Opinions
I’ve been mulling over the idea of creating a section where I can express some of my opinions on current events or politics in general, that don’t necessarily relate to specific policy positions. I feel like this might give a more well-rounded view on myself and my stance on certain issues. Some opinions expressed may be longer and thought-out, while others may be short and concise.
Bondi Antisemitic Mass Shooting
Published 15/12/2025
As I write this I am working on a new video where I address controversial topics, one of which is Zionism. That topic just became a lot more controversial after the terroristic mass shooting at Bondi Beach yesterday that has killed 15 people, in what is evidently an antisemitic attack.
I first want to unequivocally condemn this attack; the same way I condemn any violence against innocent civilians. This is not Australia. This is not our culture. And I want to express my condolences to the victims, their families, and anybody else that has been traumatised by this tragedy.
With that said, I fear this event will be used as a justification to suppress our rights to free speech. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, we collectively rejected the sickness of gun culture and changed our laws to prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again. Until recently, that had been largely successful. Although that topic will need to be revisited. My concern here though is that this attack will be used censor us, to legislate away our ability to criticise Israel under the guise of combatting antisemitism.
Zionism is the project of having a Jewish ethnostate; the same way that Australia was once a white ethnostate. Opposing Zionism is NOT the same as hating Jews; the same way opposing the White Australia policy was NOT the same as hating white people. The difference is that Zionism has spent decades propagandising the world to believe that criticising any legitimate issues of the Israeli government was ONLY disguised bigotry towards Jewish people and therefore could be dismissed and ignored as ‘prejudice’. They have deliberately blurred the lines between the two to inoculate themselves from any form of accountability.
The October 7th Terror Attack in 2023 led to a massive overresponse from the Israeli government in Gaza, the war crimes that Israeli soldiers and leadership have committed has led to a global backlash against the country and the Zionist project. This has led to a real increase in antisemitism worldwide because Israel has cemented the idea that Zionism and Judaism are the same thing. They are not. There are Jewish Anti-Zionists.
We in Australia have seen false flag incidents like the drive-by egging that were reported as antisemitic attacks, only for further investigation to reveal that it was a hoax or that no Jewish people were involved at all. All of which is used by lobbyists and envoys from Israel to get us to change our laws to protect Israel under the guise of protecting Jews. They want us to implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, which effectively makes criticism of Israel an antisemitic act. They are working to suppress our rights to free speech, if that speech is critical of them.
One of the targets Israel has for combatting, what they consider antisemitism, is social media. Using social media leads to an increase in antisemitic sentiments according to the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism (MDA). How so? They don’t specify. I presume its people seeing IDF soldiers posting videos of themselves committing war crimes, but that is not the sort of thing the MDA is going to admit.
Now think about the recent implementation of the Social Media Ban for Under 16s. Was the reason to protect children from cyberbullying? Or was it to limit children to the pro-Israel narrative of the legacy media? There is real cause for concern that what happened in Bondi will be used by what is a foreign government to restrict our rights and control our people.
But will our government fall for it? …again?
Trump’s spat with Zelenskyy
Published 01/03/2025
I just want to quickly comment on the verbal clash between US president Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which should have every American feeling embarrassed. Trump has proven the US to be an unreliable ally, where agreements made with one president will not be honoured by the next. Where the self proclaimed ‘leader of the free world’ shirks its responsibilities, extorts its ideological allies, and abdicates the role it chose for itself when it built the largest military the world has ever seen.
We were already witnessing the rise of a multipolar world, where there is no longer just one global superpower, but we also appear to be witnessing the decline of US hegemony. If Trump forces Europe to fend for itself militarily, it will never again allow itself to become beholden to the US. This should make Australia reconsider its relationship with the United States, and where we might look to ensure our own security going forward.
The End of America?
Published 21/01/2025
Donald Trump has been inaugurated today in his second term as US president, and the world is going to change. Just days earlier, Trump insinuated in a speech that he and Elon Musk manipulated voting machines, potentially rigging/stealing the election. If this is the case, then the entire US government system has been compromised. The checks and balances have failed. The foundation of the western world, Liberal Democracy, has been delegitimised.
If this isn’t rectified quickly, we’ll see the end of America as their democracy descends into oligarchy. But fixing this will require acknowledgement that the system has been compromised, which will tarnish the country’s reputation and necessitate major reforms that will challenge the power of the Washington establishment. There is no way this can go where the status quo of world powers doesn’t change.
And the Supreme Court has already given Trump immunity for anything he does as an official act of the office. A narcissistic conman is in the most powerful position on Earth, and he has free reign to do whatever he wants. The world may never recover from the damage he can do.
Social Media Ban is NOT About Protecting Children But Controlling Access to Information
Published 08/01/2025
I am old enough to remember the world before the internet. When I was a kid, information mostly came from broadcast television, the radio, and newspapers. These platforms are regulated and controlled; we were fed a narrative of how the world is according to those who had power/money/ownership. This is as true today as it was back then. The internet and social media are different, access to information has been democratised. The ability to control who sees what, to control the narrative, has been disrupted. We see the disconnect in the responses between mainstream media and social media more and more frequently. The mainstream media portrays Israel as the perpetual victim, social media shows Israel committing war crimes. The mainstream demonises the murderer of the health insurance company CEO, social media demonises the health insurance industry and lionises the alleged killer. This has not gone unnoticed and we are seeing the pushback. The US government voted to ban TikTok, and the Australian government has voted to ban social media for under 16s. Banning kids from social media is not about protecting them, it is to limit their access to information and indoctrinate them into the mainstream.
There is no doubt that social media has negative effects on people, not just children. These platforms are businesses with the goal of making profit, and they will use all kinds of psychological manipulation to keep our attention. They give us dopamine hits to addict our brains to their apps, to keep our eyes on the screen. This works on developed adult brains, who knows what effect it will have on child brains with their underdeveloped ability to self-regulate? On top of this is the capacity for cyberbullying, it is no wonder that there are parents that want the government to do something. The answer is parental guidelines and regulation of the platforms, not a blanket ban.
Banning social media for under 16-year-olds will not solve the problem. It will be virtually impossible to enforce without requiring proof of age identification for everyone, including adults. As somebody who has had their data lost in multiple leaks/hacks, I do not want to give these sites anymore of my information than they are already harvesting. And it is likely the kids will find a way around it in short order anyway. And what about the effects of making kids go cold turkey from the apps their brains are addicted to? The potential trauma this could cause should not be underestimated.
So why not regulate social media and transition slowly? Because it’s not about protecting kids, it’s about controlling access to information, to protect power.
The Role of Government and the Need to Change
Published 07/12/2024
I believe that most people (myself included) have at some point thought that ‘our system is broken’. However, the more I have learned about the history and ideologies of our system, the more apparent it has become that it is not broken. It is corrupt, but not broken. It is working exactly as intended. Let me provide a little background information. The western world is based on variations of Liberal Democracy, with political Liberalism at the foundation.
Liberalism sets the role of government to three fundamental tasks, they are:
1. Protect individual rights. It initially was to protect property rights but has evolved over time, as originally only certain people could own property, and certain other people were property. At the core, this means to enforce contracts and deeds of ownership, ie. Property rights.
2. Uphold the Free Market. This is fairly self-evident in meaning; support the private sector, promote free market, profit-driven, laissez faire Capitalism.
3. Do nothing else. Only step in when the market fails. And even then, the priority is to protect the property owners and the free market.
It is arguable that the services that government provide (such as healthcare, infrastructure, and social welfare) exist only because the private sector failed to make them profitable. Some things are just too expensive or too important to leave to the private sector profit motive, but it takes a crisis for government to take action. Sometimes a crisis needs to become a catastrophe for government to act. If this wasn’t bad enough, the 1980s saw the implementation of Neo-Liberalism.
Neo-Liberalism (or ‘Economic Rationalism’ as Labor introduced it as) was largely an extension of Liberalism through economic policy. At the heart of it is privatisation of public assets and running the government like a business (which has an inherent contradiction). Even if the private sector has failed and the government had to step in, the private sector gets a second chance to make a profit by buying the asset at a fraction of the cost and charging the public for its use. For example: a highway being built by government for billions in public money, then sold to a private corporation for cents on the dollar, who then charges tolls to the public to drive on it.
Here is where the contradiction lies in running the government like a business. Privatisation involves selling public assets for less than its value, but if a business had an asset that generated revenue, then selling that asset for a loss is bad business. Neo-Liberalism says privatisation is good governance, as is running the government like a business. But privatisation would be a bad business model, it is paradoxical.
As a result of these ideologies corrupting and limiting government, the focus of our society has become an ongoing series of money-making ventures. Human civilisation is now just a business eternally seeking profit at the expense of all else, even the habitability of our planet and the survival of our species. It does not have to be this way but it will take drastic, transformational change to redirect our trajectory.
Government is the only institution on the planet with the power and resources to address climate change, to end poverty, to fix the cost-of-living crisis, to end the housing crisis, etc. But regardless of which party is in control of government, it won’t do it. Because it is not supposed to, the private sector is. And the private sector won’t do it because it is driven by profit, and profit seeking is the predominant cause of these issues.
The role of government needs to change. There is room for a private sector but we cannot have the direction of human civilisation be driven by the profit motive. Governments need to build the foundations of human society, in ways that improve the human condition, that are sustainable within the limits of our environment, and with the goal of progressing civilisation beyond our present capabilities.
I believe this is possible, however it is unlikely if we don’t try. Power concedes nothing without a demand.
This is what I want to do.