Over the past few weeks, hundreds have taken to the streets in cities across the country for the “March for Australia.” Organisers bill it as a patriotic rally to defend Australian culture and national values. But a closer look at the protests reveals a chaotic and often violent picture: scuffles with police, brawls in the streets, and Palestinian flags being torn down and burned.
It’s easy to focus on the slogans and conflicts we see in the streets, but there’s a deeper, more organised story unfolding. This isn’t just random unrest, but a calculated effort driven by extremist networks. These groups often use coded language with a clear and powerful goal: to reshape the very identity of Australia.
This investigation goes beyond the headlines to expose who is really behind the March for Australia and what their agenda reveals about the forces attempting to divide our country.
The Coded Language of “Remigration”
The first red flag appeared just days after the March for Australia website went live on August 8th. Under a section titled “Why We’re Marching,” the platform listed its core grievances, including “no foreign flags” and “mass immigration.” But one bullet point stood out: “Remigration now.”
By August 11th, the word had vanished from the site without explanation. So, what does it mean, and why was it removed?
On the surface, the term “remigration” might sound like a simple policy for managing immigration. However, in far-right and white nationalist movements, it carries a much darker and more specific meaning.
This ideology calls for the forced removal of immigrants and their descendants. This could even include citizens whose families have lived in a country for generations, who would be sent to a so-called “country of origin” they may have never known.
Human rights watchdogs and scholars are clear about the ultimate goal: they identify this as a core strategy for creating ethnically pure, or “white-only,” nations.
This isn’t just a fringe theory. The concept has become a central promise for many far-right political parties across Europe. The idea was also briefly considered within the Trump administration before it was widely condemned as an extremist position.
The brief appearance and sudden removal of “remigration” from the March for Australia platform suggests a deliberate strategy: using extremist dog whistles to attract a radical base while maintaining a sanitised public image.
Investigating the Organisers: A Web of Extremist Tie
While the March for Australia lacks a single, clear leader, a few key figures have emerged. One of the most prominent is a self-described “digital creator” known as “Beck Freedom, who has taken a leading role in the Sydney march.
While she frames herself as a “freedom fighter” and “patriot,” her online activity reveals concerning associations:
- Support for Extremist Groups: She has openly supported the National Workers Alliance, a group dedicated to the “preservation of European culture.”
- Links to Anti-Islam Activists: She has shared posts from Sherman Bergus (the “Great Aussie Patriot”), a notorious anti-Islam activist who led movements like Reclaim Australia.
Most tellingly, a recording reveals her true views on what “Australian values” mean. In her own words, she explains how to package a racially exclusive message for public consumption:
“Protect Australian heritage, culture, way of life. Next step, protect European culture, heritage, way of life. The next step is to protect white heritage. So it all means the same thing… By saying it that way, it is more appealing to the public. It’s going to deter them from saying, ‘Oh, it’s a Nazi rally’… Australian is white is European, European white“
These are not out-of-context remarks; they are a clear admission of a strategy to mask a white nationalist agenda behind the veil of mainstream patriotism.
The Unmistakable Presence of Neo-Nazis
Organisers of the March for Australia publicly insist they are not affiliated with neo-Nazis or white supremacists, claiming such groups are merely fringe elements trying to hijack their event.
The evidence on the ground tells a different story.
Tom Sewell Takes Centre Stage
At the Melbourne rally, Tom Sewel, the leader of the National Socialist Network, Australia’s most prominent and openly neo-Nazi organisation, was not a fringe participant. He was a central organiser and was handed the microphone to deliver the rally’s keynote address.
When one of the country’s most notorious neo-Nazis is elevated to a headline speaker, any claims of separation from extremism become impossible to believe. The march had officially become a platform for the far right.
The Rhetoric on the Ground
This ideology was echoed by other participants. In one street interview, a protester was asked about non-white Australians. His response was chillingly direct:
Interviewer: “What about all the other Australians that are not white?”
Protester: “There are plenty of other people representing them. There is no Australians that aren’t white.”
Interviewer: “So anyone who’s not white is not Australian?”
Protester “Correct.”
This exchange encapsulates the exclusionary worldview at the heart of the movement, a direct contradiction of the multicultural reality of modern Australia.
Media Misrepresentation: A Pattern of Bias
The role of the media in framing this movement cannot be ignored. For years, outlets like Sky News have aggressively labelled pro-Palestine rallies as dangerous or antisemitic.
Yet, when faced with an actual neo-Nazi leader addressing a crowd, their reporting softened dramatically. Sky News described Tom Sewell as merely a “right-wing activist, completely omitting his well-documented history as a violent neo-Nazi leader.
This is not a simple oversight; it’s a pattern. A quick Google search confirms Sewell’s identity. The deliberate choice to downplay his extremism while vilifying other protest movements highlights a dangerous media bias that provides cover for genuine hate groups.
How to Identify and Counter Extremist Rhetoric
It can be difficult to navigate the confusing and often coded language of these movements. Here are three actionable steps you can take to see past the slogans and understand the real agenda:
Scrutinise the Language Pay attention to words like “remigration,” “globalist,” or “cultural preservation.” Research their origins and how they are used by extremist groups. Dog whistles are designed to sound innocent to the public but signal a deeper meaning to insiders.
Investigate the Leaders Look beyond the “patriot” label. Research the key speakers and organisers. What other groups are they affiliated with? What have they said in other, less public forums? Their history often reveals their true ideology.
Follow the Narrative Observe how different media outlets cover the same event. Who do they give a platform to? Whose identity do they downplay or amplify? Media bias can be a powerful tool for either exposing or normalising extremism.
Building Bridges, Not Walls
The March for Australia presents a critical choice for our nation. On the surface, it uses the language of pride and culture. But beneath the banners, we find a movement built on coded language, led by individuals with extremist ties, and amplified by a biased media narrative.
This isn’t just about a single protest. It’s about how we, as a society, define ourselves. Is national pride built on fear and exclusion, or on the shared humanity and compassion that connect us all? The answer will determine whether we build a future of walls or a future of bridges.