Australia has suffered a grave national shock. A PhD student associated with the CSIRO has been charged over an alleged terror plot involving Molotov cocktails, vodka bottles, wrapping paper, and — in a development that should alarm every household — a blanket.
This changes everything.
For years, we naïvely assumed that the true drivers of violent extremism were ideology, grievance, radicalisation networks, social breakdown, criminal subcultures, and psychological instability. But it turns out the real threat to national security was hiding in plain sight, next to the doonas and the vodka aisle at Dan Murphy's.
The implications are unavoidable.
If a person can allegedly plan a terrorist attack using alcohol, bottles, cloth, and household insulation, then these objects are no longer neutral. They have crossed the threshold from innocent consumer goods into weapons of mass destruction. And as responsible citizens, we must respond with decisive legislative action — not by addressing extremism, but by banning everything that could conceivably be repurposed into something dangerous.
Because that's how safety works now.
Let's start with alcohol.
Alcohol has long been tolerated under the quaint assumption that adults might consume it responsibly. But we now have proof that vodka can be weaponised. Not metaphorically. Literally. Therefore, the continued legal availability of alcohol constitutes a structural vulnerability in national security architecture.
We must act.
At minimum, Australians should be limited to two bottles of alcohol per household, with compulsory justification statements submitted for approval. Spirits should be banned outright, as their flammability rating places them in the "accelerated combustion risk category." Beer may remain legal only if stored in government-approved fireproof cabinets. Wine should require a cooling-off period and a mental health risk assessment.
Bars and pubs, of course, cannot be permitted to operate. They are bulk alcohol distribution centres, effectively Molotov factories with stools. Any remaining venues will be reclassified as "high-risk incendiary aggregation zones."
But alcohol alone is not the problem.
Blankets must also go.
The alleged offender reportedly purchased a blanket as part of the preparation materials. This is deeply troubling. Australians have long enjoyed blanket ownership without licences, training, or oversight. Children have been allowed to touch blankets. Pets sleep under blankets. Some households own multiple blankets, often in close proximity to heating devices.
This is madness.
Blankets can be torn into strips. Strips can be soaked in alcohol. Alcohol can be ignited. Therefore, blankets are incendiary accelerants in waiting. It is now clear that no responsible society can permit unrestricted access to bedding.
Under the new Blanket Safety Framework, households will be limited to one government-issued thermal compliance quilt per resident, with annual inspections. Electric blankets will be prohibited outright, as they represent the catastrophic convergence of heat and fabric. Throws, doonas, afghans, comforters, and decorative cushions will be subject to mandatory surrender.
Children will sleep under regulation fleece.
Grandmothers will be re-educated.
Next, bottles.
Glass bottles are now obviously weapons. They can be thrown. They can be broken. They can contain liquid. They can contain flammable liquid. They can contain flammable liquid with cloth stuffed in the top.
Therefore, all bottles must be replaced with soft polymer government containers. Champagne bottles will be restricted to diplomatic use only. Olive oil will be decanted at purchase into approved squeezy vessels. Vinegar will require a background check.
Perfume bottles will be banned entirely, because they already look like weapons.
Wrapping paper must also be addressed.
Wrapping paper can be rolled. Rolled paper can conceal objects. Paper can burn. Burning paper can ignite things. This makes gift-wrapping an extremist gateway activity. Perhaps even racist, if the paper is white.
Birthdays, Christmas, and baby showers will henceforth operate under the Transparent Gifting Protocol. All gifts must be presented unwrapped or in see-through safety packaging. Ribbon is restricted to children under supervision. Tape is a controlled adhesive.
We will not be caught unprepared again.
But of course, none of this will matter unless we address the deeper problem: combinations.
Objects alone are dangerous. But objects in proximity are catastrophic.
Vodka plus bottle plus blanket equals terror.
Petrol plus container plus rag equals extremism.
Kitchen knife plus hand equals murder.
Car plus road equals vehicular attack.
Pressure cooker plus internet equals bomb.
Fertiliser plus garage equals headlines.
Hammer plus frustration equals tragedy.
Speech plus grievance equals radicalisation.
The solution is obvious: we must regulate not only objects, but their possible combinations — including combinations that exist only in the Leftist imagination.
Therefore, households will undergo periodic Object Interaction Audits to assess whether their possessions, taken collectively, could be reconfigured into something harmful. A sofa near a window? Potential projectile launch vector. A toaster near a sink? Electrical weaponisation risk. A ladder near a roof? Elevated assault platform.
We are not safe while objects remain unsupervised.
But let's not stop with household goods. Alcohol and blankets are merely the beginning. If terrorists can weaponise everyday objects, then the real threat is not the objects themselves — it is human adaptability. People have this alarming tendency to repurpose things creatively, often under emotional stress, ideological pressure, or psychological instability. This is unacceptable.
Therefore, we must regulate people's access to objects not based on their behaviour, history, or intent, but on the theoretical misuse potential of anything they touch.
Which brings us back — inevitably — to Grandpa's rabbit rifle.
We are told that Grandpa's bolt-action .22 is too dangerous for civilian possession because it could theoretically be misused. Meanwhile, terrorists are allegedly planning attacks with vodka, bottles, and blankets. The pattern is now unmistakable: the objects being banned are not those used by criminals, but those owned by compliant people.
Criminals ignore gun laws. Terrorists ignore licensing regimes. Extremists ignore buybacks. But law-abiding citizens do not — which makes them the perfect regulatory target. They surrender property. They comply with restrictions. They internalise blame. They participate in symbolic safety rituals.
Meanwhile, the actual threat vectors adapt effortlessly — because criminals do not operate on compliance models.
We are now watching the same "logic" engine migrate.
First it was guns. Now it's alcohol. Next it will be blankets. Then pressure cookers. Then cars. Then knives. Then fertiliser. Then chemicals. Then the internet. Then speech. Then thought. Well, Australia is already thee on that.
At every stage, the same argument will be made:
Some people misuse X.
Therefore, X is dangerous.
Therefore, fewer X is always better.
Therefore, restrict X.
Therefore, ban X.
And because the end state of this reasoning is zero, no amount of restriction will ever be sufficient. No compliance will ever close the loop. No safety record will ever be good enough. Because the objective is not harm reduction — it is object purification. The ritual destruction of things believed to be tainted by potential danger.
This is not public safety policy. It is metaphysical sanitation.
It is the belief that danger resides in objects rather than in human minds, social conditions, ideological ecosystems, institutional failure, psychological breakdown, or civilisational stress. It is easier to destroy vodka bottles than to confront radicalisation. Easier to ban blankets than to confront mental illness. Easier to confiscate rifles than to confront criminal networks. Easier to regulate farmers than to dismantle terror cells.
And infinitely easier than confronting the reality that violence is a human problem, not an inventory problem.
But let's follow the "logic" to its conclusion.
If alcohol is banned because it can be weaponised, then so must petrol. If petrol is banned, then so must cars. If cars are banned, then so must roads. If roads are banned, then so must movement. If movement is banned, then so must assembly. If assembly is banned, then so must speech. If speech is banned, then so must dissent. If dissent is banned, then so must thought. Which is in fact happening as said previously.
Because thought leads to grievance. Grievance leads to ideology. Ideology leads to action. Action leads to objects being repurposed. Therefore, for safety, we must regulate cognition itself.
This is not a slippery slope. It is the straight line implied by the zero-risk doctrine.
The real fantasy of modern safety culture is not peace. It is perfect vulnerability — a society so denuded of capacity, tools, autonomy, and agency that it becomes incapable of meaningful harm. Or meaningful defence. Or meaningful resistance. Or meaningful independence.
A society where no one possesses anything dangerous — including those tasked with protecting it.
And if, along the way, we must sacrifice Grandpa's rabbit rifle, the police sidearm, the soldier's rifle, alcohol, blankets, bottles, wrapping paper, pressure cookers, cars, fertiliser, knives, tools, privacy, autonomy, and eventually thought itself — well, that's a small price to pay for the soothing knowledge that nothing dangerous remains. That is the logical conclusion of the sentiment that gave us this week the gun banning law.
"A PhD student with the CSIRO has been charged over an alleged terror plot planned for Australia Day celebrations on the Gold Coast.
Sepehr Saryazdi, 24, was denied bail when he faced Brisbane Magistrates Court on Thursday on one count of other acts done in preparation for, or planning, terrorist acts.
He was arrested by detectives from the counter-terrorism investigation group on Wednesday after a report from the public was made to Crime Stoppers, prompting police to investigate.
During his court appearance, Commonwealth prosecutor Ellie McDonald told the court the alleged offending related to "extremely concerning" Facebook Messenger chats within a private group containing more than 50 people, ABC reports.
"The defendant had plans to lead a riot on the Gold Coast on Australia Day and those plans involved the use of Molotov cocktails, which he had purchased supplies and equipment for," she told the court.
He allegedly also encouraged others to do the same.
"He says: 'I will be leading the Gold Coast riots on Jan 26 if you guys know people in Melbourne, let them know so they can start buying vodka bottles early to stockpile in batches'," she said.
"He also states: 'if arrested the key is to stay calm and collected, when put into questioning remind them what you did is purely logical given the current trajectory of this nation.'
"I recommend learning how to shoot guns at shooting ranges while you can," he allegedly said on Facebook.