Antifa and the Australian Government Try to Frame Thomas Sewell

Antifa and the Australian Government Try to Frame Thomas Sewell

In an excellent bit of research and analysis David Hiscox over at ‘XYZ’ has taken a look at the charges against the Australian National Socialist leader and current political prisoner Thomas Sewell about whom I wrote recently.

In my article on the charges against Sewell I noted that what Sewell and the members of European Australian Movement (EAM) and/or the National Socialist Network (NS) were doing:

‘Appears to have been preventing an attempt to dox (and thus attempt to ruin the lives of) members of the EAM and/or NSN by several ‘random individuals’ who ‘happened to recognize’ some of the iconography (doubtful but anyway) at a car park near Sugarloaf Peak, Victoria and some of the group believed – rightly or wrongly – that several ‘random individuals’ were actually members of the violent terrorist group Antifa.’

This was conjecture on my part based upon the outline of events given to us by Australia’s mainstream media – specifically ABC – as quite frankly I didn’t really see there was much to dig into beyond the facts that the specific claims made about Sewell and the members of EAM and NSN didn’t seem quite right but I assumed it was probably not much more to it than an accidental encounter that ‘went wrong’.

I am happy to say that through his research and cross-checking Hiscox has proven my assumption about it being ‘accidental’ quite false even if my suspicion about the whole issue of why ‘random individuals’ would know the iconography of the EAM and the NSN from a ‘media report’ even if you had a really good memory proved to be valid.

To save time I’ll quote Hiscox at length here as he should get the full credit for these discoveries and not me.

He first goes on to describe - as I argued in my article - how Sewell’s arrest and the refusal to grant him bail is based purely on his political beliefs and not his alleged ‘violence’ or any actual thread community:

‘He has been denied bail on the pretext that he is apparently “violent”, this this characterisation is based solely on his political beliefs and ignores the context of actions he has taken in self-defence.

Examination of the evidence put against him, gleaned from publicly available documents, strengthens the case that he has been jailed for his political beliefs given that the evidence is so contradictory. Furthermore, it appears the point of the whole exercise is to keep him in prison on charges that they won’t be able to convict him for.’

Hiscox then goes on to point out that Jacob Hersant – an associate of Sewell’s and a fellow National Socialist – had already stated that he believed that the ‘victims’ were actually members and/or associates of the domestic terrorist group Antifa:

‘The police are basing their evidence on witness statements from alleged victims. These alleged victims cannot be described due to the suppression order.

Jacob Hersant has stated publicly that the alleged victims are “anti-fascists” before the suppression order.’

While this was an unsupported allegation at the time Hiscox then goes on to explain why we should take Hersant’s statement seriously:

‘The police have not sought, nor do they have any statements from the “about 25 White supremacist men” that are said to have been present during the alleged offending.’

Hiscox then goes on to highlight the significant disparity between what the charges that the Australian police and prosecutors have brought against Sewell and the actual evidence they have:

‘The Prosecution admits inconsistencies in witness statements from alleged victims:

“But under cross-examination, the detective acknowledged there were inconsistencies in the hikers’ statements and that investigators couldn’t definitively say which of the neo-Nazis produced weapons or demanded the phones.” – The Age

One example of inconsistent evidence is the reporting by news.com that the alleged victims offered their phones to the alleged attackers:

“The hikers “pleaded” with the attackers, saying “What do you want?” and offering them their phones before managing to drive away and call police, he said.”

Were the phones offered by the alleged victims or were they stolen by the alleged attackers?

Police have seized a number of knives from Sewell’s bedroom, but have not linked any of them to the alleged offending:

Det Sen Const Taylor said police found hunting knives and an axe in Sewell’s bedroom and knuckledusters in his car, and have concerns that he is becoming increasingly erratic, volatile and violent. – SBS News

“Concerns” based on the the charactersiation of his political beliefs as violent. Furthermore, no stolen goods have been found in possession of alleged offenders:

“Mr Sewell is the only person charged over the attack but the investigation continues. The hikers’ phones weren’t recovered.” – The Age’

In other words, they have ‘victims’ stating they freely gave their phones to Sewell and the EAM and/or NSN members but other ‘victims’ are stating Sewel and his associates ‘stole’ them. They also cannot find the alleged knife that Sewell is supposed to have had and they haven’t located any ‘stolen goods’ or phones that there we not Sewell’s.

So, in summary: they have fuck all evidence.

Now Hiscox turns to Hersant’s allegation that the ‘victims’ were actually Antifa members and/or associates:

‘Intriguingly, the alleged victims admit they identified the organisation the alleged offenders belong to and what their political beliefs are:

“Detective Senior Constable Michael Taylor told the court that the hikers had crossed paths with the neo-Nazis in the park and that a bushwalker remarked to friends that the Caucasian men in black T-shirts must have been “the Nazis in the Grampians”.” – The Age

“The hikers saw between 15 and 20 white men all wearing the same black T-shirt with a white supremacist symbol on it and suspected they were neo-Nazis, the court heard.” news.com

Going off these two snippets, these “bushwalkers” do not sound like normies. Ordinary people would not make an assumption that a group of guys in black T-shirts were Nazis. What about this so-called “white supremacist symbol” on the the T-shirts? The blokes do seem to have a black T-shirt bearing a White cross.

The cross on their T-shirt could thus very well be meant to represent White Supremacy, not that there is anything wrong with that. But that isn’t the point. The point is that normal people wouldn’t see a bunch of White guys wearing black T-shirts with a cross on them and immediately assume they were “neo-Nazis”. Normal people would assume that they are a youth group or a football club doing team building.

To reach a conclusion such as this suggests a political mindset, it suggests a left-wing political mindset and a very radical one at that. So radical in fact that when you see a bunch of White guys in black T-shirts with a White cross on them climbing a mountain, you become so suspicious that you start filming them:

“As they left in two separate cars, one of the alleged victims used his phone to record a video of the group, which he recognised from news stories.” – ABC

This casts doubt on the reason given by some of the alleged victims who are refusing to give sworn statements:

“Some hikers were “petrified” of reprisal attacks and had not given statements, the detective said.” – The Age

In contrast, it makes it sound like the alleged victims have something to hide. Furthermore, it makes it sound like the police have something to hide – if the alleged victims are indeed politically affiliated, it could indicate collusion between the police and possible left wing political activists.’

What Hiscox is pointing out is here is something I noticed in my own analysis of the claims in that it is impossible to reconcile how the victims were ‘random individuals’ but yet somehow knew the iconography of the EAM and/or NSN so exactly that they were able to instantly recognize it at distance and didn’t even feel the need to check to see if it might be some other similar iconography or symbolism.

Further the fact that – as I also noted – at least some of the ‘victims’ are now apparently worried about ‘reprisal attacks’ or ‘worried for their safety’ is distinctly odd as – for example – I have given evidence to the police on numerous occasions in my life and also had to testify in court on multiple occasions and never once have I felt ‘intimidated’ or ‘scared of reprisals’. Oh, and before some smart aleck suggests I am a career criminal; the reason I’ve done it this so much is because I seem to have a habit of witnessing significant car accidents and – when I was an undergraduate and used to go out drinking – assaults in cities.

Hiscox then moves on to the significant evidence of Antifa involvement and planning of the incident:

‘This is important because both the Prosecution and police explicitly state that none of the alleged victims have ties to the left-wing or anti-fascists:

About 3.40pm one of the hikers took a video of the men as they were getting back to their car to leave and then heard a shout of ‘Antifa!’, police allege.

“There is no intelligence that (the hikers) are part of any left-wing or Antifa organisation,” Detective Senior Constable Taylor said. – news.com

“None of the six hikers have any ties to any left-wing organisations including Antifa.” – SBS News

There is evidence which could directly contradict this, and it comes directly from Antifa-affiliated activists. Anti-fascist influencer Tom Stephens, who posts under the alias Tom Tanuki, made a Twitter post which included the exact location of the alleged offending, named the organisation involved in the alleged offending, and stated an approximate number of the organisation’s members that were at the location. This post was made at 3:58 pm, only twenty minutes after the alleged offending. Tom Stephens was not present during the alleged offending.

Tom Tanuki appears worried how this looks, so he has confirmed that he posted the information 20 minutes after the incident occurred and that he got the information from a “local news report”.

This would require both himself and “a local newspaper” to really have their finger on the pulse. Note that he does not specify which local newspaper and which report. Put simply, it is difficult to believe and definitely warrants further investigation.

Given that the statements of the alleged “witnesses” indicate a potential far left political mindset, and given that Antifa openly admit that they posted critical details about the alleged event a mere 20 minutes after it occurred, this casts doubt on the reason the alleged witnesses were at the Cathedral Ranges in the first place.’

So basically Tom Stephens – aka Tom Tanuki – managed to know the exact location, the organisation involved and how many members of the of the organisations were there only twenty minutes after it happened. He claims after the fact that there was a ‘news report’ but naturally is completely unable to produce one because… well… journalists aren’t that fast as anyone who has ever worked around them knows due precisely to issues of legal implications of specific claims and having to fact check a claimed event before publishing and getting through at least one layer of editorial checks.

Unless an unnamed local Australian news organisation suddenly has gotten hyper efficient and knows more details in the immediate aftermath of an event at a relatively remote location than the Australian police do at the same time or the ‘victims’ are actually Antifa and Antifa either knew about the event ahead of time and planned an attack/false flag incident or Antifa members encountered Sewell and the EAM and/or NSN members and picked a fight.

Both of which are backed up my Hersant’s statement plus all the weird inconsistencies in the case against Sewell as well as the fact that some bearded overweight soyboi closely affiliated with Antifa suddenly knows the intimate details of what allegedly occurred twenty minutes after it happened.

So, to quote Hiscox’s summary:

‘We have cause to doubt the material facts surrounding this incident as they have been presented by police, by the prosecution and by the media.’

Quite and more over we have good reason to suspect that this was a planned attack/false flag event planned by Antifa and then opportunistically covered up and rolled into a legal case by the Australian government and its police force.