> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # They Really Think We’re That Stupid - URL: https://goodoil.news/they-really-think-were-that-stupid/ - Published: 2026-11-06T01:30:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-06T01:29:59.000Z - Description: They want us to believe Joe Rogan is a bigger threat than Islam. - Author: Lushington Brady - Tags: AUS Politics, Terrorism Remember when followers of **Andrew Tate** shot up a beachside gathering? Or when a gymbro shouted, “**Joe Rogan** is the Greatest!” as he carried out a stabbing rampage? No? Well, clearly you’re not as perceptive as the geniuses at the Australian Human Rights Commission. Cleanse your mind of such awkward facts as that 90 per cent of the terror attacks in Australia, and nearly all terror casualties over the past few decades, can be wholly attributed to Islam. Forget that Australia’s first ever terror attack, at Broken Hill in 1915, was explicitly carried out by Muslims, in the name of jihad. No, ignore your lyin’ eyes and shut your stupid mouth while your taxes fund a smirking bureaucrat pissing on your leg and telling you it’s raining. > [Australia’s taxpayer-funded](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/forget-islamic-radicals-hrc-says-manosphere-is-security-threat-no1/news-story/a6039941e66a45ff14d9318c4d7d6281?ref=goodoil.news) human rights watchdog is demanding religion be deprioritised in the nation’s approach to combating radicalisation and more attention paid to misogyny and homophobia, despite federal police warnings that 46 per cent of radicals it investigated recently were religiously motivated. It seems the commission, in its infinite, tax-funded wisdom, is desperate to steer the conversation away from anything that might ruffle the delicate feathers of the grievance industry. They are effectively proposing we ignore the theological elephant in the room – the one stomping and stabbing around the national living room – in favour of chasing the ghosts of “misogyny” and “homophobia” in the digital ether. What a masterpiece of bureaucratic misdirection. While the professional spy-catchers at ASIO and the AFP are busy noting that nearly half of their minor-aged cases are driven by religious fervour (one guess *which* religion), the AHRC is busy clucking about the ‘manosphere’. It should surprise no one that the AHRC’s approach to ‘gender equity’ is strictly one-way: 85 per cent of its staff are female, and two-thirds of the statutory leadership positions are held by women. One imagines the commission’s offices are filled with the scent of fair-trade soy lattes and the sound of frantic keyboard clicking as they attempt to define ‘radicalisation’ as anything that doesn’t pander to their preferred demographic of victimhood. The audacity of the gambit is breathtaking. We are, after all, living through a time where the Royal Commission into Antisemitism is preparing to drop findings that will undoubtedly make the Albanese government sweat. Yet, rather than grappling with the actual, tangible violence of the day, our human rights watchdogs are busy drafting papers on the ‘ideological fluidity’ of internet forums. > The AHRC told the government to move away from relying on religious, political, or ideological categories to combat radicalisation and recognise ‘the increasingly fluid ideological terrain of contemporary online spaces’. The only thing fluid here is the truth, which the AHRC seems determined to pour down the drain. They want us to believe that a teenager listening to a podcast on stoicism is just as likely to commit an atrocity as someone indoctrinated in the fiery, uncompromising dictates of global jihad. As if Joe Rogan is the equivalent of an ISIS snuff video. It’s a calculated, dishonest attempt to create a moral equivalence where none exists and to flatten the distinct and lethal characteristics of specific ideologies into a mush of “gender-based grievances”. The commission’s insistence that we stop categorising by religion isn’t about protecting civil liberties: it’s about shielding the state’s favoured multicultural experiment from the inconvenient reality of its failures. > The AHRC said the government’s proposed digital duty of care should combat these ‘harmful narratives’, and it demanded more funding to run child consultations to better understand online radicalisation. Ah, there it is: the cry for more funding. Of course, the solution to their manufactured crisis is to wag the finger harder with one hand, while the other rifles through taxpayers’ pockets. One wonders if these consultations will involve asking why boys are finding more resonance in the stern, masculine guidance of ‘manfluencers’ than in the emasculated, apologetic drivel served up by our modern educational and political establishments. Or whether they’ll ever put the blowtorch of “gender-based grievances” on to taxpayer-funded misandrists who sneer that “men aren’t dying fast enough”. The coalition, for once, has managed a sensible retort, though one suspects their spine is made of warm gelatin. > “It passes as very strange that the religious and ideological convictions driving violent extremists should somehow be regarded as secondary considerations,” opposition home affairs spokesman **Jonno Duniam** said. “You cannot effectively combat radicalisation if you are reluctant to confront the beliefs and ideologies that motivate people to commit acts of terrorism.” Radicalisation is not some vague digital ghost. It has a source, a doctrine and a target. And until we stop pretending that a podcaster in his living room is the equal of a soldier in a holy war, we will continue to drift, rudderless, towards the shoals of relentless terror. --- 💡 ****If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.**