The Australian government, mainstream media, and social media companies constantly warn us about the “dangerous rise of right-wing extremism” and the “negative influences” spreading online, particularly among young men. But I’m not convinced this alarm stems from any genuine concern for public safety. Of course, much of it is projection. In fact, it seems far more about maintaining control over the narrative.
While they condemn extremism, these same institutions systematically censor and suppress Christian voices offering a thoughtful, principled, and non-violent alternative to everything they say they’re afraid of. If they truly cared about preventing so-called extremism, they would be elevating these voices, not silencing them. If they were truly worried about radicalisation, they would be thanking us, not silencing us. They would be elevating responsible voices that provide young men with purpose, community, and conviction without resorting to unjustified violence.
Instead, they paint all right-leaning perspectives with the same brush — extremist, dangerous, and potentially violent — regardless of what we actually say or stand for. Anyone who questions the dominant cultural orthodoxy is smeared, regardless of the content or character of their message.
By collapsing all dissent into one category, they erase all distinctions; that way, they can treat even the mildest among us as the very worst. The result is an increasingly narrow public square, where only approved opinions are permitted to exist. This blanket condemnation reveals their true motive is not protecting the public, but neutralising dissent.
If our leaders truly valued democracy, free thought, and open debate, they would recognise that many on the right are offering young men something meaningful — a vision of order, purpose, and responsibility grounded in faith, history, and moral truth. These are not violent or destabilising ideas; they are civilising ones. But because they challenge the ideological monopoly of progressivism, they are treated as threats to be extinguished rather than contributions to be respected.
If they genuinely cared about the things they pretend to care about, they would support our freedom to join the debate, even if they disagreed with our philosophy or theology. Their refusal to do so shows that “combating extremism” is less about public safety and more about silencing their political opposition.
And it is this refusal to distinguish between extremism and Christian conviction that reveals the real objective here is not the protection of the public, but the preservation of power. The “war on right-wing extremism” has become a convenient instrument for silencing dissent, not for safeguarding democracy. The suppression of Caldron Pool on virtually every social media outlet is proof of that.
