Australia Is Sleepwalking Into Disaster

One year ago, Israel was subjected to one of the most grotesque acts of terrorism in modern history. Hamas, in its usual fashion, dispensed with all pretences of humanity and embarked on a bloodbath of murder, rape, mutilation, and abduction—an Islamist pogrom designed not merely to kill but to degrade, humiliate, and annihilate.

Israel responded as any self-respecting nation would: with fury. It reminded the world that for all the diplomatic hand-wringing, it remains a country willing to fight for its survival. The same, however, cannot be said for Australia—or indeed most of the West.

Because while Israel is crushing its enemies, we in Australia are indulging them. While Israeli soldiers fight to protect their homeland, our political and media elites tie themselves in knots, afraid of even naming the problem. And as the Jewish state battles an enemy that wants to destroy it, Australia is importing that same enemy by the thousands.

This is not some unforeseen disaster. This is a suicide of choice.

Importing an Unresolved War

Look around Sydney or Melbourne today. You will see, in plain sight, the results of decades of delusion. When thousands of protesters can shut down the streets of our major cities waving the flags of terrorist organisations, calling for a “global intifada,” and openly celebrating the slaughter of Jews, you are no longer dealing with abstract political disagreements. You are dealing with the presence of a hostile force—one that has been cultivated, nurtured, and encouraged by Australia’s own political class.

The truth is this: We have imported a population that does not see itself as Australian in any meaningful sense. They do not believe in the values of this country, nor do they particularly care for its laws. When trouble flares in the Middle East, their loyalty is not to Australia but to the most violent factions in their ancestral homelands. And rather than assimilate, many are actively working to impose their worldview onto the society that was foolish enough to let them in.

If this sounds like an exaggeration, consider the events of recent months. In the wake of Hamas’s atrocities, Jewish Australians have been harassed outside synagogues, their children have required police protection to attend school, and their businesses have been targeted for boycott. On social media, barely concealed threats are met not with condemnation but with excuses. And in a grotesque parody of justice, those who call for “jihad” in the streets of Sydney are let off without charge—while law-abiding citizens who object to this reality are labelled “far-right extremists.”

One does not need to look to Europe to see the consequences of this. France, Germany, Sweden—the list of nations that have lost control of their streets is long, and the pattern is always the same. A government imports vast numbers of people who do not share its values. At first, it tries to ignore the warning signs. Then, as problems mount, it insists on more “dialogue.” Eventually, it loses control entirely. And by the time it admits what has happened, it is too late.

National Suicide By Cowardice

What makes all of this so appalling is that it is entirely self-inflicted. Australia was not invaded; it invited this problem in. It did so under the banner of multiculturalism, a term which began as a polite nod to European migration but has since metastasised into a doctrine of national self-erasure.

We were told that importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East and the Islamic world would enrich us. We were told that cultural differences were a strength, that integration would happen naturally, and that anyone who questioned this was a racist. Now, decades later, as Jewish Australians find themselves less safe in Sydney than in Tel Aviv, as young women are harassed for dressing the wrong way, and as entire suburbs become enclaves of anti-Western sentiment, we are told to “embrace diversity” even harder.

The Australian government’s response to all this has been to cower. Our leaders, who once had no trouble lecturing the public about “standing up to hate,” now issue only the most mealy-mouthed condemnations—carefully worded to avoid upsetting the very people responsible for the problem. The police, once symbols of order, are now reduced to managing the decline, standing by as mobs take over the streets and occasionally advising Jewish Australians to “stay home for their own safety.”

This is the textbook behaviour of a nation in retreat. When law-abiding citizens are told they must adapt to the mob rather than the other way around, the country is lost.

What Must Be Done

This is not a problem that will solve itself. Nor will it be solved with more platitudes, more “community engagement,” or more virtue-signalling from politicians who have no skin in the game. The solution is simple, if difficult:

1. Stop importing those who despise us. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. If someone’s worldview is fundamentally incompatible with Australian values—if they believe in religious supremacism, if they refuse to accept basic freedoms, if they wish to recreate the failed societies they left behind—then they should not be here in the first place.

2. Enforce the law without fear. If mobs can terrorise Jewish Australians without consequence, then the rule of law is dead. Police and courts must apply justice equally, without tiptoeing around the identity of the offenders. Calls for jihad are not “cultural expression.” They are threats of violence, and they should be treated as such.

3. Reassert Australian identity. For too long, Australia has been afraid to define itself. It has treated its own culture as something to be ashamed of while bending over backwards to accommodate those who openly reject it. This must end. The country belongs to those who believe in it—not those who wish to remake it in their own image.

Israel Shows the Way

The lesson of the past year is this: a nation that wishes to survive must be willing to fight. Israel understands this. That is why, in the wake of Hamas’s massacre, it did not beg for international approval or waste time debating whether it had a right to exist. It acted. It fought back, unapologetically, against an enemy that would destroy it given the chance.

Australia must learn from this. If we continue down our current path—if we refuse to confront reality, if we prioritise the sensitivities of those who hate us over the security of our own people, if we allow ourselves to be ruled by fear—then our future is clear. We will not be a country anymore.

A people that will not defend its civilisation will lose it. The only question is how much longer Australians are willing to pretend otherwise.

Australia Is Not Multicultural—And It Shouldn’t Be

For years, Australians have been told a comforting but deeply misleading story: that Australia is a “multicultural nation,” that it has no single identity, and that diversity itself is the country’s greatest strength. This narrative is not only false—it is dangerous. It undermines national cohesion, erodes shared values, and invites the kind of societal fragmentation that has already plagued much of Europe.

Australia is not, in any meaningful sense, a multicultural society. It has one dominant culture—Australian culture—which has evolved from its British foundations and is defined by a shared language, legal system, and national identity. Immigration, when properly managed, can strengthen a nation. But only when it operates on a fundamental, non-negotiable principle: those who come here must become Australian.

The Lie of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, as it is understood today, is not simply the presence of different ethnic backgrounds within a society. That has always existed and has never been controversial. What modern multiculturalism demands is something entirely different: that all cultures be treated as equally valid, that no dominant national identity should exist, and that new arrivals should be free to live according to their own customs, even when they conflict with Australian values.

This is a recipe for disaster. A functioning society requires a shared culture, language, and identity. Where these do not exist, nations fracture into competing groups, each prioritising its own interests over the collective good. History is littered with examples of what happens when societies embrace this delusion. The Habsburg Empire collapsed under the weight of competing nationalisms. Lebanon, once a beacon of multicultural coexistence, fell into sectarian warfare. More recently, Western European nations that embraced mass immigration without assimilation—Britain, France, Sweden—are now struggling with parallel societies that reject their laws and values outright.

Australia must not repeat their mistake.

What It Means to Be Australian

Being Australian is not a matter of simply living on this land. It is not a legal technicality. It is about adopting a distinct national identity—one built on Western, democratic values, respect for the rule of law, and an unambiguous commitment to the nation above all else. The core tenets of Australian identity are clear:

• The English Language – A shared language is the foundation of any cohesive nation. Immigrants who refuse to learn English are not integrating; they are choosing separation. If someone cannot or will not speak the national language, they have no claim to belonging.

• The Rule of Law – Australian law is supreme. There can be no room for parallel legal systems, whether based on religious or ethnic customs. Any attempt to introduce them should be met with immediate rejection.

• Freedom of Speech and Thought – Australians have long valued open debate and the ability to challenge ideas freely. Yet multiculturalism has increasingly come with demands to suppress speech deemed “offensive” to certain groups. This is a direct attack on one of the nation’s core freedoms.

• Equality Before the Law – Men and women are equal. No cultural tradition that seeks to undermine this principle should be tolerated. Those who believe otherwise have no business living in a liberal democracy.

• A Shared National Identity – A country is not just a piece of land; it is a shared story, a collective idea. One can honour their heritage, but their primary loyalty must be to Australia. If someone’s first allegiance is to their ethnic or religious group rather than to the nation itself, they are not truly Australian.

The Cost of Failing to Assimilate

When assimilation is abandoned, nations descend into conflict. We have seen the consequences of multicultural delusion across the West.

In Britain, mass immigration without integration has led to entire cities where English is rarely spoken, where police fear enforcing the law, and where national identity has been shattered. The country is no longer a united Britain, but a patchwork of competing communities.

In France, radical Islamism has thrived in the suburbs of Paris and Marseille, where parallel societies openly defy French law. Repeated terrorist attacks have not shaken the state’s bizarre commitment to multiculturalism, even as the nation becomes unrecognisable.

In Sweden, the embrace of mass migration has led to a surge in crime, gang violence, and open lawlessness. The once-safe Scandinavian nation now grapples with shootings, honour killings, and areas police dare not enter.

Australia is not immune. The same trends are already emerging. The more the country tolerates the rejection of its culture in the name of “diversity,” the faster it will unravel. A nation cannot function if its people have no common bonds, if its institutions are forced to accommodate every imported grievance, or if its citizens no longer feel any duty to the country that shelters them.

The Path Forward: Assimilate or Leave

The truth is simple: Australia is not, and should not be, a multicultural society. It is a single culture—Western, liberal, democratic—open to those who embrace it, but hostile to those who reject it.

This means that if immigration is to continue, it must be conditional. Newcomers must be required to integrate fully, to adopt Australian customs, to prioritise national identity over their own ethnic or religious ties. Those who refuse should not be welcomed. Those already here who reject Australian values should be shown the door.

This is not an extreme position. It is common sense. No successful nation in history has survived by surrendering its identity in the name of diversity. If Australia wants to remain a strong, cohesive country, it must reject the failed experiment of multiculturalism and return to what has always worked: one nation, one people, one culture.

The question is not whether this is possible. The question is whether Australians have the courage to demand it.

The Unthinking Horde: How the Pro-Palestine Movement in Australia Became a Weapon of Division

Crowds, as Gustave Le Bon noted, are rarely intelligent. The individual, when absorbed into the throng, is rendered something lesser than himself. He does not think, he reacts. He does not weigh evidence, he absorbs emotion. And above all, he does not hold himself to the moral standards he might embrace in solitude. This, perhaps, is the most alarming aspect of the pro-Palestine marches in Australia. They are not, as their participants believe, spontaneous uprisings of moral virtue, but demonstrations of mass psychology at its most dangerous.

The Collective Mind and the Loss of Reason

To watch these marches unfold is to witness the very essence of Le Bon’s The Crowd. The principles are all there: the individual becomes submerged in the group, his personal judgement evaporates, and he adopts slogans and sentiments not through logic but through sheer contagion. A chant begins, and thousands mindlessly repeat it. A new accusation is made—"genocide!" "apartheid!"—and suddenly, it is gospel.

This is how misinformation spreads. When Israel is accused of war crimes, of ethnic cleansing, of unspeakable horrors, the crowd does not pause to verify. It does not compare casualty numbers, does not check Hamas’s own charter, does not ask how many of its supposed "martyrs" were carrying weapons. It does not question why, for example, the Palestinian cause elicits such unparalleled outrage while China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, or Syria’s massacre of its own citizens, or Iran’s oppression of women, barely register on the protest circuit.

As Elias Canetti observed in Crowds and Power, the crowd is at its most powerful when it finds an enemy. The pro-Palestine marches have found theirs in Israel, but not only Israel. The Jews themselves are once again cast in their historical role of global scapegoat. It is an eerie and predictable repetition of history—whether in medieval Europe or 1930s Germany, the crowd has always found Jewish culpability an attractive proposition. And today, in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne, it finds expression in cries of "From the river to the sea," a call that, despite protestations to the contrary, means precisely what it has always meant: the removal of Israel altogether.

Rage Over Reality: The Politics of Revolution

Hannah Arendt, in On Revolution, makes the essential point that revolutions succeed or fail based on what they aim to achieve. The American Revolution, she argued, was a success because it sought freedom through stable institutions. The French Revolution, by contrast, was consumed by its own rage, turning inward until it collapsed into dictatorship and bloodshed. The revolutions of the 20th century—whether in Russia, China, or Cuba—followed similar patterns, leading not to justice but to totalitarianism. 

So what, exactly, do the pro-Palestine crowds in Australia seek? A ceasefire? Perhaps. But they demand it only from one side. Peace? If that were the case, why do so many of their slogans and banners call for Israel’s outright destruction? The truth is that these marches, like so many before them, are not about justice but about rage. They seek not an end to conflict but the fulfilment of ideological fantasies in which Israel—like the Tsar, like the French aristocracy, like all the hated enemies of past revolutions—is removed from the picture altogether.

And so, in the name of "justice," we see the inevitable descent into violent rhetoric. Jewish-owned businesses are targeted. Jewish students are harassed. The same marchers who declare themselves "anti-racist" fall eerily silent when actual antisemitism erupts in their midst. They are, as Arendt might have observed, prisoners of their own ideological blind spots.

The Inevitable End of the Unthinking Crowd

The tragedy of these movements is that they rarely realise they are being used. A crowd, as Canetti warned, will always find itself directed by those who understand it better than it understands itself. Radical activists, professional agitators, and ideological zealots know that once a movement is in motion, its followers will accept almost anything. That is why protests ostensibly about Gaza feature banners praising Hezbollah, why "peaceful demonstrations" descend into mob intimidation, and why, as these protests escalate, we will hear increasingly unhinged calls for action.

Le Bon’s warning is particularly relevant: crowds destroy far more easily than they build. They remove institutions but rarely replace them with anything functional. They demand justice but, in their frenzy, tear down the very systems capable of delivering it. And when the dust settles, the individuals who once comprised the movement, the students who thought they were fighting for a noble cause, the well-meaning activists who genuinely believed in "Palestinian liberation," will find that their efforts achieved nothing but further division, further hostility, and further erosion of whatever moral high ground they once imagined they held.

Conclusion: The Unravelling

What happens when the hysteria passes? What happens when the crowds disperse and the slogans fade? History tells us that when reality finally asserts itself, the crowd is left empty-handed. The pro-Palestine movement in Australia will not liberate Gaza, it will not end the war, and it will certainly not improve the lives of Palestinians. But it will have done something: it will have emboldened antisemites, it will have intimidated Jewish communities, and it will have stoked the flames of division in a country that prides itself on pluralism.

A revolution that fails to establish lasting institutions is a failure. A movement that defines itself by hatred is a catastrophe. The pro-Palestine marches sweeping Australia are not simply misguided—they are dangerous, because they show, once again, how the madness of crowds can turn even the well-intentioned into foot soldiers for something far darker than they ever intended.

And when it is all over, when the fury has abated, we will be left with the age-old question: how did so many good people find themselves on the wrong side of history—again?

Labor’s Selective Justice: When Politics Comes Before Law

The rule of law is supposed to be unwavering, the foundation upon which a just society rests. It should not be dependent on political calculations, shifting public opinion, or the sensitivities of certain voting blocs. And yet, in Australia today, we are witnessing something deeply corrosive: a justice system that appears to enforce its own laws selectively, dictated not by principle but by political cowardice.

In recent months, Jewish Australians have faced an unprecedented surge in violent antisemitism—synagogues firebombed, homes desecrated, open calls for Jewish extermination in our streets. And most chillingly, an attempted terrorist attack against a place of worship, which authorities are only now deciding to treat as an act of terror. Not because the facts have changed—those were clear from the start—but because political timing has finally made action unavoidable.

How did we arrive at this point? The law has never been ambiguous on these matters. Attempting to bomb a synagogue is terrorism. Calling for an “intifada” is not some abstract political statement—it is incitement to mass murder. Hate crimes against any group are not merely distasteful—they are illegal. And yet, when Jewish Australians are the victims, our institutions hesitate. They obfuscate. They delay.

The reason is depressingly simple: we are in an election year, and for the Albanese government, enforcing the law on antisemitic violence is politically inconvenient. They do not want to alienate certain sections of their voter base. They do not want to upset activist groups who have spent months spreading the vilest forms of anti-Jewish rhetoric. They do not want to be forced into difficult conversations about the mainstreaming of antisemitism within their own ideological camp.

Contrast this with the approach of the federal opposition. Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party have at least shown the willingness to call this crisis what it is. They have consistently condemned violent antisemitism, urged stronger action against those who incite and commit these crimes, and made it clear that in a functioning democracy, the law must apply equally to all. That, one might think, should be the bare minimum. Yet in today’s political climate, even that level of clarity is refreshing.

Meanwhile, the delays in New South Wales have left a bitter taste in the mouths of Australian Jews. The question is not just why action has been so slow, but why these attacks were allowed to escalate in the first place. If laws against terrorism, incitement, and hate crimes had been enforced properly from the beginning, could this have been prevented? The answer is almost certainly yes.

And now, almost as if by coincidence, authorities have suddenly decided to act. Not when Jewish Australians first reported the rising threat. Not when their homes and places of worship were attacked. But now, as we approach a federal election. As, Auschwitz Remembrance Day just passed. Suddenly, the political calculus has changed. Suddenly, it is no longer acceptable to ignore the problem.

This is not governance. This is not leadership. This is cynical political theatre, and it should be recognised as such.

A nation governed by the rule of law does not wait for the right moment to enforce it. It does not pick and choose when to protect its citizens based on political risk assessments. It applies its laws fairly, swiftly, and without hesitation.

The Labor government has failed in this most basic duty. And Australian Jews are left wondering: if even an attempted act of terrorism against them requires political convenience before justice is served, what does that say about the nation they call home?

We cannot afford to be a country where justice is conditional, where law enforcement is subject to polling numbers, or where a government will only act against antisemitism when the political cost of inaction becomes too high. Either we believe in the rule of law, or we do not.

And the Australian people would do well to remember which political leaders understood that from the outset—and which ones only found their moral compass when an election was on the horizon.

The Normalisation of Antisemitism in Sydney: A Case Study in Moral Cowardice

One might have assumed that an unprecedented surge in antisemitic violence—arson attempts, bomb threats, physical assaults—would elicit an unambiguous response. One might have hoped, at the very least, for some moral clarity. And yet, what do we find? Not a city uniting to confront an outbreak of racial hatred, but a segment of the public more preoccupied with the noise of police helicopters than the safety of their Jewish neighbours.

Since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, antisemitic incidents in Australia have skyrocketed by an extraordinary 738%. In response, NSW Police have—quite sensibly—stepped up security in Jewish communities, including helicopter patrols. Given the reality of attempted synagogue arson and reports of explosives intended for Jewish targets, this is hardly excessive. And yet, bizarrely, some of Sydney’s residents appear to regard law enforcement as the real problem.

A Curious Set of Priorities

Consider a prominent Eastern Suburbs Facebook group, ostensibly dedicated to “bringing people together.” One might assume that this entails standing against violent racism. And yet, the predominant concern appears to be not the wave of hate crimes targeting Jews, but rather the supposed inconvenience of police helicopters.

Some complain about a “waste” of taxpayer money, as though the protection of a minority under siege is some trivial indulgence. Others moan about noise pollution, because, naturally, the distant hum of rotor blades is a greater affront than swastikas daubed on synagogues. One member, in a particularly depraved display, likened police patrols to Israeli military operations, conjuring grotesque images of “drones sending bullets into children’s skulls.” This is not merely repugnant; it is a textbook example of modern antisemitism—first by distorting reality, and second by justifying attacks on Jews through the invocation of a broader political narrative.

The Selective Nature of Outrage

Let us engage in a thought experiment. Suppose that racist attacks against any other minority had surged by 738%. Suppose synagogues were replaced with mosques, Jewish schoolchildren with Muslim schoolchildren. Would the primary response be complaints about police patrols? Or would it be unrelenting condemnation, as it should be?

The answer is obvious. If Muslim Australians were being targeted in such a way, we would hear no end to the media outrage. There would be solidarity marches, emergency parliamentary sessions, and an outpouring of sympathy across every social stratum. And rightly so.

Yet, in the case of Sydney’s Jewish community, we find this grotesque moral double standard. Nazis have saluted in the streets. Jewish children have been assaulted. There have been open calls for violence. And yet, in some quarters, the overriding concern is police helicopters. One is left with a deeply uncomfortable question: has antisemitism been normalised? Or, more chillingly, has it become an acceptable form of prejudice among those who consider themselves virtuous?

The Reality for Sydney’s Jews

To grasp the full horror of what is unfolding, one need only look at the daily reality for Sydney’s Jewish community. Jewish students are afraid to wear their school uniforms in public, lest they be harassed or assaulted. Families avoid synagogues, fearful that attending a house of worship might make them a target. Jewish-owned businesses are being singled out and vandalised. The threats are not theoretical; they are immediate, tangible, and growing.

And yet, where is the righteous fury? Where are the bold declarations that such hatred will not stand? Instead, we are treated to mealy-mouthed platitudes, excuses about “context,” and a refusal to confront the reality that one group, and one group alone, is being told to accept their own persecution as a matter of course.

An Ancient Hatred, Dressed in Modern Clothes

For decades, Australia has prided itself on being a tolerant, multicultural society. But such a claim is meaningless unless it applies universally. It is easy to champion diversity when it is convenient. It is far more difficult when doing so demands moral consistency.

Today’s antisemitism does not always march in jackboots. It is more insidious. It operates through selective outrage, through the shifting of blame from perpetrators to victims, through the suggestion that Jews must “understand” why they are hated. The normalisation of this hatred, whether through indifference or outright justification, is not merely dangerous; it is civilisation in retreat.

There is no excuse, no mitigating factor, no justification for allowing an ancient and persistent bigotry to re-establish itself in modern Australia. A society that shifts its anger from those committing hate crimes to those trying to prevent them has not only lost its moral bearings—it has abandoned them entirely. And once lost, they are very hard to recover.

One is left with a deeply uncomfortable question: has antisemitism been normalised? Or, more chillingly, has it become an acceptable form of prejudice among those who consider themselves virtuous?

Antisemitism in Australia: The Hidden Price of Pro-Palestine Rallies

The hypocrisy on display in Australia’s discourse around antisemitism and Islamophobia is as blatant as it is insulting to the intelligence of the Australian public. Muslim community leaders decry Islamophobia while failing to confront their own role in enabling and excusing antisemitism. Worse, they demand action and recognition as victims while ignoring the deeply troubling consequences of their rhetoric and actions. This double standard is not only unsustainable but has eroded Australia’s social fabric and strained its public resources to breaking point.

1. The Numbers Tell the Truth

Start with the facts. Antisemitic incidents have soared to 2,062 in the past year, more than double the 932 Islamophobic incidents. The Jewish community, representing less than 0.5% of Australia’s population, faces threats of vandalism, physical assault, arson attacks on synagogues, and swastikas painted on Jewish schools. By contrast, while the increase in Islamophobic incidents is also concerning, they overwhelmingly consist of verbal abuse and threats rather than the widespread, targeted violence endured by the Jewish community.

Despite this, some Muslim advocacy groups assert that the focus on antisemitism is disproportionate, claiming Islamophobia is neglected. This claim collapses under scrutiny. Why is there such insistence on creating false equivalence when the scale and severity of antisemitic incidents far outweigh Islamophobic ones? To suggest that one community’s suffering is ignored while actively participating in rhetoric that fuels hate towards another exposes a level of moral inconsistency that cannot be ignored.

2. The Pro-Palestine Charade Exposed

Let us address the heart of the issue: the pro-Palestine rallies. Marketed as peaceful demonstrations for human rights, these rallies swiftly devolved into public displays of hatred. Cries of “From the river to the sea” were chanted openly—words that call for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Hamas flags were waved in Australian streets, while chants glorified acts of terrorism carried out against civilians. Such slogans and imagery are not calls for peace or coexistence; they are calls for destruction.

When Hamas launched its brutal attacks on October 7, massacring innocent civilians, Australian supporters of the pro-Palestinian cause celebrated. Yet, when the public began to see through the facade of “human rights advocacy,” many of these groups pivoted to victimhood. They now lament a rise in Islamophobia while refusing to acknowledge their own culpability in stoking hatred against Jewish Australians. The duplicity is staggering: having openly incited division, they now cry foul as if Australians are blind to their actions.

3. The Cost to Australia

The economic, social, and moral cost of this imported conflict is immense, and Australians are paying the price. Pro-Palestine marches have required massive police deployments, stretching public resources and diverting law enforcement from other essential duties. These protests—some of which descended into chaos—have cost taxpayers millions. Businesses near protest sites have suffered economic losses, forced to close their doors early for fear of violence or vandalism. Public transport systems have been disrupted, and ordinary Australians who want nothing to do with this foreign conflict have had their lives upended.

Furthermore, the rallies have created a climate of fear for many Australians. Families walking through Sydney and Melbourne were subjected to aggressive chants, thinly veiled threats, and open hostility. These are not the hallmarks of peaceful protest. They are the actions of groups that have no regard for Australia’s values of respect and coexistence. Why should Australians have to bear this burden? Why should taxpayers foot the bill for those who bring foreign hatreds onto Australian soil?

4. Australia’s Social Fabric is Wearing Thin

This is where Australians have had enough. This is a country built on fairness, respect, and the rule of law—values utterly at odds with the ideologies celebrated at these rallies. Australians are tolerant, but that tolerance is not infinite, nor should it be. There is no room in this country for values that celebrate violence, undermine coexistence, and demand rights for some while denying them to others.

The broader public sees this double standard for what it is. When Muslim leaders condemn Islamophobia, where is their simultaneous condemnation of antisemitism? Why are the same voices silent when swastikas are painted on synagogues, Jewish schools are targeted, and banners calling for the destruction of Israel are waved in Australian streets? Why does their outrage seem so selective, so conveniently focused on their own grievances?

5. The Role of Muslim Leaders

Consider the Australian National Imams Council, which urged the federal government to avoid “one-sided statements of support which ignore the Palestinian people.” Yet where was this council’s condemnation when pro-Palestinian rallies in Sydney turned into hate-fests that targeted Jewish Australians? Similarly, the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network criticised political leaders for their pro-Israel stance, claiming it endangered Muslims, but failed to address the antisemitic rhetoric on full display at these rallies.

More egregiously, figures like Sheikh Wesam Charkawi of Lakemba Mosque justified the October 7 attacks as legitimate resistance, ignoring the mass murder of civilians. Such justifications do not just condone violence; they embolden those who wish to bring the hatred of the Middle East to Australia.

6. A Conflict Hijacking Our Nation

Australia is being held hostage by the hatreds of a foreign conflict. The pro-Palestine marches have unmasked the reality: this was never about peace, coexistence, or even a two-state solution. It was about hatred—hatred of Jews and of the idea of Israel itself. Australians are being forced to foot the bill for this imported conflict, paying not just in dollars but in division and distrust. The Australian public is asking: How much longer are we expected to tolerate this?

7. Enough is Enough

This is the crux of the issue: Australians value fairness, but fairness cannot exist without honesty. Muslim leaders who cry Islamophobia while ignoring or enabling antisemitism must reckon with their own hypocrisy. Selective morality is no morality at all. If these leaders wish to be taken seriously, they must condemn all forms of hatred, not just the ones that affect their own communities.

Australians have reached their limit. The tolerance of this nation has been tested and found generous, but it is not infinite. The cost of tolerating imported hatreds has grown far too high. It’s time for Australia to reaffirm its values: fairness, peace, and an uncompromising commitment to social cohesion. If some groups cannot abide by these values, they must face the consequences of their actions.

Enough is enough.

The Bill Australians Never Agreed to Pay

Australia is at a breaking point. While ordinary citizens struggle with skyrocketing costs, millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled into policing protests that promote division and hatred. Labor’s refusal to lead, Lidia Thorpe’s divisive theatrics, and the Greens’ unthinking alignment with extremist narratives have left the nation vulnerable and fractured. Beneath it all lies a troubling truth: these figures thrive on controversy, wielding political theatre as a tool to remain in the spotlight.

The Greens: Ideology Over Integrity

For years, the Greens have painted themselves as the moral compass of Australian politics. Yet their uncritical support for the Palestinian cause reveals a deeper truth: theirs is a politics of spectacle rather than substance. Whether it’s walking out of Parliament or endorsing chants like “From the river to the sea,” their actions are designed to provoke, not to govern.

These slogans are not the language of peace but of annihilation—echoing the rhetoric of Hamas, a terrorist organisation that prioritises the destruction of Israel over the welfare of Palestinians. By parroting these slogans, the Greens expose their willingness to stoke division in pursuit of relevance. Their theatrical gestures in Parliament, amplified by public displays of moral indignation, are less about progress and more about ensuring they remain at the centre of the political stage.

This is not principled leadership but performance politics, where ideology and attention-seeking collide. The Greens’ posturing does nothing to advance the cause of Australians; instead, it emboldens extremists and deepens divisions, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for their performative antics.

Labor’s Paralysis: Cowardice Masquerading as Pragmatism

If the Greens are driven by ideology and theatrics, Labor is paralysed by cowardice. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government has remained conspicuously silent as antisemitism rises and protests erupt across Australian cities. Their silence is not incidental—it is calculated. Labor is afraid to alienate the Muslim vote, especially in the lead-up to an election.

But leadership is not about pandering; it is about taking a stand. Labor’s refusal to confront these issues demonstrates a failure of both principle and practicality. As millions of taxpayer dollars are spent policing protests that promote hate, everyday Australians are left wondering where their government stands.

This silence does more than signal weakness—it legitimises the theatrics of others. By failing to condemn divisive rhetoric, Labor creates space for individuals like Lidia Thorpe to dominate the conversation. It is a vacuum of leadership, filled by those who exploit outrage for personal and political gain.

Lidia Thorpe and the Politics of Performative Outrage

Lidia Thorpe has become a master of political theatrics. Her relentless provocations and public displays of outrage are designed not to solve problems but to ensure her name remains in the headlines. Whether railing against “imperialism” or aligning herself with the Palestinian cause, Thorpe’s rhetoric is consistently inflammatory and devoid of substance.

Her latest moves are emblematic of this approach. Thorpe’s alignment with protests supporting Hamas’ so-called “victory” over Israel reveals the shallow opportunism at play. Just weeks ago, these same activists were crying “genocide,” yet now they declare “victory.” Which is it? Thorpe’s uncritical embrace of this contradiction illustrates her reliance on controversy over coherence.

This is not leadership—it is a performance, designed to inflame tensions and ensure she remains relevant. Yet Australians pay the price for her antics, both financially and socially, as public trust erodes and divisions deepen. 

Fatima Payman: A Case Study in Grandstanding

Fatima Payman’s recent resignation from Labor and her attempt to form a new political entity is another example of theatrics masquerading as leadership. Her dramatic crossing of the floor to support a motion recognising Palestinian statehood was not an act of principle but a calculated bid for attention.

Payman’s actions mirror the Greens in their reliance on performative gestures to maintain relevance. Her attempt to carve out a niche in the crowded theatre of identity politics says less about her commitment to Australians and more about her desire to stay in the limelight. For a senator facing scrutiny over her eligibility to hold office, this reliance on spectacle is especially troubling.

Like Thorpe and the Greens, Payman offers Australians little more than posturing while the real challenges facing the nation go unaddressed.

The Grotesque Victory of Hamas

The so-called “victory” of Hamas in the recent conflict with Israel is as grotesque as it is absurd. For a group that glorifies death, survival is framed as triumph. Yet this propaganda narrative is parroted by protesters across Australia, waving Palestinian flags and chanting slogans while celebrating destruction.

This grotesque theatre is not resistance—it is moral depravity cloaked in the language of liberation. Protesters with masked faces chant for the eradication of Israel, and figures like Lidia Thorpe amplify their narrative without accountability. The Albanese government’s refusal to confront these spectacles allows them to fester, signalling to Australians that hatred is acceptable so long as it is wrapped in the right slogans.

The Real Cost of Political Theatre

Australians are paying a heavy price for this relentless theatre. Millions of dollars are wasted on policing protests that disrupt lives and deepen divisions. Social cohesion is eroding, as unchecked extremism undermines trust and unity. And public confidence in leadership continues to crumble as theatrics replace governance.

At its core, this is a crisis of leadership. Labor’s silence, the Greens’ posturing, Thorpe’s theatrics, and Payman’s grandstanding represent a failure to prioritise the needs of everyday Australians. Instead of addressing rising costs of living or safeguarding unity, they focus on spectacle—leaving the nation fractured and vulnerable.

Time to Demand Leadership

Australia deserves better. It deserves leadership that rejects theatrics and embraces principle. It deserves leaders who prioritise unity over division and action over performance.

If the Albanese government and its enablers cannot meet this challenge, then Australians must demand the opportunity to choose leaders who can. 

The time for political theatre is over. 

It is time to call the election.

Selective Outrage: The Rise of Antisemitism in Australia

Antisemitism in Australia is no longer a relic of the past or an undercurrent lurking in dark corners. It is here, on our streets, openly paraded under the guise of “pro-Palestine” activism, scrawled on synagogues in our suburbs, and—perhaps most disturbingly—met with an eerie silence from institutions that once prided themselves on fighting discrimination.

The recent surge in attacks on Jewish houses of worship, businesses, and individuals is not just another chapter in the long history of antisemitism—it marks a turning point in how this hatred is expressed, tolerated, and excused. The question Australia now faces is whether it will confront this rise in anti-Jewish violence with the seriousness it demands or allow it to fester under the banner of “free speech” and “resistance.”

The Pattern Emerging: Why This Isn’t Just About Israel

The attacks on Jewish institutions in Sydney and Melbourne over the past months reveal an undeniable trend. These acts—ranging from synagogue arson attempts to physical assaults—are not responses to the Israeli government. They are targeted attacks against Australian Jews, who are being held responsible for a conflict happening 14,000 km away.

Some trends are unmistakable:

• The weaponisation of protest rhetoric: Demonstrations that began as calls for Palestinian rights have morphed into thinly veiled incitements against Jews, with slogans like “From the River to the Sea” and “Globalise the Intifada” becoming rallying cries for an ideology that does not simply oppose Israel, but actively seeks the erasure of Jews from public life.

• The radicalisation of the street: Jewish communities are being physically threatened by those who feel emboldened enough to attack places of worship and community centres, knowing full well that the reaction will be sluggish at best, indifferent at worst.

• The selective silence of progressives: The same political and media figures who clamour for zero tolerance on hate speech seem curiously quiet when it is Jews who are the targets. The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

The Failure of Institutions: Why Are Jewish Lives Worth Less?

Australia’s law enforcement agencies, political leaders, and civil society organisations have made all the right noises about antisemitism—condemning attacks when pressed, issuing statements after major incidents—but the failure to act with urgency has emboldened the perpetrators.

Compare the response to other forms of hate crime. Imagine if a mosque or a church were firebombed. There would be national outrage, emergency parliamentary debates, and a flood of pledges from law enforcement. And yet, when a synagogue in Sydney was attacked, when swastikas were spray-painted on Jewish homes, the reaction was perfunctory at best. The message is clear: when it comes to antisemitism, Australia still has one rule for Jews and another for everyone else.

The Imported Conflict Fallacy: A Convenient Lie

One of the most insidious justifications for this rising tide of antisemitism is the claim that it is simply a case of Middle Eastern tensions “spilling over” into Australia. This is a dangerous and dishonest framing.

Jewish Australians are Australian citizens. They are not combatants in a foreign war, nor representatives of a government overseas. The idea that they should be targeted for collective punishment is both racist and absurd. And yet, this logic has been quietly mainstreamed, not just by radical activists but by media narratives that subtly imply that Jewish Australians should expect hostility because of Israel’s actions.

It must be asked: Why is no other diaspora held to this standard? Why are Chinese Australians not blamed for China’s foreign policies? Why are Muslim Australians not held responsible for Islamist extremism? The answer is obvious. There is only one group of people for whom this logic is deemed acceptable.

The Double Standards of the ‘Social Justice’ Left

The modern left, which claims to champion anti-racism, has become remarkably comfortable excusing antisemitism.

The same activists who demand accountability for historical injustices against indigenous Australians will, in the same breath, argue that Jewish people have no historical claim to their own homeland. The same political groups that claim to stand against racism will march alongside individuals calling for the destruction of Israel—not a two-state solution, not peace, but destruction.

What we are witnessing is not merely an attack on Israel, but an attempt to delegitimise the Jewish people’s right to exist as a people. When protests include signs declaring “Zionists not welcome”, what is being said is that Jews who believe in their own nationhood are to be cast out of society. It is the oldest hatred, repackaged for modern times.

The Historical Parallels We Must Not Ignore

It is impossible to ignore the echoes of history. When Jewish businesses and places of worship are marked with hate symbols, we are not merely witnessing an isolated crime—we are witnessing the early warning signs of something far worse.

The European Jewish communities of the 1930s were not suddenly exterminated overnight. First, they were dehumanised. Then, they were segregated. Then, the violence escalated. Those who claim “it could never happen here” should take a long, hard look at how rapidly things have changed in Australia in just a matter of months.

Where This Leads

History is clear: antisemitism never stops at rhetoric. If left unchecked, it escalates. The reluctance of Australia’s institutions to decisively address this crisis has already emboldened those who seek to make Jewish life in Australia untenable.

The Cost of Indifference

The next time you see a so-called “pro-Palestine” march, ask yourself:

• If this were truly about human rights, why is the primary target always Jews?

• If this were truly about freedom, why is Hamas—an actual oppressor—never condemned?

• If this were truly about justice, why does it so closely resemble history’s darkest moments?

• Why are they covering their faces?, Why do their slogans sound more like war cries than peace efforts?, Why is every Muslim atrocity ignored while every Israeli action is scrutinised?

Because this is not about human rights. This is selective outrage weaponised against Jews, and it’s time we call it what it is.

Because the answer is simple.

This was never about Palestine.

It has always been about the oldest hatred in the world.

And the world is watching.