The system’s opposition to National Socialism will harden the movement into a resilient, revolutionary force

Proceedings going well. Commonwealth getting rigorously grilled on their flimsy arguments.

They spent 2 hours just spamming Roose-slop and ASIO-slop that about the feelings of brown people being hurt, what I call “atmosphere influencing attempts” on the court room.

States are up after lunch.

Patriots are in control.

Thomas Sewell speaks out about the White Australia Party's constitutional challenge to the Labor government's "hate group" laws after the end of day two of the hearing in Canberra.

"These laws are designed to destroy Australia"

Follow: @NoticerNews

CLEAR

Forgot to shill yesterdays high court recap but here’s today’s

https://youtu.be/JbnvYIdOXGg

Controversial hate group laws used to ban the White Australia Party are necessary to protect minority groups from a "social crisis of unsuppressed racial hatred", government lawyers told the High Court today.

https://www.noticer.news/white-australia-party-high-court-commonwealth-arguments/

Follow: @NoticerNews

Australia will need more than a citizenship form to unify the country

There’s genuinely no point in interacting with far-leftists on mainstream social media platforms. They are inveterate tattletales who argue with you only so they can report every post you make in an attempt to get your account banned. You can’t even say “fat” and “pig” without their telling a teacher.

I increased the saturation and brightness of this edit because it was hard to see on phones; and I removed the niche description for wider usage.

Pink Floyd absolutely cooked with these visuals. They perfectly depicted the awesome night out the boys end up having when you decide to stay in like a little bitch.

New X article for the fanatics following along closely, on my cautious assessment of the White Australia Party High Court case.

Goes into detail about the questions asked by the justices, their seeming positions inferred from their lines of questioning, and an overview of what was argued.

There was a lot to have to condense for over two days of oral argument and questions from the justices.

Read time: 8 - 9 minutes.

You can view without leaving telegram at the link below:

https://fixupx.com/LonePatriot14/status/2097880903922118950?s=20

Thomas Sewell says if the White Australia Party wins its High Court case, it will assist the creation of a Pauline Hanson prime ministership.

"Keep Pauline honest"

Follow: @NoticerNews

In my view, this is probably the funniest legal argument the Commonwealth deployed in the whole case.

You thought robbing Peter to pay Paul was bad: try disenfranchising Clancy to enfranchise Zhang, Mohammed and Arjun.

Non-Whites are such natural liberal-democrats that they need the host nation to be violently suppressed by the state in order to be able to participate. How would they survive another name on the ballot?

The widespread mongrelisation in Central and South America has ruined those parts of the world

The Australian seething that political communication exists.

https://archive.is/Tj1KJ

"Reform has finally arrived for one of the High Court’s worst ideas: 1992’s implied constitutional freedom of political communication. It is a judicial creation never approved by the Australian people."

"Legal Expert" shabbos goy Chris Merritt (half of whose articles are about jews and israel) really believes that political communication is one of the High Court's "worst ideas" and is not a right that Australians agree with or deserve.

Jews and their cuck supporters hate our Anglo concepts of freedom and free speech.

Not every boomer but always a boomer.

How many contradictions does Chris Merritt want to have in one opinion piece?

These traitors hate freedom (implied or otherwise) and they hate that the constitution outlines a system whereby Australians freely choose their representatives.

They believe in freedom only in the very basic and limited way that any despot does: freedom for me and tyranny for you.

I asked the speaker of the house for comment on White Australia Party’s high court challenge against his government’s laws which banned them. I think he forgot what democracy is..

From AUSPILL (x)

This is the bit where Gageler had identified that in essence, it was similar to the forced dissolution of the Communist party.

Whilst the language is different, "prohibited" vs "dissolved", in substance it is the same.

Seemed Sharifys arguments earlier of "you cannot run an organisation from jail" resonated.

Justice Beech-Jones also made an observation that members are forced to resign or be subject to punishment.

‘We didn’t dissolve the party. We just made being a member of it a crime punishable by 7 years in jail.’

I may have misspoken. This could be the funniest argument the Commonwealth made. They seem unfamiliar with the phrase ‘a distinction without a difference’.

Their logic is about as sound as saying ‘I wasn’t cheating on you. I was just exploring other options.’