When commentators bring up free speech they really mean restrictions on polemic delivered to "other than private" audiences by members of the bourgeoisie.
We Proles are not encumbered by political correctness, we don't see ourselves as connected in any way to the upper classes nor do we aspire to their social mores or way of life.
As the author points out the scenario keeping the bourgeois voter awake at night is not a breakdown in social cohesion it's a unification of the ethnic subaltern and economic underclasses inspired by demagogues and subversive elements from the proletariat.

Yeah Johno de

We, the Broederbond * of the Liberal-National Party's (Abbott lovin) extreme, demand to be liberated from DG ASIO, Mr Lewis's, polite suggestions of moderation and humanity.

We demand freedom to be hateful and intolerant like our hot pinup girl Saint Pauline of Ipswich.

Merry Christmas

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Broederbond

Jay Of Melbourne,
Can we have a translation into Australian vernacular please.

David

David,
Social cohesion is a liberal concept designed to protect Bourgeois and Elite interests.
Those upper strata of society use political correctness as a tool of repression against the workers,the welfare underclass and some ethnic minorities, an iron fist in a velvet glove if you will.
Their biggest fear is not disunity across the board it's ethnocentrism among the lower classes and class solidarity among ethnic groups led by demagogues and subversives from among the educated and skilled workers.

Another well reasoned and extremely well written article by John de Meyrick.

I found that his most interesting fact was that Muslim countries completely reject the notion of Human Rights. This brings up the oddity, that the people in Australia who consider the International Declaration of Human Rights as the new Ten Commandments, are the ones most fanatical in defending Muslims.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

It is just amazing how ideologues can completely ignore any inconvenient truth which contravenes their ideology. Even when that truth poses a direct threat to their own ideologies continued existence, nothing less than total adherence to the sacred texts of the ideological ideal can be accepted.

Lefties claim that they believe in free speech, and then they demand the importation of people into Australia who are the very ones most opposed to free speech. They do this because the "right" of non discrimination apparently trumps the "right" of free speech. When the very people they imported demand an end to free speech, then instead of attacking the values and beliefs of the people they demanded must be imported, the Lefties agree that free speech must be curtailed. They do this because to criticise the people they demanded should be imported could be seen as racism, and racism is complete and total anathema to their ideology.

It just goes to show how stupid people think. Stupid people demand moral absolutes to guide their lives because they are too stupid to want to even think about changing the principles which guide their lives. The idea that changing times will always obligate a rethink of those principles to allow for changing circumstances, is heresy.

Maybe this is another reason why lefties favour Muslims. Lefties and Muslims both believe in unchanging moral absolutes. As two groups of totally stupid people, they have a natural affinity for each other.

In terms of Left or Right it matters which direction you head off, the journey in either concludes where they meet up at Totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is where opportunity to believe, to think, or to speak differently to others is condemned.

Is free speech enough ?

For decades Commonwealth purports its' claim of Constitutional authority to qualify rights and responsibilities of Australians using Racial Identification as their measure.

Commonwealth authority maintains their segregation of our family - all Australians by birth.

Commonwealth's refusal of legal assistance protects their pretense of legality for apartheid and segregationist policies from challenge.

While Commonwealth seeks a vote to support their racist policies, to approve their segregating Australian families.

Is it Parliament or the People Voting Who amend our Constitution ?

IF Commonwealth successful must we wear racial labels ?

.