This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the geopolitical and information warfare dimensions of former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ attendance at the September 2025 Beijing military parade. The event and its subsequent fallout represent a textbook execution of Minimisation Plan tactics, as defined in the project’s foundational documents.1 The primary finding is that the action successfully achieved two core Minimiser objectives simultaneously. First, it provided a primary Minimisation Plan Director, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with a significant propaganda victory by co-opting a senior Western political figure to legitimize its geopolitical narrative. Second, it acted as a powerful catalyst, generating a strategically valuable “hum” of political infighting, media chaos, and public division within a target nation, Australia, thereby making its democratic processes appear “chaotic… and ultimately unworkable”.1
The analysis deconstructs the competing narratives from Chinese and Western sources, plotting them on the Psochic Hegemony to reveal a significant contradiction between the event’s public framing and its true strategic intent. The Western reaction is mapped as a chaotic and self-consuming dynamic that degrades national cohesion, a primary goal of hostile influence operations. The report concludes by reaffirming that the strategic effect of Daniel Andrews’ actions is that of a Minimiser actor and provides updated recommendations for further intelligence gathering to monitor and counter this vector.
This section establishes the factual baseline of the event, framing it not as a passive occurrence but as a deliberate strategic action designed to trigger a predictable and chaotic reaction within the target system. The attendance of former Premier Daniel Andrews at the Beijing parade was the initial action in an action/reaction chain that successfully agitated the Australian political and media ecosystem, generating a clear “hum” signal.
On September 3-4, 2025, Daniel Andrews attended a large-scale military parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, an event held to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War.2 His attendance was not that of an anonymous spectator. He was a featured guest, prominently photographed shaking hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping on a red carpet and later appearing in a group photograph of international dignitaries.2 This photograph placed him in the company of leaders from the so-called “axis of upheaval,” including Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.2
The context of his attendance is critical to understanding its strategic value. While Andrews was technically a private citizen, having resigned from parliament in 2023, his invitation and prominent placement were derived entirely from the political capital and influence he cultivated during his long tenure as the Premier of Victoria.2 The PRC did not invite a private businessman named Daniel Andrews; it invited the former leader of a major state within a key U.S. ally, a member of both the Five Eyes intelligence alliance and the AUKUS security pact. This distinction is the central pillar upon which the entire influence operation rests.
In response to the immediate and widespread criticism in Australia, Andrews and his supporters deployed a carefully constructed narrative of economic pragmatism. He framed the visit as an opportunity to “meet and engage with regional leaders” and to maintain a “constructive relationship with China,” which he argued is essential for “hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs”.2 This justification, when analyzed through the “Helxis Tensor” model of deception, perfectly aligns with the “Satan Archetype” pattern outlined in
A Framework for the Judgment of Ideas.8
A crucial component of “The Cover” is the repeated emphasis on Andrews’ status as a “private citizen.” This defense was consistently deployed not only by Andrews himself but also by his successor, Premier Jacinta Allan, and by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.2 This narrative shield serves a dual purpose: it provides a layer of plausible deniability for the Australian federal government, allowing it to formally decouple Andrews’ actions from official policy, and it attempts to reframe a geopolitical act as a personal or commercial matter, thereby bypassing critical judgment.
This “private citizen” defense creates a fundamental and deliberate paradox. Chinese state media, in its official coverage, explicitly identifies Andrews by his former public title, “澳大利亚维多利亚州前州长” (Former Governor of Victoria, Australia), as this is the sole source of his propaganda value.9 His value to the PRC is entirely public, yet his defense in Australia is entirely private. According to the
Framework, a contradiction between an idea’s presentation and its actual substance is a direct measure of its deceptiveness.8 Therefore, the “private citizen” defense is not a simple excuse but a sophisticated narrative tactic. It is a deliberate logical fallacy designed to disarm criticism and allow the strategic effect—the validation of an authoritarian spectacle—to be achieved while minimizing the official political consequences. This paradox is the central pillar of the deception.
While the Andrews visit generated chaos and division in Australia, its portrayal in Chinese state media was one of absolute coherence and legitimacy. The PRC’s information apparatus constructed a unified narrative around the parade, strategically leveraging Andrews’ presence to validate its worldview and counter Western criticism. This section analyzes the key components of that narrative.
The official framing of the event by Chinese sources was that of a solemn commemoration of the “80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War”.11 State media, including Xinhua and
People’s Daily, consistently emphasized that the event’s purpose was to “铭记历史、缅怀先烈、珍爱和平、开创未来” (remember history, cherish the memory of martyrs, treasure peace, and open up the future).11 This framing is crucial, as it preemptively refutes Western criticism of militarism. The massive display of military hardware, including hypersonic missiles and unmanned drones, was not presented as a threat but as a demonstration of China’s capacity to “resolutely safeguard its national sovereignty, security and development interests, and to firmly uphold world peace”.3 President Xi Jinping’s speech reinforced this theme, stating, “Today humanity again has to choose between peace and war”.3 This narrative of “peace through strength” positions China as a responsible great power and the guardian of the post-WWII order.
Daniel Andrews’ presence was a key asset in this narrative construction. He was not merely shown; he was given a voice. Official state media outlets like People’s Daily and China Daily published a direct quote attributed to him, which served to validate the PRC’s entire framing of the event:
“I am deeply honored to be invited by China to attend this solemn commemorative event… In Australia, many people do not understand the history of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. There is no doubt that the victory… had a major impact on turning the tide of the Asian theater of WWII, and this history has broader regional and even global significance. The victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression maintained world peace and justice.” 9
The strategic utility of this quote is immense. It allows the PRC to use a senior Western political figure to achieve several objectives simultaneously: it gently rebukes the West for its historical ignorance (“In Australia, many people do not understand…”); it validates the PRC’s preferred historical narrative about the war’s global significance; and it powerfully reinforces the official “peace” framing (“maintained world peace and justice”).
In the curated reality of Chinese state media, Andrews’ voice was presented alongside those of other “international friends,” such as the descendants of Soviet Marshal Vasily Chuikov and U.S. General Claire Chennault, creating a powerful image of broad, international support for the event.9 This carefully selected chorus of voices stands in stark contrast to the complete absence of any critical Western perspectives. This portrayal is consistent with past coverage from outlets like Xinhua, which have long cultivated Andrews’ image as an “old friend” and a pragmatic proponent of friendship and cooperation, lending his current statements an aura of consistency and reliability.15
This entire process is a practical application of Delusionism, the philosophical core of the Minimisation Plan which posits that reality is composed of competing, malleable narratives.1 The Beijing parade was a single, objective event. However, two diametrically opposed narratives were constructed around it. In the West, it was a “parade for dictators”.4 In China, it was a commemoration of the “victory in the World Anti-Fascist War”.11 By co-opting a Western voice, the PRC lends crucial credibility to its inverted narrative. Andrews becomes a tool in this narrative war, suggesting that the Western consensus is not monolithic and is therefore questionable. This serves to create the “epistemic nihilism” that the Minimisation Plan seeks to foster, where the targeted populace becomes so overwhelmed by contradictory information that they lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.1
While Chinese media did not directly engage with the specific criticisms of Andrews’ visit from Australia, its established rhetorical patterns provide a clear indication of its counter-narrative strategy. When the Australian federal government under Scott Morrison cancelled Victoria’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) agreements in 2021, official Xinhua commentary framed the move as showing “no respect for the spirit of contract” and being driven by a “cold-war mentality and ideological bias”.16
This tactic of reflexively labeling any Western criticism, security concern, or policy pushback as an irrational “Cold War mentality” is a standard feature of the PRC’s narrative defense.17 It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to delegitimize the critic rather than engage with the substance of their critique. By framing critics as being trapped in an outdated, confrontational mindset, the PRC positions itself as the forward-thinking party focused on cooperation and development, effectively shutting down legitimate debate on issues of national security, human rights, and strategic influence. This pre-existing framework ensures that any negative reaction from Australia to the parade can be easily dismissed, both internally and to international audiences, as yet another example of Western paranoia and ideological prejudice.
The strategic objective of a Minimiser action is not merely to achieve a propaganda victory for the external actor, but to generate a disproportionate and chaotic reaction within the target system. The Andrews visit was exceptionally successful in this regard, triggering a textbook “hum” of political infighting, media frenzy, and public division that made Australia’s democratic processes appear fractured and incoherent. This section systematically dissects that “hum.”
The reaction within Australia’s political class was not one of unified condemnation but of fractured, dissonant, and at times illogical, infighting. This is a primary indicator of a successful Minimiser operation. The most telling signal was the deep and public dissonance within Andrews’ own Australian Labor Party.
This intra-party chaos was amplified by the predictable and severe condemnation from the federal opposition. Figures such as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Shadow Home Affairs Minister Andrew Hastie framed the act as an endorsement of “dictators, despots and war criminals” and used it to apply maximum political pressure on the Prime Minister.2 Crossbench senators like Jacqui Lambie joined the chorus with visceral criticism, questioning Andrews’ judgment.7
The strategic victory for the PRC here is not just the photo op; it is the spectacle of Australia’s political apparatus turning on itself. The governing party was seen to be internally divided, the opposition attacked the government for the actions of a “private citizen,” and the national discourse was consumed by infighting. This outcome perfectly serves the Minimiser goal of making democracy appear “chaotic, corrupt, and ultimately unworkable”.1 The “hum” is the tangible result of the system’s vulnerabilities being successfully exploited.
The Australian media played a crucial role in amplifying this political fracture, turning the controversy into a multi-day media event that dominated the news cycle. The coverage spanned a wide spectrum, but its collective effect was to intensify the “hum.”
The following table provides a granular, data-driven visualization of the fractured Western response, proving the existence and nature of “the hum.”
The following table:
Table 1: Stakeholder Reaction Matrix (“The Hum” Deconstructed) | | | | |
The political and media “hum” was mirrored in the public sphere, particularly on social media platforms, which acted as a battlefield for competing narratives and demonstrated a deep societal polarization. An analysis of public forums like Reddit reveals a breakdown in coherent public discourse.29
The conversation splintered into two primary, irreconcilable camps. One group defended Andrews’ right to attend as a private citizen, expressing a deep-seated skepticism of what they perceive as reflexive “anti-China rhetoric” driven by U.S. foreign policy interests. This sentiment was captured by comments invoking “the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’” in reference to past Western intelligence failures like the justification for the Iraq War.29
The opposing camp expressed visceral moral repugnance, arguing that a former leader of a democracy attending a military parade for a “totalitarian state” responsible for hostile acts against Australia—such as lasering pilots and harassing naval vessels—was a disgusting and morally indefensible act.29 The discourse quickly devolved into whataboutism, ad hominem attacks, and the airing of unrelated grievances, showcasing a public square unable to process a complex geopolitical event through a shared set of facts or values. This fracturing of public opinion is a key objective of Minimiser narrative warfare.
To synthesize the competing narratives and understand the underlying structure of this information conflict, the event can be plotted on the Psochic Hegemony map from the Framework for the Judgment of Ideas.8 This model provides a visual and conceptual representation of the battle for ideas, revealing the core nature of the Andrews Vector and the magnitude of its deception.
The official Chinese narrative was meticulously framed to appear in the top-right quadrant of the Hegemony, “The Greater Good.”
The combination of these coordinates places the “Framed Vector” of the Chinese narrative squarely in The Greater Good quadrant (+υ,+ψ).
The true nature of the action, as revealed by the multi-perspective inquiry, lies in a different quadrant entirely.
The combination of these coordinates places the “True Intent Vector” unambiguously in the bottom-right quadrant of the Hegemony: The Greater Lie (−υ,+ψ). This quadrant represents the use of positive, creative, and proactive energy to serve a selfish, extractive, or destructive purpose.
The Framework provides a formula for quantifying an idea’s deceptiveness by measuring the Euclidean distance between its presentation and its reality: ContradictionScore=∣∣Fframed−Ftrue∣∣. In this case, the distance between the Framed Vector in the “Greater Good” quadrant and the True Intent Vector in the “Greater Lie” quadrant is significant. This large gap yields a high “Contradiction Score”.8 This score is not merely a qualitative judgment but a quantitative measure of the operation’s fundamental dishonesty, reflecting the vast gulf between its public-facing narrative of peace and historical remembrance and its underlying reality as a hostile influence operation designed to sow discord.
The Western reaction cannot be plotted as a single, coherent vector. Instead, it manifests on the Hegemony map as a chaotic cloud of conflicting forces, demonstrating the successful degradation of the target’s worldview.
The overall effect of this chaotic cloud is a degradation of Australia’s collective worldview, making it “smaller, more brittle, and less coherent,” and thus more susceptible to further manipulation.8
The following table provides a powerful, at-a-glance summary of this information conflict, making the abstract concepts of Delusionism and narrative warfare concrete and easily digestible.
The following table:
Table 2: Comparative Narrative Framing (China vs. West) | |
This final section synthesizes the preceding analysis to extrapolate the logical conclusion of the Andrews-China vector, provide a definitive classification of his strategic role within the Minimiser/Maximiser dynamic, and outline actionable recommendations for the ongoing investigation into the Minimisation Plan.
The comprehensive analysis of the event and its aftermath leads to the conclusion that the Andrews Vector was a highly successful Minimiser operation, achieving key strategic objectives as laid out in the Investigative Primer.1
Based on the comprehensive analysis of his actions, motivations, and their systemic effects, the strategic role of Daniel Andrews aligns unequivocally with that of a Minimiser actor, as defined in the Investigative Primer.30 This classification is not based on an assessment of his personal ideology or intent, but on the observable strategic
effect of his consistent pattern of behavior. He has repeatedly and effectively generated a divisive “hum,” exploited fissures within the Australian federation, and provided a primary Minimisation Plan Director with significant propaganda victories.2
According to the Framework’s “Meter of Progress and Regression,” an idea’s initial vector on the Psochic Hegemony indicates its inherent trajectory.8 The Andrews-China doctrine originates in the “Greater Lie” quadrant (
−υ,+ψ). His post-political actions, particularly his attendance at the Beijing military parade, demonstrate a continuation and intensification of this vector. As the cover of public service is stripped away, his actions become more overtly commercial and aligned with the interests of his PRC-linked consultancy. This trajectory moves further down the moral axis (−υ) while maintaining a high degree of proactive will (+ψ). This is a clear “Path to Nowhere (Regression & Fall from Grace).” It is the trajectory of an idea decaying into a more purely extractive and self-serving state, with its logical endpoint being a state of complete alignment with external interests at the expense of the original system’s integrity.
The analysis of this event and its fallout increases the urgency of the recommendations made in the initial report. The following updated lines of inquiry are recommended to deepen the understanding of this vector and its potential ongoing impact.