Aus NS Archive 🇦🇺

In further racial politics and friend enemy distinction fashion, this delusional article highlights everything I've just written about. Libtards are saying that "social cohesion begins with empathy" and that the Royal Commission will now focus on "how social cohesion could be better understood, measured and strengthened in the community." This is the exact masking of friend enemy distinction via liberalism that Schmitt speaks of, that will not work and friend enemy will always reassert itself. Social cohesion is disintegrating under multiculturalism because we have ethnic enclaves naturally forming, who all have grievances with one another, and are existentially competing for resources and power. No amount of blank slatist encouragement to "just hear one another out", and what they are calling "'mutual acceptance" will ever ameliorate this existential competition for resources and power. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-17/bondi-antisemitism-social-cohesion-royal-commission-block-9/107025136

Also, to touch on the tribalism aspect and how the friend enemy distinction is applied and evident in racial politics. Tribalism is universal and a law of nature itself. Groups tribe up because an organised group will always defeat disorganised individuals. There is no such thing as "post-tribalism", everyone united under liberal universalism ideas of coming together to debate and "hear each other out". This is something only conservatives and other blank-slatists delusionally believe in. People tribe up on the basis of race, due to shared genetics, culture (which comes from race), and shared history and a shared future as a race. Races naturally advocate for their racial interests, to advance their people and their group. Indians in the West seek only to advance India, for example. In the West we are seeing this in action now with the pure form of what multiculturalism actually is. Ethnic enclaves forming, and then organising to compete for power, status, control, resources, territory, etc. In racial politics, friend enemy distinction always reasserts itself, as Schmitt stated, because it is an existential conflict for resources and survival. This is why we've been saying "tribe and train" for years, because every other race is.

There's a big debate unfolding online over Carl Schmitt's concept of the political, and friend enemy distinction. Conservative slop podcasters (who most likely haven't even read Schmitt) are calling it "third-world tribalism", and completely misrepresenting Schmitt. Friend enemy distinction isn't third world tribalism, its the very basis of what all politics ultimately is. Schmitt defines the enemy as the public “other” that poses an existential threat to a community’s way of life. The friend is defined by the shared political grouping against that threat. A people, or political idea will cease to exist politically if they do not apply this fundamental distinction. Those that refuse to apply it will always lose out to an opponent that does. Schmitt's theory also proposed that liberalism masks the friend/enemy distinction that is fundamental and unescapable in politics. That liberalism encourages a system of debate and talking and endless attempts at compromise, which is impossible and the friend enemy distinction immediately reasserts itself once conflicts become existential. This is why conservatives, who are liberals, hate Schmitt and seek to attack him and misrepresent him, because they can't answer or dismantle his critiques about liberalism.

All articles are always pinned at the top on telegram, in case you missed any, or want to recall something from them, you can always just go back through the pinned. You can also view them all on X at https://x.com/LonePatriot14/articles

Aus NS Archive 🇦🇺 pinned «New X article covering the Commonwealth's highly emotional defence in the White Australia Party High Court case. Discusses how the Commonwealth invokes the Holocaust and the "horrors of Nazi Germany", as a supposed justification as to why National Socialist…»

Aus NS Archive 🇦🇺 pinned «New X Article on why the entire right should unite in favour of defending free speech, and support the August 30 Free Speech Rally. Discusses how the entire right wing is being censored and legislated out of existence and neutered by the myriad of hate speech…»

Social Cohesion update: Seen many online speculating that some Australian patriots broke into a communist bar and spray painted swastikas inside of it. I’m yet to form any opinion on such, but I see that the communist venue had flags and banners of Che Guevara inside of it, and aboriginal flags. Seems a police manhunt is now underway.

“In the villages of ancient Rome, no one knew the Empire had fallen, one day their roads just stopped being repaired” moment

This is a very good point, that our problems are social and political, so National Socialists will not be disincentivised by criminal penalties. The system treats National Socialists like we are the same as organised crime, and that they can just apply the same measures. Crime is incentivised by the money involved, and discouraged by strict criminal penalties and state harassment. For most of society, other than just antisocial bottom 1% people, the idea of being harassed by the state, and eventually going to jail isn't worth the potential money compared to the risk involved, especially when you can just earn money through legitimate means. So threat, jail and harassment works. Our issue is social and political. We have to live in this society, and we are incentivised to make it better for the betterment of our children, and our immediate living circumstances. Just smashing us with the police isn't going to have any effect, because the same exact societal circumstances still remain, and actually worsen by the day, which only motivates us to work harder to fix them. https://t.me/totallyawesomefriends/3889

"Now if it will please the court. Let me cite Pol Pot on the dangers of being racist to a society and the harms it brings!" https://t.me/totallyawesomefriends

How the Commonwealth’s barristers will be explaining their constitutional arguments to the High Court justices in person.

New X article covering the Commonwealth's highly emotional defence in the White Australia Party High Court case. Discusses how the Commonwealth invokes the Holocaust and the "horrors of Nazi Germany", as a supposed justification as to why National Socialist organisations should be banned. Also outlines how the Commonwealth relies on a Communist spy, as a quoted authority on why National Socialist organisations should be banned. As well as how their constitutional arguments are weak and strained, and they are relying on emotional and atmosphere influencing attempts to do most of the work. Read time: 4 - 5 minutes. You can view without leaving telegram using this link: https://hitlerx.com/LonePatriot14/status/2088788145093620063?s=20&t=1723770000 However I recommend reading on X if you have it, as the instant-viewer doesn't display the picture's captions.

Defence arguments in the High Court should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable

It gets even worse. The person they are quoting began his career in the NKVD during the Great Purge and later became a senior KGB spy, and then finally an advisor to the United Nations.

They also use the Soviet Union’s statements as a reference to why Nazism is bad and should be prohibited. Crazy.

How they were writing "History has shown us why", and saying "space shouldn't be made for Neo-Nazis"

Heres another insane point made by the Commonwealth. Apparently Nazi Ideology isn't legitimate political speech to them. Their reasoning? History has shown us why. "Just be a hecking good person", "haven't you heard of the HOLOCAUST" soyjak defence. Incredible how they can continue just propagandising in our favour, that the system doesn't care about free speech for certain ideologies or individuals that the system hates.

The Commonwealth posted their final defence document yesterday, and its just more of what I already wrote about in my article on the topic. Invocations of the "evils of Nazi Germany" in the first pages, attempts to influence the atmosphere of the court and emotionalise the case. And some assertions that Nazis dont deserve free speech and the right to political communication. Then more weak engagement on Constitutionality of their legislating (because there is none), they attempt to rely on the CERD treaties, which obviously some UN treaties don't overrule our Constitution. Plus, they already conceded in the Special Case agreed facts, that the party is a legitimate party under the law, and planned to contest elections, so their attempted framing it as an illegitimate party is already defunct by their own agreement. You can read it yourself on the DLS https://dls.hcourt.gov.au/static/PublicSearch

When you look at the documentation regarding X’s Open Sourcing of their algorithm, it proves an obvious point. The system loves blaming “the algorithms” for somehow secretly actively recommending racist and antisemitic content, in some seemingly nefarious fashion. Turns out they just recommend content that is popular and interacted with, and that antisemitism and racism are popular, and are becoming increasingly more popular. If everyone wanted to talk about the weather it would be recommending weather content all day. But the public want to be antisemitic and racist, so that’s what it serves.