A prominent neo-Nazi organisation in Australia has declared it will formally dissolve itself, a move directly prompted by impending legislation that would see it proscribed as a terrorist entity.
Pre-Emptive Dissolution to Avoid Prosecution
The National Socialist Network (NSN) confirmed in a statement posted to Telegram on Tuesday that it would be 'fully disbanded' by 11:59pm on Sunday, 18 January 2026. The group stated the decision was a direct response to new laws set to be passed by the Australian government, which would allow authorities to ban any organisation whose members have performed the outlawed Roman salute.
The announcement, signed by leader Thomas Sewell and other senior figures including Jacob Hersant, Jack Eltis, Timothy Lutze, Gabe Seymour, Hagen Palme, and Joshua Leverington, made clear the disbandment was a tactical manoeuvre. It is intended to shield former members from potential arrest and criminal charges once the legislation takes effect.
Scope of the Disbandment and Group's Accusations
The dissolution is not limited to the NSN alone. The group stated it also encompasses its affiliated projects: White Australia, the European Australian Movement, and the White Australia Party. In its message, the organisation framed the incoming laws as 'some of the most draconian laws the West has ever seen'.
It further accused the Australian government of acting 'on behalf of the Jewish lobby' to criminalise peaceful opposition groups based purely on their political expression, concluding with the declaration that 'In Australia, political freedom is effectively dead and buried.' The statement was signed off with the phrase 'Blood and Honour'.
Implications for Counter-Terrorism and Free Speech
This pre-emptive disbandment highlights the significant reach of Australia's proposed counter-terrorism measures. By dissolving before the laws are enacted, the NSN aims to evade the severe legal consequences associated with a formal terrorist designation, which can include asset freezes and lengthy prison sentences for membership or support.
The development raises complex questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties. While authorities seek to dismantle extremist networks, the group's rhetoric frames the state's actions as an assault on political dissent, setting the stage for ongoing debate about the limits of free speech and the state's power to define terrorism.
