The empirical evidence of Islamic terrorism and what happens when Islamic migration is allowed into a Western country is overwhelming.
The truth, however, for the left is of no concern; ideological hegemony is. Ideological power goes before all else, even before the integrity of one’s culture and the safety of its citizens.
Prime Minister Albanese and his government are betraying Australia and its people on all fronts.
The Capture by Stealth of the AWM
Robert Hill, Quadrant, 20 July 2026
“A major feature on Frontier Wars will piss off the majority of Australia’s 600,000 veterans.” So warned Major General Greg Melick in 2022, when he was National President of the RSL and a member of the Australian War Memorial Council.
“The fundamental element is that the War Memorial was built in sacred recognition of wars that Australians fought as a nation, unified against an external foe. It is not to be a memorial for conflicts within Australia,” Barnaby Joyce said in 2022.
These statements expose the question the Memorial has never honestly answered: if a major Frontier Wars display would so profoundly disturb the veterans whose service the Memorial exists to honour, why has the policy been advanced without a clear public announcement, published legal advice, or a frank explanation of how it fits within the Australian War Memorial Act?
I am not a military man. I do not claim the authority of service. But my love for this country could not be greater. I know sacrilege when I see it.
The Australian War Memorial is the last place still standing largely outside the ideological capture of our national institutions. It is where politics is meant to fall silent before the dead; where the nation goes not to be lectured, corrected or re-educated, but to remember those who served and those who died.
Yet we are living inside a national fog of exaggeration and fabrication surrounding the so-called Frontier Wars. Claims unsupported by military reality are forced upon us as settled truth, even where no war existed.
The more immediate question is how this contested project became institutional policy. It was not advanced by open argument, but by stealth: through an ideological sequence and in a vacuum of justification. No clear public mandate was sought. No legal reasoning was published. No serious explanation was offered to veterans or the wider public as to why a contested account of colonial violence belongs within the statutory war memorial.
Cheron Long, unmistakably an Aboriginal woman, speaks out against the fakery and rorting in the welcome-to-country ceremonies.
Is the culture war over, with victory going to the Marxists? Well-known social commentator Kevin Donnelly thinks so. The evidence seems to support him. A true conservative sees nothing but a wasteland before him – the wreckage and debris of the traditional, Christian society we were so used to. But we need not despair. If I can paraphrase Rousseau: What has been taken away from us, can by the same means be taken back.
Badger, Toad, Ratty, and Mole, with their trusty weapons, to the rescue!
Kevin Donnelly, Quadrant, Jun 09 2026
Two essays in The Australian, one by Greg Sheridan titled ‘How relentless progressive orthodoxy is politicising life and crushing debate in Australia’ and another by Henry Ergas, ‘ABC’s Tame shame is an abject breach of trust’ are well worth reading.
Both highlight the way institutions including the Climate Change Authority, the Human Rights Commission, the Australian Law Reform Commission, schools and universities and the ABC have been captured by a progressive, cultural-left ideology.
While detailed and persuasive, there is nothing new in what Sheridan and Ergas complain about. The cultural Left’s long march through the institutions has been ongoing since the expression was made famous by the German Marxist Rudi Dutschke during the cultural revolution of the mid-to-late Sixties. The Australian author Alan Barcan describes the Sixties’ cultural revolution as promoting an ideology that “favoured relativism [where] absolute beliefs, based on Christianity or liberal humanism, became unfashionable. Politically, a new radicalism and a new concern for minorities emerged”.
While Dutschke is associated with the ‘long march’, it was the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci who earlier introduced the concept of cultural hegemony. Gramsci describes cultural hegemony as the way capitalist society and the bourgeoise dominate by controlling society’s institutions. Such domination leads to false consciousness where, even though they are the victims of an oppressive and self-serving system, citizens believe all is well. Women happy being wives and mothers are deluded by a culture that is chauvinistic and male dominated.
Mervyn Bendle, Quadrant, Dec 20 2025
Radical Thought. The Sydney Push had a lot more to it than the Libertarianism and libertinism we discussed in our previous article. As Liza discovered, it appealed also to those drawn to challenging ideas and ideologies, as well as to those, like her, who felt they had profound questions to ask. Prior to the Sixties, such youthful intellectual hunger might have been satisfied by joining the Communist Party. However, its authoritarianism, the revelations about the horrors of Stalinism, and the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary (right) discredited the Party for many. This was especially the case with Liza, who heard of the horrors first-hand from those workmates at the store who were amongst the 300,000 Hungarians who’d fled into exile, with many coming to Australia. Consequently, the Libertarian Society and the Push helped fill an ideological vacuum that lasted until the arrival of the New Left.
Intellectual Appeal. Moreover, they had a intellectual basis, derived from John Anderson’s iconoclastic philosophy, which had survived over 40 years of critique and conflict with the Establishment. The folk who made up the core membership of the Push took ideas seriously and this foundation gave it legitimacy for the intellectually-inclined, including not only the older members but younger folk like Liza or Germaine Greer, who particularly noticed the difference between Melbourne and Sydney: Melbourne’s ‘Drift’ was romantic in relationships and sloppy in reasoning while the Push (left) was realist in relationships and rigorous in reasoning.
I did a search on India’s caste system, and this is what I found:
The caste system in India originated in ancient times, primarily through the varna system, which divided society into four broad categories: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders and merchants), and Shudras (laborers and artisans) Wikipedia+1. Outside this hierarchy were the Dalits (historically called “Untouchables”) and Adivasis (tribal communities), who faced social exclusion Wikipedia+1. Over time, the varna system became more complex with the emergence of jatis, localized hereditary groups often linked to specific occupations, customs, and marriage rules Encyclopedia Britannica+2.’
Is this mentality what we want brought to Australia? Of course, the multiculturalists have nothing to say. They’re too preoccupied with de-whiting and de-Anglosising Australia.
You thought a whole lot of nice Indian people were coming to Australia to join in and be part of the nation. Modi’s nationalist rally in the heart of Melbourne, supported by Labor’s multiculturalist duo, PM Albanese and Premier Jacinta Allan, should have undeceived you. India is not what most Australians think it is.
No, not even bullying, cancelling, and jail can change them.
Students, particularly males, wishing to achieve a useful vocational qualification would do well to choose something from TAFE before the woke crackpots get a hold on that, too.
Only a drooling ideologue would deny the key argument here. Only homogeneous societies possess the unity to survive. Multiculturalism is incoherent. Present-day Australia shows Menzies to be essentially correct. A survivable nation cannot tolerate imported colonies whose members publicly proclaim their allegiance to another nation.