Make ‘em laugh: how One Nation uses comedy to normalise harmful ideas

The political firestorm ignited by an episode of One Nation’s satirical animated series Please Explain was one of those rare moments in Australian politics that has brought together Labor, the Coalition, Greens and the crossbench.

The July episode “Don’t Be Hastie” depicted Western Australian Liberal frontbencher and former Australian Defence Force member Andrew Hastie. In it, he’s labelled a “traitor” for testifying against alleged war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith and supporting Labor’s “evil hate speech legislation”.

This sparked a fierce response from Hastie. He called Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce “lying cowards” and demanding they delete the video or explain why he and other veterans are being called traitors.

The video also prompted a spirited response from Tasmanian senator and former soldier Jacqui Lambie. She described the episode as “absolutely disgusting” and called Hanson “nothing less than a bloody coward”.

While the Coalition has wobbled on how to respond to the unprecedented rise of One Nation, Hastie has been one of the few in the Liberal Party to take the fight directly to Hanson.

But this episode reveals more than just a political scuffle. It provides a window into the role of humour in contemporary far-right politics.

As the far right continues to surge in Australia and internationally, understanding the creative and unconventional ways they try to mainstream and normalise their ideas is increasingly important.

Please explain… political cartoons

Please Explain is a 2D animated online cartoon produced by Stepmates Studios for One Nation since 2021. One of its co-creators, Mark Nicholson, is standing as a candidate for the party in the Victorian state election in November.

The series, which draws on the tone and style of the irreverent US animated sitcom South Park, is now in its fourth season. A feature-length spin-off film was released earlier this year.

When One Nation initially commissioned the cartoon, it described the series as a “satirical, animated series that was partly educational, and a whole lot of fun”. It would, the party claimed, “deliver a humorous yet sobering glimpse into the Australian political arena” and reach younger and politically disengaged audiences.

Together, the cartoons have generated millions of views on One Nation’s social media channels. There’s also been extensive secondary media coverage, helping keep the party in the headlines. The cartoons have been incorporated into One Nation’s fundraising and merchandising.

But besides being an attention-grabbing form of political advertising, Please Explain fulfils important political functions for One Nation. The cartoons provide a medium for Hanson and the party to prosecute their arguments, ridicule marginalised communities, and attack their political opponents – all while claiming it’s “just a joke”.

Humour doing serious work

Please Explain is a textbook example of how the contemporary far right seeks to launder extreme and exclusionary ideas through the “seductive force” of humour, fiction and popular culture.

The strategy of seeding far-right ideas in mainstream culture is known as metapolitics. It’s underpinned by the idea that cultural change precedes political change.

Frivolous, playful and ironic forms of communication and expression, such as humorous memes and animations, are increasingly seen by the far right as powerful tools for popularising and mainstreaming their ideas among broader audiences.

The satirical animated world of Please Explain gives One Nation greater freedom to express views it would be reluctant to articulate in other settings.

One Nation was comfortable with a fictionalised Hastie – and by extension, the numerous current and former SAS soldiers who testified against Roberts-Smith – being described as a traitor. But it’s difficult to imagine Hanson making the same claim at a press conference or on the floor of parliament.

Plausible deniability

The use of humour by the far right isn’t limited to One Nation.

Humour is strategically used by the far right around the world to soften ideological messages and make their content more palatable.

In the United States, humour and ridicule have become hallmarks of the Trump administration and MAGA movement. Since 2024, Donald Trump has been an enthusiastic user of AI slop.

He uses it to ridicule his political enemies and opponents, generate attention and engagement and visualise his ideal world.

Humour provides a degree of plausible deniability and strategic ambiguity. It allows the far right to simultaneously dismiss criticism by claiming something is “just a joke” and cast those who take offence as humourless.

This was perfectly illustrated in Hanson’s interview with Chris Kenny on News24. Hanson appeared bemused and bewildered that Hastie was offended by the episode.

She denied referring to Hastie as a traitor. She accused him of “getting his knickers in a knot” and “making a mountain out of a molehill” over “a satirical cartoon”.

This is what gives humour its metapolitical potency. Humour can enable a speaker to test the waters of social acceptability in a way that seems unserious, while simultaneously signalling to audiences that such expression is acceptable.

The far right has used this to try and push the boundaries of what can be said. It shifts perceptions of what is permissible in public discourse to normalise their exclusionary ideas.

Read more: What is AI slop? Why you are seeing more fake photos and videos in your social media feeds

Time to wrap it up?

The intense and bipartisan reaction to the “Don’t Be Hastie” episode shows that while humour and satire can provide the far right with a shield from criticism and political backlash, that shield is not impenetrable.

Hanson doubled down, dismissing the reaction as a “storm in a teacup” and thanking Hastie for the added publicity. But her deputy leader, Barnaby Joyce, has distanced himself from the episode and apologised to Hastie.

Being seen to mock or denigrate Australian military veterans is dangerous territory for One Nation. Please Explain was commissioned at a time when One Nation was still a fringe minor party. The furore generated by the Hastie episode raises questions about whether the animated series is still fit for purpose.

While the cartoons have certainly helped One Nation spread its message to wide audiences, the irreverent and often deliberately offensive content may be out of step with Hanson and the party’s attempt to position themselves as a viable party of government.