A Tolerant Tyranny

In February this year, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) made a submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the state of Victoria’s anti-vilification laws. They have made numerous recommendations that ought to concern every honourable White Australian.

March of the System Pigs

The writer will summarise some of the most heinous recommendations, with reference to official publications made by the VEOHRC and its commissioner—the race-traitor Kristen Hilton. It is important to note that the recommendations made by the commission will be considered and perhaps even implemented by the Victorian government as they discuss reforms to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (RRTA) in the coming months.

The VEOHRC’s Kristen Hilton running an online conference, teaching subhumans how to report White men to Big Brother.

In an article published by Hilton on 27 May 2020, she claims that: “One of the factors that has made it so difficult for people to run successful vilification cases is the high legal threshold people must meet to show that vilification has occurred.” The commission has recommended that this legal threshold be lowered. This would no doubt lead to even more complaints being accepted for mediation by the commission, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), and other jurisdictional bodies.

These bodies would exploit the influx of complaints to justify more funding for themselves whilst simultaneously harassing anybody who doesn’t want Australia to be reshaped in the image of the anti-White scum that govern it.

The commission has specifically stated: “We recommend the threshold in the RRTA civil test in sections 7 and 8 be changed from prohibiting conduct that ‘incites’ hate or strong feelings to conduct that ‘expresses or is reasonably likely to incite’ hate or strong feelings”.

The RRTA is the same law that Blair Cottrell, Neil Erikson, and Chris Shortis were charged and convicted under, for the crime of doing political activism that the government didn’t like. That fiasco was ridiculous enough, now the government wants to set the stage for more of these show trials.

Kristen Hilton has also claimed that: “A major problem of the current incitement test is that it requires consideration of the impact on a witness to hate conduct, not on the victim who experiences the harm”.

She wants to give the “victims” of racism more weight in determining whether certain acts and speech constitute a breach of the RRTA. She recommends that: “The best remedy to this is the introduction of a separate test for vilification that focuses on whether the person who is the target of the speech or conduct is harmed by it. This test would be an objective assessment of the harm caused and experienced from the perspective of the target, rather than having to provide evidence that a third party was motivated to act in a hateful way”. Creating a separate, highly subjective test would give more power to “oppressed” minorities in taking up their grievances through the law via the VEOHRC, VCAT, and other bodies.

In summary, Hilton believes that the current law must be flawed because not enough Whites have been prosecuted. Such is the logic of a woman who has made persecuting members of her own people for thoughtcrime into a lucrative profession.

Yet this is apparently not enough. The commission also aims to strengthen the ability for Victoria Police to prosecute individuals for “hate crimes” through this law. Kristen claims: “While it is appropriate that criminal offences should only apply to the most serious conduct, the current criminal test is too high”.

According to the commission’s recommendation: “Sections 24 and 25 of the RRTA only prohibit the offender intentionally engaging in conduct that they know is likely to incite hatred and to threaten physical harm towards other persons. The test should be simplified and revised to prohibit intentional or reckless hate conduct and it should prohibit threats to harm or incitement, rather than requiring both to be unlawful. The serious vilification offences also need to be incorporated into the Crimes Act. This would improve visibility of hate as a crime and streamline Victoria Police enforcement. In our consultations, Victoria Police indicated that the location of the serious vilification offences in the RRTA is a barrier to enforcement. Moving the offense to the Crimes Act would make it clear to police that serious vilification is a crime”.

Furthermore, one major hurdle the VEOHRC is hell-bent on destroying is that of anonymity. In many complaints they receive, the alleged racists cannot actually be identified because they may be using a fake profile or fake email, etc. Unless the commission has a name and a method of contacting them for mediation, then complaints cannot progress. Kristen laments that once upon a time the commission “received a complaint about a Facebook page vilifying Chinese people; however, the owner of the Facebook page could not be identified so we could not accept the complaint. If we had the power to direct Facebook to provide us with the email address for the owner of the page, we could accept the complaint and offer dispute resolution.”

Lastly, the commission would like to ban ownership and distribution of “hate material”. Kristen envisages: “As part of a broader suite of reforms, consideration should also be given to making it a crime to publicly display symbols, images, and materials that are designed to incite or spread hate. This can include, but should not be limited to, Nazi symbols”.

If the VEOHRC had it their way they would want to make it illegal not just to perform the Roman salute in public but also the distribution and ownership of National Socialist posters, stickers, flags, etc.

They highlight this in their own report.

5.3.5 The definition of prohibited conduct should be broadened.
In line with recent reforms to the criminal vilification offences in NSW, the Commission considers that the definition of prohibited conduct for the purposes of civil and criminal vilification laws in Victoria should be broadened. This will help to clarify that prohibited conduct includes any form of communication, conduct or distribution or dissemination of material to the public. It will also clarify that conduct will constitute public conduct even if it occurs on private land. In particular, the term ‘conduct’ under Victorian law should adopt the definition of ‘public act’ under s 93Z(5) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to include:
• ‘any form of communication (including speaking, writing, displaying notices, playing of recorded material, broadcasting and communicating through social media and other electronic methods) to the public
• any conduct (including actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia) observable by the public; and
• the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public.
For the avoidance of doubt, an act may be a public act even if it occurs on private land’.

Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Vilification Protections (31 January 2020), page 77

Tolerance Inc.

Let us take a closer look at the VEOHRC itself, and the logic that drives this ugly pioneer of system tyranny. The name brings to mind ideas such as free speech, individual liberty, and protection from oppressive government—all those ideals that liberals claim Australians died for in two world wars. In reality, of course, their meaning is utterly perverted, so that they become weapons in the hands of the global ruling class.

Behind this benign disguise, the commission’s sole purpose is to stamp out criticism of liberal democracy and to crush any attempt by Whites to develop racial consciousness. To these liberals, “freedom” from “hate” is more important than freedom of speech and the right to hold non-liberal political opinions. Whenever these liberals say “hate” what they really mean is White. If a White man does or says anything that is positive towards White people, that is “hateful”.

This is justified by a repackaging of the Catholic doctrine of original sin into “implicit bias”. All White people (especially heterosexual White males) are held to have an unconscious, uncontrollable racism, which is the sole reason why the multiracial utopia has not been achieved. The logical endpoint of this idea is obvious—Whites must be made a minority in their own countries and stripped of all decision-making power in society. To further equalise things, Whites must not be allowed to have their own racial identity, which rests solely on this unconscious hatred of other races. Only once Whites have been thoroughly marginalised, mongrelised, and humiliated will such lofty goals as world peace and complete equality be obtained.

If you believe, as the commission does, in the preceding narrative, then hating White people isn’t hate at all but a “beautiful expression of pride” by a “victimised minority”. Political opponents who criticise this rank hypocrisy are naturally seen as closet White supremacists, stopping the march to the “multiracial paradise”. It is therefore virtuous to call for their deaths on social media and to censor their dangerous speech.

Needless to say, if you’re a White man who won’t publicly kneel before the mass of brown subhumans, and notices things like the correlation between criminality and certain races, then you’re a “hater” according to these vermin. Even if you’re one of those pathetic White Australians who holds the bizarre belief that race is solely a matter of skin colour, and displays hatred of their own kind; then you’ve only brought yourself a brief respite. After all, you can’t lose “implicit bias”, only cover it up. Under the system, no White can ever be above suspicion.

A Hero of Our Time

To further illustrate their concept that only Whites can do wrong, let us look at one of the particularly vile non-Whites who have jumped on the VEOHRC bandwagon. The commission is on record as opposing domestic violence, “rape culture” and promoting the application of “Human Rights”, yet in 2018 they invited the oriental lesbian Benjamin Law to present their annual “Human Rights” oration.

Research by National Socialist Network on the question of why this lesbian has a boy’s name was inconclusive.

When the pervert Benjamin isn’t busy sizing up Golden Retrievers for dinner, she’s tweeting abuse towards journalists and threatening children with scatological abuse. This champion of “Human Rights” is on record calling journalist Miranda Devine a “cunt” for holding milquetoast conservative views.

Furthermore, on 31st of August, 2017, well before the commission decided to invite her to present her oration, she expressed her yearning to “hate-fuck” male politicians, who deny that a man masturbating into another man’s anus is a legitimate grounds for marriage, proving the well-known fact that all lesbians are faking their sexuality for attention.

She even went as far as threatening to shoot diarrhoea on the children of anyone who criticises the ANZAC-hating nigger Yassmin Abdul Magied.

Love speech at its finest—watch out Whitey, she’s a rebel speaking truth to power! The ABC and government bodies said so!

This writer genuinely finds Benjamin hilarious and enjoys watching her get up to her wacky antics. In a future National Socialist state we could perhaps lock these sorts up in a zoo, so that those who don’t know any better can be reminded why to hate them. Any prominent homosexual, that shows what homosexuals are really like, is great propaganda, but these facts beg the question:

How on Earth does the VEOHRC reconcile its staunch progressive views with the fact that they provide a platform for people who threaten rape, violence, and child abuse against those they are politically opposed to?

The answer lies in the fact that nothing that these vermin say or do is honest, consistent, or logical. Every word said is merely a rationalisation for their hatred of White Australians and their emotional need to turn this White country into another outpost of the brown third world.

The innate hypocrisy of the “Human Rights” lie is also reflected in the commission’s head, Kristen Hilton. She couldn’t even bring herself to condemn the actions of her own violent husband, Jack Panton, who was charged with unlawful assault and failing to leave a licensed venue after he attacked an innocent barman for refusing to serve him alcohol.

The bartender was probably White—a justified target in the deluded mind of a fighter for “Human Rights”.

Why now?

Why is this all happening now? As we rapidly approach the violent conclusion to the government’s quest to build a multiracial materialist paradise free of “hate”, some hard truths are becoming evident for the White Australian resistance. One day very soon that modicum of freedom allotted to those genuinely opposed the system will be gone forever, buried under an avalanche of “hate speech” and “counter-terrorism” legislation.

The old logic that if they gave us enough rope we’d hang ourselves in front of the White public doesn’t hold anymore, now that it has become impossible to cover up the growing numbers of non-Whites, and the introduction of sexual degeneracy to impressionable White children via the education system. The replacement and debasement of White Australia has become so obvious, public dissent is becoming incredibly dangerous for the system.

The government will not abate in its attempts to take away the rights of White Australians; instead, it will become more intense, more vicious, and more reckless. The government’s oppression of our race will not stop. It is irrevocably committed to repressing dissent, to stifling opposition, and to intimidating its real critics.

Will the right-wing of the system actually stand up to the “political correctness” they’re always whining about? Will they actually get up off their arses to defend their beloved free speech? Let’s look at what the Liberal Party has done recently. Like calling for police to be given the power to tear down swastika flags and imprison anyone flying one for up to six months. Like preparing to enact a “National Anti-Racism strategy”. Like producing a thoroughly watered-down “religious freedom bill” after legalising the “marriages” of the nation’s carpet munchers and bum bandits. Such is the “political solution”. Liberal and Labour are two sides of the same Jewish coin, and if you haven’t realised it at this late an hour, the writer feels sorry for you. Those in the less treasonous, but wholly useless segment of the right-wing will, perhaps, display a little opposition, albeit while prefacing every sentence with “I’m not a Nazi, but…”

We National Socialists are not concerned with the liberal conception of freedom. We fully understand the fact that any “right” not won by one’s own sweat and blood is a right that can be retracted at any time. We will continue our struggle regardless of whether we get a government permit for it or not. The government’s theft of our freedom with ever more oppressive laws, with ever more restrictive rules and regulations of one sort or another, simply shows that it is scared of White Australia, and can no longer trust us to follow its suicidal directives.

Speak out now. Tell everyone you know what these scum are up to. Let these traitors know that a day of reckoning is coming and that they will be held to account for their crimes against our race. If that means that the Jews and the system swine send some of us on a taxpayer-funded holiday to a concrete box, then so be it. We’ve been meaning to catch up on our reading anyway.