was the basis of a rumour started by the Zionist-convert Neil Erikson acting in concert with the Party for Freedom. Its aim was to hurt the Australia First Party, of which I am a member.”
However, it was not even the content of the article that provoked his ire, so much as the alleged stalking.
“I am surprised one who claims to have a legal background would so casually leave themselves open like this, but nobody ever said he was intelligent. However, at the base of this are very serious criminal threats against my person.”