Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast. Find more of his content on telegram.

The Queensland Government has announced that they intend to pause all ‘gender transitions’ for children, pending a review

“... into the evidence for stage one and two hormone therapies for children with gender dysphoria”.

Whilst this may appear to be a positive development for advocates of child safety, the Government’s track record may prove this to yet another wasted opportunity in the Sunshine State.

What is happening?

The Queensland Health Minister, Tim Nicholls, announced the decision on the back of reported instances of

“unauthorised provision of paediatric gender services … (that) may not align with the accepted Australian treatment guidelines”

within the Cairns Sexual Health Service. Progressive, however, see the Government’s decision as part of a supposed ‘cultural war’. Am opposition spokesperson, in addition to Elosie Brook (AusPath CEO), both implied that the decision will result in death, parroting the progressive line that ‘gender affirming care saves lives’

Subscribe now

Is ‘gender-affirming care’ dangerous for children?

As reported by the ABC, the previous Labor Government conducted a review that found no evidence that patients and families were ‘hurried or coerced’ into decisions about treatments. Minister Nicholls has criticised the limited scope of the previous review, stating that

"(t)he evaluation that was undertaken was in the nature of how is the service delivered, not whether that service ought to be delivered".

Firstly, the claim from the ‘gender transitions’ saves lives is not as clear cut as it may appear. Whilst many studies do show a reduction in attempted and success suicide attempts ‘post-transistion’, this may not be …

A narrative review of existing literature on the topic by physician Dr. Daniel Johnson found that there is a lack of a uniform measure of suicidality in the literature, increasing the risk of type I errors (i.e. a false positive result, or that transitions may not result in a decrease in suicidal tendencies). This argument, however, ignores the unique effect that ‘gender affirming care’ has on children.

John Whitehall’s Puberty Blockers: A Blight on the Brain published in the January-February 2024 edition of The Quadrant paints a poignant picture of the ill effects of ‘gender affirming care’ on young people. Whitehall’s piece discusses a 2022 study out of the University of Lille, where a group of international researchers found that a deficiency in the Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) in people with Down Syndrome was associated with ‘progressive cognitive decline’, which was ‘rescued’ with hormonal replacement. This study implies that the unobstructed release of GnRH is crucial in the development of brains in both mice and humans.
Furthermore, Whitehall discusses an Iranian studying investigating the relationship between GnRH and Alzheimer's Disease, finding a similar relationship between the GnRH hormone and mental faculty.GnRH is more commonly known for its role in puberty, as GnRH

“... causes the pituitary gland in the brain to make and secrete the hormones luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). In men, these hormones cause the testicles to make testosterone. In women, they cause the ovaries to make estrogen and progesterone” (source).

In the process of ‘gender affirming care’, children are given compounds that block the development of GnRH, in order to delay the onset of puberty to ‘give’ the child more time to make choices around their gender identity. This deliberate blocking of GnRH to delay puberty may be having an unintended side effect of delaying the cognitive development of the child, potentially akin to the results of Down Syndrome or Alzheimer’s Disease. Whilst more research needs to be conducted on the effects of puberty blockers on the neurological development of children undertaking puberty blockers, there is enough research to warrant a stop to the current system in Australia; at least this has been the case in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Norway, and various U.S. states, among many other jurisdictions.

During the writing of this article, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order ending federal funding of ‘gender affirming care’ for children across America.

What will happen in Queensland?

Whilst I would love to believe that the Queensland Government will appropriately consult the research; I fear that, like the recent capitulation on abortion, even the utterance of comparisons to U.S. Republicans will cause the Queensland LNP to completely acquiesce to the demands of progressives and fail to protect Queensland’s children. It is more likely that Minister Nicholl’s and the Queensland Government will modify existing practices to better reflect accepted Australian treatment guidelines, reflecting the wishes of entrenched progressives and bureaucrats and not necessarily what is in the interest of children.

Any reader that is willing to support The National Observer in protecting Queensland children, please reach out to Minister Nicholls’s office and politely express your opposition to puberty blockers and ‘gender affirming care’ for children.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast. Find more of his content on telegram.

For longtime readers of the National Observer, the idea that Christian private schools are ‘under attack’ will not be a new one. From former Prime Minister Scott Morrison disavowing a Christian school for upholding Christian values, to New South Wales Premier Chris Minns attacking a Catholic girl’s school for promoting heterosexual relationships, to recommendations by the Australian Law Reform Commission advocating for the cessation of single-sex schooling, and the insipid and insidious attack on two young men making a private joke in a Discord server; our Nation’s most prestigious, and often socially regressive, educational institutions have come into the firing line in the culture war.

One often overlooked enemy in this war are the traitors from within; teachers and administrators tasked with the formation of young Christians are seemingly fighting against this very duty. These traitors persecute the faithful, whilst promoting all sorts of moral degeneracy and heresy, seemingly with no repercussions for their actions. The National Observer has learnt of the harrowing tale of one young Catholic man, whose story we feel obliged to share.

Interview

Heath Clark, a senior at a Catholic school in Tasmania, has submitted a letter to the National Observer, outlining the retribution he has endured for simply stating orthodox Catholic beliefs at school. Heath outlines his experience expressing his faith at school.

“After stepping up and voicing my concerns about Christianity, Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and even Liberal politics I was sent death threats, suppressed and estranged by the entire school community and actively harassed non-stop.”

Not only did Heath experience backlash for his faith – he also had to witness his school, a Catholic school, promote sin.

“I witnessed my own leadership team push for Pride Month in a Catholic school”

Heath contacted the Archbishop of Hobart, the Most Reverend Julian Porteous about the situation. His Grace rebuked the actions of the school in a pastoral letter We are Salt to the Earth, outlining that:

“… no one is being forced to teach in or be a student in a Catholic school if they disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church … If they initially can accept the Catholicity of the school but later find that their personal views are at variance with those of the Catholic faith, then it would only make sense they should seek an alternative educational institution more aligned with their views”

Heath recounts that His Grace’s letter was not well received, with backlash from the usual suspects – Labor, Greens, supposed ‘Catholic’ organisations, IEU (Independent Educators Union), and Equality Tasmania – to the supposed ‘harsh’ and ‘alarmist’ tone. In addition to the usual suspects Heath also experienced backlash from his school’s principal and deputy principal. Heath recalls that …

“… the principal and deputy principal of the college actively took me out of classes, obstructing my education for matters that had nothing to do with the school and forced me to resign from the student leadership team. In addition, (they) tried to coerce me to stop …”

The principal and deputy principal violate the moral, ethical and legal requirements expected of educators, seeking to humiliate and denigrate a student in their care for the supposed ‘crime’ of adherence to Catholic teaching. The impotent and callous response by the college leadership team led to Heath experiencing a wave of backlash from within and outside the school. Heath recounts:

“(I) had people make fake accounts about me, taking photos of me in public, stalking me and making defamatory and false statements online.”

Heath contacted the E-Safety Commission to remove fake accounts and violent threats to himself; however, Julie Inman Grant was seemingly more focused on banning the video of the terror attack against Christian Bishop Mar Mari from Elon Musk’s X, than providing any support.

Heath has not been silenced by this issue and is continuing to question the ongoing progressive take-over of our institutions. Lately, he has participated in a Youth Parliament Program, where his defiance in standing up for freedom of speech against a radical pronoun agenda has led to more issues.

Lessons

Heath has outlined some of the key lessons that he has learnt from his ordeal:

1. It is clear that freedom of independent thought and expression is already impossible for the youth of today.

2. Progressives have infiltrated welfare and youth support organisations that actively affirm anything progressive, and they defend their now entrenched position with identity politics and moral supremacism.

3. Education has been infiltrated by progressives, even in the Catholic sector. Schools feel emboldened to promote ‘social justice’, yet act as judge, jury and executioner whenever a young person breaks from progressive orthodoxy.

4. Young progressives in Tasmania are actively seeking to integrate their ‘student advisory board’ into Tasmania's curriculum authority (TASC), to seemingly further radicalise the curriculum.

5. There is no guarantee or protection for Catholic teaching in schools at a Commonwealth, State or Local level.

Conclusion

Australian conservatives, nationalists, and Christians must continue to shine a light on the abuses that progressives impose on our children; from drag queen story time to indoctrination within the education system, to the administration of hormone blockers to minors and emasculation in the media, we need to fight for our youth, our future.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast. Find more of his content on telegram.

The recent European Union parliamentary election showcased that far-right parties across Europe have entered the mainstream. In France, Le Pen’s National Rally secured approximately a third of the vote, over twice the vote share of French President Emmanuel Macron’s party. In response, Macron has dissolved the French parliament ahead of a snap election on June 30.

In Austria, the FPO (far right) has matched the vote share of OVP (centre right). In Italy, the Brothers of Italy have secured around 30 percent of the vote, more than doubling their seats. In the Netherlands, the PVV have overtaken the VVD and is now the largest right-wing party, reflecting their domestic success last year. Meanwhile, across Spain and Poland, both Vox and Confederation have gained a sizable share of each country’s centre-right party’s vote share.

The most astonishing result of the night, however, was found in Germany, where perhaps the most controversial elected party in the Western World, ‘Alternative for Deutschland’, gained around half the vote share of the stalwart CDU/CSU. Contrary to conventional thinking, AfD’s success did not occur in spite of the youth vote, rather it was because the AfD tied with the CDU/CSU as the most popular party for voters aged 16 to 25 years.

The success of AfD in winning over youth voters is not an isolated phenomenon, with recent domestic results across Portugal, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, and France, hard-right parties across Europe are surging in the realm of youth support.

Why have the same people, who for half a decade participated in the ‘greenwave’ of 2019, switched their loyalty to the hard right? And why are Australian hard-right parties & candidates unable to similarly win over young people?

Subscribe now

What is the hard right?

The AfD, among others, weave together the mainstream kosher conservatism of the last half century and the radical elements of the far right, into what I describe as the hard right. The hard right is the presentation of radical elements, such as immigration restrictionism, nativism, conservative social positions, and nationalism, in a way that departs from the vulgar and garish presentation the general population often associates with the ‘far-right’.

How did the hard right win young voters?

Politicians like Maximillian Krah and Jordan Bardella have set up a tangible presence meeting where young voters are at - social media. Unlike last century’s Pauline Hanson, they aren’t postulating in front of the geriatrics who have fallen asleep during Paul Murray, instead they have weaponised the viral nature of TikTok. They are also talking about the issues that matter to young people, in particular young men - masculinity, foreign policy, jobs, and most importantly, identity.

"One in three young men in Germany has never had a girlfriend. Are you one of them? Don't watch porn, don't vote green, go outside into the fresh air. Be confident. And above all, don't believe you need to be nice and soft. Real men stand on the far right. Real men are patriots. That's the way to find a girlfriend!"

- Maximilian Krah on TikTok

“German Bundeswehr soldiers are supposed to be dying in the Middle East. That's what Roderich Kiesewette, the chief foreign policy officer of the CDU/CSU wants ... We don't want those who scream for war and weapons, but we want those who think about what our German interests are ...”

- Maximilian Krah on TikTok

Subscribe now

What the Australian right can learn from Europe

The two most important lessons that parties and candidates who seek to represent patriotic, right-wing Australians can immediately implement if they wish to see similar successes to the European hard-right could be summarised as such:

1. Imitating and exceeding the professionalism of the establishment, both through visual communication, the level of experience of party members & rhetoric

2. Recognising the power of social media and allowing young party members creative liberty in their use of it (even when they’re provocative and politically incorrect)

These are two areas where Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party falls flat. It has insufficiently empowered its most active young members leaving the party devoid of fresh energy, and yet has not acquired the air of experience the major parties portray and cannot seem to throw off its reputation as the party of low-class ‘bogans’.

Subscribe now

What we can learn from Alternative for Deutschland

Another useful takeaway is the story of how Alternative for Deutschland found its beginnings. It was originally founded by three members of Germany’s centre-right CDU party, with early supporters including prominent economists, business leaders, and journalists. Within the AfD there remained centre-right moderate influences in the Alternative Mitte faction with Tino Chrupalla, Alice Weidel, and Mariana Harder-Kühnel. At the same time, a dying hard right influence through the now dissolved Der Flügel faction, with prominent members like Björn Höcke remaining influential. Max Krah, is a combination of the two, a former member of the Junge Union (junior union for CDU, similar to Australia’s Young Liberals) after German reunification. He worked for the party as a staffer and spokesman, even running for the CDU for the Bundestag in Dresden. Krah left the CDU in 2016, and joined the AfD within a month. In the near decade since, Krah has risen to become the face of the AfD in the recent European Union Parliamentary elections, melding together a radical message with an established presentation.

Krah’s rise is notable because it follows the path laid out in John Lawson’s article on Australian nationalist political strategy - in short, climbing the rungs of the establishment and then breaking away from said establishment with years of experience and political credibility intact to support an alternative party.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

To wrap up, there is much that can be learnt from the sweeping successes of the hard-right across Europe. Hope is alive for the West, the time is now to begin taking Australia back at the ballot box.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

Subscribe now

Newington College, a boy’s private school in Sydney’s inner-west, has recently come under attack by alumni over a plan to accept female enrolment into the school by 2026. This follows similar decisions by fellow methodist/presbyterian school Clayfield College in Brisbane’s inner-north which recently expanded enrolment to include boys, and various Catholic schools such as Sydney’s formerly all-boys St Mary’s Cathedral College.

The revolt by the College’s old boys has garnered some 1,400 signatures on an online petition, with the school facing the possibility of losing millions in old boy’s contributions, as well as possible legal action from parents.

To the old boys of Newington, and similar schools, their college is more than just a school. It is a place of Christian formation, a place where they make life-long friends and fond memories, and a place where they can contribute to a tradition which they hope to entrust to their own sons and grandsons after them. To introduce girls into these colleges destroys this opportunity for their progeny.

Subscribe now

To some, this reform may seem insignicant, however, what happens at schools like Newington will ripple through society for generations to come. As the graduates of schools like Newington often go on to inhabit the highest rungs of Australian business, political and social institutions, the question arises, do we want our future leaders to be moulded in an environment catered to them, or suffer the fate that typically befalls boys in co-ed schools? Would we prefer our future leaders to grow up in male-only spaces, where female sensibilities are often flaunted and where conservative, if not regressive, social positions are promoted? or do we want the next generation of leaders to be feminised by the introduction of girls into their schools?

Whatever your answers to the questions above, they may soon be irrelevant, as will be the actions of the Newington old boys and parents mentioned above. This is thanks to a report currently being produced by the Australian Law Reform Commission which is putting forward the ‘Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws: Consultation Paper (2023)’ outlining their intention to eliminate all single-sex schools.

Subscribe now

The report proposes the repeal of Section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984), which outlines all of the exemptions of the Act that apply to educational institutions established for religious purposes. The current legislation allows for religious institutions to ...

“... discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the rst‐mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.”

The report outlines the wish for the ALRC to repeal this section of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) within propositions A and B. Both propositions would eliminate the ability of private schools to adhere to Christian teachings, by removing their ability to be selective with both hiring and enrollment policies, forcing schools to adhere to a policy of absolute inclusivity. The relevant excerpts from the report are presented below:

Proposition A: Discrimination against students on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationships status, or pregnancy

1. Religious educational institutions should not be allowed to discriminate against students (current or prospective) on the grounds of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy, or on the grounds that a family member or carer has one of those attributes.

Proposition B: Discrimination against staff on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationships status, or pregnancy

1. Religious educational institutions should not be allowed to discriminate against any staff (current or prospective) on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy

This is yet another attack on Christian education, which I have catalogued extensively in my previous National Observer articles, examples include the attack on St. Ursula’s for its stance against homosexuality, and the Livingstone Christian College dress code, we can expect many more examples in the future.

To secure a Christian future for Australia, we must secure the future for individual Christians, and the uncompromising protection of our institutions.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

St. Ursula’s, Kingsgrove, a private all-girls Catholic school, has recently been catapulted into the middle of Australia’s ‘culture war’. The inner-south Sydney school recently found itself in the media’s firing line after a change.org petition gained attention, in which the disgruntled ‘partner’ of a student sought to force the school to change its decision to bar their attendance to the school’s formal.

Sydney Catholic School spokesperson stated that

“... (they) traditionally celebrate year 12 completion through events that either do not involve students bringing friends or partners, or they bring friends or partners of the opposite sex.”

Subscribe now

The Mainstream Response

Long-time National Observer readers will recognise this event as the latest in a long series of attacks on Christianity led by Australia’s political and media class. A previous article of mine, ‘The War on Christians’, explored a similar case in which then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison attacked Livingstone Christian College via talk radio for their enforcement of modest (Christian) dress codes. Todays article explores a very similar case.

In an unsurprising turn-of events, the St. Ursula’s decision to adhere to Catholic teaching has been met with similar backlash, with NSW Premier, and Marist College Kogarah Old Boy, Chris Minns publicly stated that he “think[s] in this day and age you should be able to take anyone you like to your Year 12 formal ... We are after all talking about teenagers who are close to or over the age of 18”.
Federal Education Minister, Jason Clare, went on Channel Seven’s Sunrise to proclaim that “It’s 2023”, unironically.
The minister went on to reiterate that “You should be able to take whoever you want to the year 12 farewell.”

Subscribe now

What is Homosexuality? Why is it Wrong?

Homosexuality is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) “... (as) relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” (CCC 2357).

The Catechism outlines that “(b)asing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

As alluded to in the Catechism, the Church teachings on homosexuality are sourced from Sacred Scripture. Commentary on a few passages throughout the old and new testaments is provided by a Catholic Answers articles, with an extract below.

Subscribe now

In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by re “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord (Gen. 19:13)

In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see t to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practise them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

...

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

Subscribe now

Scripture has since been expanded through divine revelation, with the writings of Aquinas illustrating that

Now, it is good for each person to attain his end, whereas it is bad for him to swerve away from his proper end. Now, this should be considered applicable to the parts, just as to the whole being; for instance, each and every one of his acts, should attain the proper end. (SCG III, 22).

Aquinas continues;

It is evident ... that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. (SCG III, 22).

Subscribe now

More broadly Catholic Ethics teach that there are two key conditions for sexual actions to be morally licit, being outlined in a document produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, which states that:

The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation afrms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between

the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman".

...
Thus, fertilization is licitly sought when it is the result of a "conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one esh". But from the moral point of view procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say of the specic act of the spouses' union.

It is clearly outlined that homosexual acts, like fornication, contraception, adultery, and masturbation, do not satisfy both preconditions, those being the unitive and procreative, which are necessary for the sexual act to be morally licit.

Subscribe now

How are we to Treat Homosexual Persons?

Liberals, when confronted with the above teachings, will often resort to Christ’s commandment to love one's neighbour as a ‘gotcha’. This raises questions regarding the definition of love, and how we are expected to treat others who are afflicted by same sex attraction.
To answer these question, we must first understand what Jesus actually said about loving one another. When a Pharisee asked Jesus what commandment in the law is the greatest, Jesus responded;

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40).

Many when considering this call to love one’s neighbour imagine that were they leading an un-Christlike life they would prefer to be left unimpeded - but is this really love? Is it loving to react permissively to our neighbour engaging in activity that is risking the eternal damnation of their soul? Is it loving to act indifferently or accept an activity contrary to nature itself?

Instead of accepting sin, Christians are called to follow the familiar aphorism ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, a modern interpretation of a statement expressed more eloquently by Aquinas in one of his letters. This idea is expanded upon in the Catechism, which states:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulll God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrice of the Lord’s Cross the difculties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them their inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Subscribe now

Capitulation and Conclusion

In the process of writing this article, the pressure placed upon St. Ursula’s by the political and media class has resulted in school administrators lifting the formal restriction.

This represents another victory to the progressive cause in their long march through Australian society, following the legalisation of gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, as well as the continual march of feminism, racial ‘justice’ and relativism.

This is a perfect example of how a lack of true Christians in leadership positions within Australian government, media and business left a Christian institution vulnerable and unguarded. The result of St. Ursula’s capitulation could devastate the ability of Christian schools nationwide to resist the leftist bully tactics which succeeded in this case, in turn imperilling the proper teaching of Christianity.

This capitulation by St. Ursula’s administrators, whilst disappointing, is a reminder to every one of us to remain steadfast in our own adherence to Christ’s teachings. We cannot let the whims of the world lead us astray from the path God wants us to walk and whatsmore we must work to put ourselves in a position to protect the Christian faith, for what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

Earlier this year I wrote an article discussing the resignation of Catholic NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet and the hostile, and ultimately stifling conditions he faced as an honest Christian in Australia’s political arena. Today, I will be discussing the resignation of another Catholic state Premier who represents a diametric opposite in the example of political leadership. I am of course referring to Daniel Andrews, former Victorian Premier from 2014 to 2023.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ recent snap resignation has led to frenzy amongst media personalities, activists, and ordinary Victorians alike, his premiership was nothing if not polarising - evidenced by the unprecedented celebrations outside of the Victorian Parliament House upon his announcement. Andrews, who first assumed the Premiership in late 2014 and led the Victorian Labor Party through three successive terms, will be best remembered for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Subscribe now

However it is important to remember that the harsh lockdown measures, vaccine mandates, and frequent press conferences are not the enduring elements of the Andrews’ Premiership, to this author at least, will be remembered for his response to the key moral dilemmas of our time.

Andrew’s reforms to Victorian society, as compiled by the ACL, reads like the policy equivalent of a deal with the devil:

• Supporting gay ‘marriage’,

• Amending laws to allow residents to change the sex on their birth certificate,

• Producing a discussion paper on a State-wide LGBTQI strategy,

• Banning evangelisation,

• Building a ‘Pride Centre’ in St. Kilda, and

• Passing the ‘Change and Suppression’ bill.

Subscribe now

Even worse than the aforementioned, Andrews served as Health minister during the passage of Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 and as Premier during the passage of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017, as well as various reforms to take Christianity out of public and private schools, replacing it with progressive dogma. Andrews, the progressive darling, was the spark that lit the fuse for leftist legislative extremism, with other States, notably Queensland, following suit in the blatant disregard of the dignity of the human being and the natural law.

The severity of the former Premier’s effect on Victoria has led one author to proclaim that Andrews has left behind “an anti-life, anti-faith, anti-Catholic legacy”. But why would Andrews, a self-proclaimed Catholic, be the main instigator in the ever-present persecution of the Catholic Faith?

To practicing Catholics, and Christians in general, Jesus answers this question in the parable of the two sons (Matt, 21: 28 - 32):

“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.

As outlined in the writings of the theologian Scott Hanh:

The first son represents the most heinous sinners of Jesus’ day — tax collectors and prostitutes — who by their sin at first refused to serve in the Lord’s vineyard, the kingdom. At the preaching of John the Baptist, they repented and did what was right and just. The second son represents Israel’s leaders—who said they would serve God in the vineyard but refused to believe John when he told them they must produce good fruits as evidence of their repentance.

Subscribe now

Daniel Andrews, the self-proclaimed Catholic, like the second son in the parable, or the scribes and pharisees of Jesus’s day, has a duty to serve Christ. As seen above, the legacy of Andrew’s Premiership, the disregard of the dignity of the human person, the natural law, and of God’s commandments, showcases the rotten, corruptible fruit of his lack of Faith - and as we well know, “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:18).

Daniel Andrews, like some many of his contemporaries, tried to placate God and the established powers of this world, the wisdom of Matthew 6:24 rings true; “no man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Andrews inevitably fell to the sway of wealth, power, and public favour, with his Premiership representing the first amongst a growing wave of Catholic persecution.

Subscribe now

If we are to be the generation to save Australia, must accept as a pre-condition of keeping the faith in post-modern Australia that one cannot serve God and mammon, we must be willing to suffer in this life for Christ, whether this be financial hardships, social ostracisation, or even martyrdom, as He did for our salvation, for “whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:27). We cannot under any circumstances allow wealth and power - both of which we will need to gather if we wish to reform our nation - erode our faith and loyalty to Christ as it did Andrews.

It is only by making this commitment that Australia, our nation, our birthright, our fatherland, the land of our ancestors, who bled and toiled to raise a nation, will once again proclaim Christ as King, for our victory is assured through Jesus Christ, for if God is for us, who is against us?

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

Last April hundreds of Queenslanders gathered in the streets outside of Parliament House to participate in the annual ‘March for Life’ protest, organised by ‘Cherish Life Queensland’. The march, popularised by the annual Washington D.C march of the same name, rallied to defend the rights of the unborn currently being trampled in the sunshine state.

Subscribe now

This year's iteration of the march was focused around opposition to the current Labor Government’s recent push to expand abortion access throughout the State. Premier Palaszczuk’s current effort to liberalise restrictions traces its origins back to 2018, when the 119-year-old “morality” section of Queensland’s criminal code was overturned - instantly legalising the barbaric practice of abortion.

The reform, heralded by feminists, social marxists and the radical left, introduced numerous deeply unpopular policies; including full-term abortion access (with only 5% of Queenslanders in agreement), babies being left to die when born alive during an abortion (10% approval among Queenslanders), sex-selection abortions (17% of Queenslanders in agreement), no counselling for vulnerable women (12% approval by Queenslanders), and forcing doctors to violate their conscience (with only 26% of Queenslanders in agreement).

Subscribe now

I am strongly pro-life, I believe the governments policies regulating abortion should strictly adhere to Catholic social teaching.
So what is my problem with the pro-life movement?

My problem is that the same liberalism that lead to Australia’s current anti-life abortion laws have taken deep root in the pro-life movement, and it was plain to see at this years ‘March for Life’ protest.

The march began with a rally, headed by special guests Dr. Joanna Howe - a Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide, Senator for Queensland Matt Canavan, and former Senator for Queensland Amanda Stocker, who stood on the tray bed of a ute displaying a sign that declared “PRO-LIFE = PRO-WOMAN”.

Subscribe now

This sentiment permeated the speeches, Mr. Canavan’s being a notable exception. Dr Howe mentioned her radical feminist past, with no mention of a change of heart, only that she had been woken up by a South Australian parliamentary debate surrounding babies being born alive during abortions and Dr. Howe boldly stated that the government should offer financial support and free childcare, amongst many other liberal talking points which would have fit right in at any leftist protest. The prevalence of this ideological liberalism continued in Mrs. Stocker’s address to the crowd, during which she made sure to point out the ‘hypocrisy’ of the ‘left's’ appeal to human rights in their advocation for abortion - before stating that the anti-abortion movement was “the real pro-choice movement, because we are the pro-real-choice”!

The rally, like most Australian centre-right political activities, was defensive, being reactive to and appealing to ideological liberalism and feminist thought. I appreciated the sentiment expressed by Senator Canavan: the pro-life movement must make the shift to its front foot, forgetting the current back-footed attempt to please a left wing which will never agree with us. It would do the broader pro-life movement well to internalise this advice.

Subscribe now

I do not want to be a part of “the real pro-choice movement”, I am not a radical feminist - In fact, I want to be a part of whatever movement sits diametrically opposite the pro-choice movement, I want to be as far away as possible from feminist doctrine.

The pro-life movement must be proactive in advocating for the unborn. Have the leaders of the radically left-wing ‘pro-choice’ movement ever expressed concern for what pro-life Christian, right-wingers believe? No, absolutely not. Rather, they put forward their point of view boldly, without any concern for the negative opinion of their opposition - and guess what? Last I checked it wasn’t the tepid pro-life movement bending the legal code to their will nationwide.

The foundation of our opposition to mass slaughter of the unborn is our faith in Christ and the magisterium of His church, not belief in liberal-feminism - remembering and applying this is the only way Australia’s pro-life movement will have any chance at victory.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

Last week’s New South Wales State election and resultant Labor victory has led to a flurry of activity, the media punditry have spared no time in giving Australians their spin on this elections consequences for the Liberal Party.

On Sky News, Peta Credlin lambasted former Premier Dominic Perrottet’s lack of ‘conservative values’. Particularly egregious to Credlin and fellow host Andrew Clennell was Mr. Perrottet’s stance on privatisation, attacking him for his departure from party orthodoxy. This line about the former Premier’s lack of ‘conservative principles’ was repeated frequently throughout the election night coverage, being held up by Australia’s ‘right wing’ media as the primary reason for the Liberal Party’s loss.

Subscribe now

Meanwhile, audiences of left-wing publications were told the exact opposite. The overriding analysis by ‘left wing’ media was that Perrottet’s election flop comes as a consequence of the Liberal party being too ‘conservative’. While channel surfing Foxtel this week I stumbled across Channel 10’s current affairs show The Project, on which an unrecognised pundit was parroting the ‘too conservative’ diagnosis verbatim. The breadth of this assertion is showcased best by David Llewellyn-Smith’s recent post published in MacroBusiness elucidating that the Liberal party’s problems all stem from their “... (becoming) more troglodyte socially, more hostile to science, and more corrupt”. Going so far as to predict that their next electoral victory will not occur until 2040, with Matt Keane as Prime Minister.

Subscribe now

The contradiction in the punditry between the ‘right’ and ‘left’ media raises two questions pertinent to us members of the ideological right that fall outside the Liberal party’s narrow boundaries of acceptable thought:
First, what was the true cause of Dominic Perrortet’s election defeat?
and Second, what is the future of the Liberal party?

To address the first; insofar as Perrottet’s election defeat was a product of his ideological conservatism, it is this author’s opinion that Dominic Perrottet is a honourable man in a dishonourable time. No one can fault Mr. Perrottet as a Catholic or as a man, his faults lie in his role as a politician. The nature of politics is inherently feminine, where compromise is frequent though never reciprocated, where greed and envy reign over fortitude and prudence. I cannot blame Mr. Perrottet for trying to navigate through the vexing and turbulent sea of politics while holding onto the faith. Nonetheless, there comes a point where we all ought to realise that Australia’s political game is thoroughly rigged against anyone who’s faith or beliefs run countercurrent to social liberalism. Despite any mans best effort to infiltrate and reform parts of the system, failure is inevitable. Time and again well intentioned Australians have attempted to reform our system only to discover the insurmountable barriers that guard the political establishment. Whether by election loss or party expulsion the status quo seems to win every time - and any reforms made are only a vote away from being unravelled.
In other words, so long as Perrottet wasn’t in complete alignment and submission to the modern liberal status quo, his ousting was inevitable.

Subscribe now

This leads into my second question, the question of the Liberal party’s future. The question of whether the Liberal party has a future after loosing federal government in 2022 and now every state government on the mainland has become unignorable. A collapse of the Liberal party would be very beneficial to right wing minor parties along with any Christian, right-winger unrepresented by the supposedly ‘centre-right’ Liberal Party.

To me, this question is ultimately meaningless. I can only offer speculation as to whether the Liberal party will disintegrate tomorrow or last 100 years, so I will not give my opinion.
What I can say for certain, however, is that the same choices presented to good men throughout all of history are still present today. For a young right-wing, Christian there are two paths available if he wishes to take his beliefs into the real world. The first is to perpetuate the status quo, fall for the smoke and mirrors of Australian political theatre - join a major party or establishment news network and play along. This is the path most choose, it presents no real threat, no real danger and requires minimal sacrifice – not to mention it can be quite lucrative.
The other path, the road less traveled, is unwavering opposition to the established system, a radical stance opposed to any form of compromise. Such a path requires material sacrifice on the part of the man who chooses it, and presents next to no opportunity for reward.

Subscribe now

You’re probably wondering why on earth someone would willingly choose this second path. The simple answer is: because the second path is the consequence of telling the truth - and we refuse to lie. Demographic change and ever-growing restrictions on right wing thought mean the time to steer our nation away from disaster is rapidly running out, soon Australia’s decline will become irreversible.
Our generation may be the last that can alter Australia’s destiny and bring forth the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on Earth - For in the same way a city built on a hill cannot be hidden, neither can the truth of Jesus Christ be hidden in our hearts and minds. We must be courageous, we must act honestly. We can no longer afford to cower, afraid of the material costs of truth - let us hold at the forefront of our mind the fact that the treasures of Earth are susceptible to rust, consumption and theft, the treasures of heaven are not. We ought not be afraid to give our lives to Christ, like St John the Baptist and all the martyrs of the Church, we must stand firm in the faith, and “not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

We need not concern ourselves with when a political party might fall, or if a political system will provide us an opportunity to affect change. Rather we need only focus on doing what is right, whatever the consequences will be. The outcome of our struggle with earthly powers should not concern us - for through Christ the victory has already been won. God has promised He will never present us with a challenge we cannot overcome, and so long as we never lose faith in Jesus Christ and follow his commandments at every turn, there is no one who can stop us. After all, if Christ is for us, who can be against us? Liberal Party be damned.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

Recently, the Guardian reported a stunning development in the voice to parliament campaign…

The no campaign in this year’s voice referendum will propose a symbolic constitutional recognition of both Indigenous people and migrants, instead of an Indigenous voice to parliament, Warren Mundine has revealed.

Mundine, a leading organiser of the no campaign, said it will run on a slogan of “recognise a better way”, proposing to insert an acknowledgment in the preamble of the constitution, via another referendum.

Subscribe now

As noted in the article, this recognition was rejected in the 2017 Uluru statement from the heart.

Many will rightfully ask, how will constitutional recognition solve even one of the many problems facing the aboriginal community? As The National Observer has previously reported, the crime spike in aboriginal communities is astonishing - and that’s just for starters. Need I mention the astoundingly low employment rates, education standards, rampant addiction or health problems? All these obstacles stand between Aboriginal communities and becoming functioning members of Australian society. The solution? a “symbolic constitutional recognition of both Indigenous people and migrants” apparently. So far Mundine has yet to elucidate just how constitutional recognition will solve the violent crime, mass apostasy of faith, and lack of opportunities for these communities: who would have thought that between Aboriginal Australians and success the only barrier was a lack of recognition in the constitution!

Subscribe now

Of course, this is ludicrous. Constitutional recognition will not meaningfully address the problems of Aboriginal Australia - but this is not to say it will have no effect at all. Constitutional recognition for aboriginals and immigrants will disadvantage White Australians.
Ultimately recognition means legitimisation; If Aboriginals and immigrants are recognised in the constitution; ownership and legal protections necessarily follow. This radical redefinition of Australian identity will have drastic implications, for example granting further legitimacy towards movements like “Pay the Rent” (ironic in light of the disproportionate amount of welfare the Aboriginal population already receive). Likewise, recognition of immigrants in the constitution may limit the availability of deportation as a punishment for criminal aliens and halt any potential legislation to restrict immigration in the future. Lastly, this proposal will open the door to further progressive reforms to the constitution. With the current anti-White culture, it is easy to imagine how this may have drastic implications for our future.

Subscribe now

The proposal championed by Mundine, who ran for the seat of Gilmore in 2019 on the Liberal ticket, seeks to coalesce all of the opposition groups into his position on the proposed referendum. Mundine’s groups, Recognise a Better Way and the Voice No Committee, have already found support from the ranks of former Coalition members. John Anderson, former deputy prime minister (1999-2005), is a member of the latter.

Some readers may ask, why is the Coalition abandoning its predominantly White and Christian base and advocating for Aboriginals and immigrants, who often do not vote for the LNP. In reality, this is not at all surprising, observant readers will recognise this all-too-familiar pattern in Australian conservative politics.

Subscribe now

The Liberal party’s first election win in 1949 metaphorically drove a bulldozer to the front yard of the White Australia Policy, stepped out of the cabin, and handed the Whitlam government the keys with a thumbs up. The demolition of the White Australia Policy affected a fundamental and permanent change in Australian society, the results of which we live in today. This is exemplified by the recent violent street brawl between rival ethnic groups in the middle of Federation Square; quite poetic. This author predicts that the campaign will focus on how White people are ‘immigrants’ to Australia in order to convince them that their interests are being considered. They are not. This proposed constitutional recognition will favour the post-1975 non-White immigrants, another nail in the coffin of White Australia.

All this does not even make mention of the restrictions Howard’s coalition government enacted on Australian gun owners or the Turnbull government’s 2017 promulgation of gay marriage in Australia - possibly one of the greatest betrayals by a conservative government of its voter base.

Subscribe now

I hope this article has given insight into why the liberal party’s support for constitutional recognition is not all that surprising. They never have been a conservative party, and at this rate never will be. For the sake of all Australians citizens, and for the sake of its own survival, the Liberal party seriously needs to become a genuine opposition party - because in a choice between the ‘original brand’ Labor party and the Liberal party’s ‘Aldi-brand Labor’ attempt, no one is picking Liberal.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

The FIFA World Cup is the largest event in the world; generating billions in revenue for host nations, sponsors, and the governments. The 2018 World Cup hosted in Russia reached over 3.5 Billion people. The size and scope of the World Cup, and football in general affords an unmatched opportunity to peacefully affect geo-politcs and culture. The World Cup can grant nations, brands and individuals a unique opportunity to garner prestige, legitimacy and influence for themselves.

Subscribe now

This effect can be best observed through the influence that multinational energy corporation Gazprom, a Russian majority state-owned energy company, has been able to wield. Gazprom’s campaign has been wildly successful, through sponsorships, stadiums and competitions the company has cemented itself as a household name throughout Europe and contributed greatly to the expansion of Russian energy exports. This influence was only furthered by Russia’s hosting of the 2018 World Cup.

Gulf nation Qatar likely had similar intentions to Russia in choosing to host the 2022 World Cup, hosting the globally renowned event is a great way to legitimise a nation on the global stage and, of course boost Qatar’s energy exports.

Subscribe now

Of course, the World Cup and its influence over billions of people is not solely subject to the host nation; several European nations planned to use the event to push the LGBT agenda in the socially traditional Islamic nation, using the ‘One Love’ Campaign. Initiated by the Dutch Football Association, the campaign was swiftly adopted by England, Wales, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Denmark all indicating that they would wear the ‘One Love’ armband to support gay rights.

Subsequently FIFA responded by stating that any player wearing the above-mentioned armband will face disciplinary action and yet, seemingly unperturbed, the players persisted with their activism. Notable examples are England captain Harry Kane’s $1 million dollar rainbow Rolex, the German team posing for the team photo with their mouth covered and the German Interior Minister wearing the outlawed armband.

Subscribe now

This type of politicisation of sport is not unique to football or the World Cup, a fact most Australians are all too familiar with. Local examples include the frequent Aboriginal AFL and NRL rounds, gay pride rounds in the AFLW, and the controversial sacking of rugby ‘Wallaby’ player Israel Falau on account of his religious views.

All of these events raise an important question, why is sport such a common venue for political activism? There are many valid answers to this question though i’m sure that, like myself, many readers immediately began thinking of the identifying characteristics of a sports team and its supporters: notably that these people have assembled voluntarily and enthusiastically to achieve a popular, uncontroversial and apolitical goal. Further, especially in the example of the World Cup, a team and its supporters are representatives of a nation, giving those who advertise products and politics through the team a chance to symbolically place their imprint on the given nations identity.

Subscribe now

There are other great reasons someone wishing to promote their agenda would use televised sports as their medium. We have extensive documentation that Television has a numbing effect on the brain, placing humans in a more relaxed and inattentive condition. Jerry Mander, an author and advertising expert, documents how television slows down the viewers brainwaves; placing them in a more passive and non-resistant state. It is easy to understand how and why this passivity and non-resistance is desirable to those pushing once-controversial political and social messages. Don’t believe this effect is real? Try talking to someone who watches a lot of tv and count the number of original thoughts they espouse, you won’t need many fingers.

The fellowship of sports has supplanted the natural inclinations of many. Where once stood heroes, statesmen, and nations; now stand athletes, managers and teams. Once figures like St. Louis, St. Joan of Arc and St. Therese of Lisieux would animate and inspire their nations; now figures like Karim Benzema and Kylian Mbappe inhabit that role. This is not a trivial replacement, as national heroes in any time influence cultural norms and acceptable behaviours, the piety, chastity and temperance of Christian saints has given way to the licentiousness promoted by sexual deviants. Where faithfulness to God and the Christian sense of duty to one's nation once elevated the national psyche, now the gratification of one's basest instincts numb the minds of millions. Now, not content with transforming their home countries, our activist sportsmen now seek to throw out the customs, religion and traditions of Qatar, somehow I don’t think lgbt pride will flourish quite so well in the Middle East as the West.

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

On a warm Sunday afternoon in Austin, Texas, Max Verstappen crossed the finish line in first place, ensuring the first constructors’ title for Red Bull in Formula 1 since 2013. This joyous moment for the team was a bittersweet moment, as this occurred less than twenty-four hours after Red Bull owner, Dietrich Mateschitz, passed away after a long term illness.

How the Media is Portraying Mateschitz

A cursory glance at the media's reporting on the death of the late Austrian billionaire will showcase a common trend; a focus solely on his business exploits. The focus on Mateschitz’s business acumen is portrayed by a Reuters article, describing Mateschitz as “... (a) self-made billionaire (who) was considered a marketing genius.” The article elaborates that this ‘genius’ is a particular fascination on the importance of branding; with the Red Bull brand being synonymous with an ‘extreme’ image. This image was carefully crafted and cultivated around “... adventure sports like surfing, mountain biking and cliff diving ...”. The article continues by describing how Mateshitz’s focus on branding has dominated the world of sports; such as motorsports, soccer, esports, etc. The article concludes with speculation around the consequences of Mateschitz death on the Red Bull empire.

Subscribe now

The Real Mateschitz

Not much is mentioned in the Reuters article about the real Dietrich, aside from a brief mention that very “(l)ittle is known about Mateschitz's private life. He was publicity shy and rarely gave interviews.” However, this is not altogether true. Despite Mateschitz’s reclusive nature, much was known about his political opinions. In a 2017 interview with Austrian newspaper Kleine Zeitung, the Austrian magnate stated his view on German and Austrian migration policy by pointing out that "(n)one of the people shouting 'refugees welcome' or 'we can do it' were preparing their own guest rooms or tents in their gardens to accommodate half a dozen migrants''. In the same interview, the Austrian billionaire also aired his support for then US President Donald Trump and condemned the influence of political correctness in the media.

Subscribe now

Some readers may think that Mateschitzs personal views were just that, his personal views; privately held beliefs that had no impact on his business life.
This is not the case, the Austrian billionaire launched a television station called Servus TV in 1995; since then the station has frequently been criticised for allowing ‘right-wing extremists’ to feature on the station. Der Standard reported that Mateschitz was directly involved in the political nature of the network and had installed an ideological ally in Ferdinand Wegscheider to run the company.

Mateschitzs’ political influence was not limited to his smaller companies, he also installed his political leanings into his crown jewel of RedBull.

Subscribe now

In the run up to the 2020 US Presidential election, multiple race riots unfolded across America. The impact of these riots was not only a tremendous amount of property damage and civil disorder, but also a meaningful impact in the structure of American life. One of the more crucial demands of the movement was a reformation of corporate America’s labour practices. The vast majority of companies, especially large companies, sought to ‘remedy’ perceived inequalities within their companies with discriminatory hiring practices. However, when American Red Bull executives Stefan Kozak and Amy Taylor lobbied Red Bull to cultivate a more diverse and inclusive work environment and criticised the companies silence of BLM; they were promptly fired. Sources claim when Taylor wanted to increase the black representation at the company, that the leadership was not interested and that she was ‘met with opposition’.

Subscribe now

Why is the Media Omitting Mateschitz Views?

As Mateschitz’s political views were widely reported in both German and English media, the question remains; why did Reuters omit this from their article? It might be due to a sense of reverence for the deceased? Maybe. More likely, however, it is out of an attempt to subvert the legacy of Mateschitz. This raises an important question, why would there need to be a subversion of Mateschitz’s legacy?

Many observant readers may already understand the nature of politics; that it is a game played exclusively by the elite, individuals like George Soros, Henry Laufer, or Sheldon Adelson who exercise influence on both sides of American politics. The power and influence that the elite wield leaves little room for dissent; nonetheless we increasingly observer the rise of so called ‘class traitor’s. A class traitor being a member of the elite who accepts alienation from the broader ‘elite’ in order to advocate for an interest contrary to that of the elites.

Subscribe now

The perfect example of a class traitor is Donald Trump, who, in choosing to descended the golden escalator of his ‘ivory’ tower and promise that as US President he would fight for overlooked Americans, alienated himself from his fellow billionaires and ‘elites’. The system he had once been at home in immediately turned on him and the elite-owned media waged a jihad upon the Trump campaign and presidency.
This assault on Trump did not cease with his 2020 election “loss”, yet despite this we continue to see echoes of Trump’s bravery rippling through the cultural and business elite.
When Ye (formerly Kanye West) displayed support for then president Donald Trump during his White House visit, the media attacked Ye for being delusional. More recently, when Ye began to discuss Jewish power in the cultural, financial and business sectors; Ari Emmanuel led a campaign to destroy Ye’s empire.

In a similar manner, Elon Musk’s recent acquisition of the social media giant Twitter has bought forth media attack. The opportunity that Musk’s Twitter opens to critics of our political elite is a threat to the media monopoly the elite currently possess. It should come as no surprise that in response to the news Musk has been threatened with potential national security reviews, advertisement boycotts and celebrity protests.

The example set by Donald Trump and continued by Ye and Elon Musk make clear the consistent response by the elite to a class traitor. Class traitors can expect defamation, subversion, attacks, legal barrage and financial shutdown for their transgressions. It is this phenomenon that explains and illustrates the media's omission in the reporting of Mateschitz’s death. The cover up of the late Red Bull owner’s true opinions is only a recent addition to the ever-growing list of attempts to erase the legacy of class traitors.

Will Donald Trump, Ye West and Elon Musk’s rebellion against the West’s elites succeed, or will their legacy more closely resemble that of Dietrich Mateschitz?

Written by Matthew Fischer, co-host of the Backbench Drivers podcast

Livingstone Christian college has recently come under attack from the Guardian over its stance on Christian morality. The Gold Coast private school launched an internal investigation into the case of a teacher promoting cohabitation (CCC 2284, CCC 2353) to her students, which has attracted the attention of the Queensland Human Rights Commission and the State Government. Unfortunately but not unsurprisingly the Commission is taking this opportunity to advocate for the overhaul of current legislation which affords all religious organisations the ability to discriminate on the basis of employee actions.

Subscribe now

The consequences of this measure would open all religious institutions in Queensland to be infiltrated by potentially hostile agents or face the wrath of the justice system. Further, Queensland education minister Grace Grace has suggested that the powers of the independent schools’ regulator should be expanded in order to ‘protect and support’ students in the sector. This protection will presumably only apply to students and teachers the Labor party has deemed oppressed; minorities, sexual deviants and non-Christians who will be given a mandate by the government to infiltrate and destroy Christian institutions.

Many observant readers may recognise the similarities between this situation and the case from earlier this year. Citipointe Christian School, another Queensland private school also came under attack for their student policies based on Christian morality. The Carindale school issued an enrolment contract that asked parents to denounce homosexuality as sinful (Leviticus 18:22) and recognises students by their true gender (Genesis 5:2). The school also enforced a dress code that restricted students to the uniform of their gender (Dueteronomy 22:5). All of these measures are based on biblical teaching and have been ingrained within Western Civilisation for two millennia. However, when Australia’s pentecostal prime minister Scott Morrison was asked his opinion on the matter, he responded with “I don’t support that” and he further elaborated that he didn’t want his daughters' school enforcing similar Christian morality.

Subscribe now

The discrimination against Christians is not just limited to private schools, it has also affected those in the corporate world. Essendon’s recently departed CEO Andrew Thorburn was given a choice between his faith and his career, he chose his faith. The usual crowd of news media pundits, left-wing politicians, and political activists were gleeful that they had secured another scalp in the culture war. Many thought that with Scott Morrisons’s loss in the 2022 election and the subsequent leadership election of the Liberal party's right wing faction leader Peter Dutton, that the party would come out in support of Thornburn. However, these people would be dismayed by the recent statements made by the Liberal party leader Peter Dutton.

As reported in the Spectator, Peter Dutton has sided against Christians with Thornburn’s dismissal. The opposition leader responded to the controversy by siding with Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews in attacking the departed Thornburn; Dutton proceeded to denounce the core Christian moral principles on homosexuality and abortion as ‘an abomination’.

Subscribe now

All these recent incidents of anti-Christian discrimination and more importantly the subsequent responses they garnered from the Liberal party demonstrates a clear rejection of basic Christian morality throughout this nation's political class. Long time observers of Australian politics shouldn’t be surprised by this, the Liberal party is responsible for legalising both no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. The only consolation that the coalition government has offered to its Christian base is the ‘Religious Freedom’ bill, a neutered bill where any actual benefit to Christians was removed out of fear of a moderate revolt in the Liberal party room.

Australian Christians spend their lives working and providing for their children. The cost of private education is not negligible for most families, but parents are willing to make this sacrifice for their children. Is it too much for Christians to expect their political representatives in the coalition to aid them in supporting their children? Apparently so. The Liberal party proves time and again that it would rather vilify and demean Christians for temporary political gain.
Why Christians should support the Liberal party, when the Liberal party does not support us?