If we make it a prerequisite to vote that ones need to be able to answer some extremely basic questions about the election they’re voting in, all of those questions being given months ahead of time, along with all the answers, then (barring profound mental conditions) not qualifying to vote is a choice. If you’re informed enough to know where the polling booth is, you’re probably capable of passing that bar. Based on your reply, you’d pass with flying colours.

If someone is so apathetic that they don’t know the absolute basic premise of a given election, what is the benefit of allowing them to vote in it?

Of course, and I didn’t emphasise this enough, the system I’m proposing relies heavily on the ability for the election organisers, through tools such as the government and law, to empower every possible voter to understand the basic premise of the election. And in a sea of corporate-owned media (both traditional and online), this is easier said than done, but far from impossible.

I think everyone deserves to be given the tools they need to have real political power. That’s demo-cracy.

A 3 question civics test before you can vote would destroy whole blocs of voters in Australia. Just get them to identify how a progressive income tax works, which country is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the OECD, and which parts of the Miranda Rights apply to them, boom PHON gets a dozen votes across the whole country.

Having some kind of extremely-low barrier, pre-declared multiple-choice test questions in order to gain ballot access is an idea I’ve played around with. Literally mail out a pamphlet with the questions and answers, drafted by the AEC and approved by as many candidates/parties as possible to prevent it being unneutral or propagandised. Objective things like “Which of these services does the federal government handle?” and “Which of these is the typical income of an average Australian?”. And if, for whatever reason, you can’t answer these simple questions, you aren’t informed enough to help decide who represents us in our democratic system.

Relevant, but not quite the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_democracy

There’s about 40 years of solid examples from them you can listen too, if you want to know the answer.

Some examples from outside their discography:

• One minute interview clip re: censorship of Censored Due To Legal Advice
• Acceptance speech at the 1995 ARIA awards [Accepted by Les Murray, in reference to their song What Nationality is Les Murray?. Translation, from reddit]
• Radio interview with Tony Martin and Mick Molloy
• Wikipedia section on their style. Note the quote about pop songs

TISM flight path tracking:

Good to see, hopefully this institutional pushback gives some extra mainstream legitimacy to the objection.

Progressive Jewish lobby group, the Jewish Council of Australia, challenged the use of the IHRA definition in the ongoing royal commission last week, arguing that it blurred the line between hate speech and political speech. Several other Jewish groups of much longer standing are solidly in favour of the definition, arguing it is a vital tool to help root out overt and coded antisemitism.

A neat little array. Worth an actual read or at least a skim, it’s not just PHON voters.

It also helps to see this kind of thing so we can notice lines of parallel and work on top of them to bring people away from ON. Many have [I believe sincerely] said “I don’t agree with many of her policies”, so we should build on that and show parties which have the same focus on real working issues but without the nationalist garbage.

Polls for PHON are above 25% nationally, so, sadly, this is below average.

This.

Share it where needed: https://thewhiterosesociety.writeas.com/9-principles-for-journalists-reporting-on-neo-nazis

See also: https://aussie.zone/post/32699745

“No first home! No second home either!”

How can you possibly ban a “group” under any name they “reform” under?

What’s the issue? The NSN officially disbanded, yet almost all the same members created a ‘new’ organisation (i.e. they reformed), continue to run events through their front group (March for Australia) and continue to show up to various events together as a group. It is clearly a continuation of the same violent organisation in an attempt to circumvent the ban, something Sewer even talked about at the time of their disbandment, referencing what National Action members in the UK did, many getting arrested afterwards for trying the same thing.

Is this a preemptive ban on any groups that could be anti Israel - before they exist?

Very clearly no. Now, if you’re concerned that these anti-hate laws could be abused to censor groups critical of the Zionist Regime, then that’s a valid concern, especially if Libs or ON take government in the future. But no, neo-Nazis are a distinct ideological phenomenon, even distinct from Nazism these days.

The title is incomplete, so for those who didn’t read to the near-end: (and as mentioned more in-depth in the other post)

The Coalition’s home affairs spokesperson, Jonathon Duniam, welcomed the move on Friday, and said the public did not want to see individuals avoid justice “simply by tearing down a banner and re-emerging under a different name”.

The legislation will allow the government to use regulation to capture a group that has phoenixed, rather than having to list it separately. Burke said the principle of using the regulation would be based on “whether or not they’re judged to be a continuation of the organisation”.

The Naarm AFA Telegram made a post on the topic, concerning the related March for Australia group: https://t.me/AFAAlertsNaarm/52

I don’t use All as much as I do Local so I’m ambivalent. That said, I would consider defederating to make a point - we do not support instances which are hypocritical and whose entire userbase is based in bigotry.

ex card carrying marxist here

I’m extremely interested to hear which card you carried, as this Marxist group sounds very strange and, well, not Marxist.

The sentences you said after clearly contradict Marx’s own theory and actions, as well as those of every Marxist group I’ve talked to in this country. The only one (1) I’ve know to be anti-union was the SEP, who are tiny and inconsequential and demand workers create their own union.

and I see the excuse that protesting is still useful because it gives you a means to organize for further action

That’s not “an excuse”. Look at basically all revolutions which weren’t just military coups and you can find meaningful protests. They’re a major entry point to those “better ways” you mention.

A protest isn’t inherently effective, going there and simply standing around listening to speeches is a waste of your time, but it is still an important tool in social change.

They are free to believe what ever idiocy they choose.

You say this as if their beliefs are inconsequential, merely ideas in an abstract. This group is a predatory cult. It was recently publicly revealed that one of their members already killed themselves due to internal oppression. They regularly threaten people (including politicians) with violence and commit violence, and members have been charged and arrested for doing so. They’re still doing it and growing in size. The law has shown itself ineffective at stopping them.

But ultimately, at the end of the day, this cult is organising with the explicit intent of exterminating people, including me. So, when do you believe I, or we, should stop them?

Some of the antifascists in Australia have had success with YARDing (Yelling At Racist Dogs): “How to deal with alt-right pests at rallies”.

Demonstrating to these idiots that they’re outsiders to the communities they’re targeting is, you picked the right word, demoralising. One of the main neo-Nazi organisers here (Joel Davis) made a speech to the UK Patriotic Alternative, quote “You guys might get demoralised sometimes when you do a demonstration and there’s fifty of you and there’s two hundred antifa- I’m not saying that’s happened, but I don’t- I don’t know all the details, but I’ve been in experiences like that where I’ve gone to protests […] and there’s ten of us and, like, two hundred communists. And it feels like shit. i-it’s horrible. It’s horrifying.”

Relinking this recent exposé about the main neo-Nazi group involved in this rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo2xBrImsg4

and the White Rose Society guide to media reporting on these scum: https://thewhiterosesociety.writeas.com/9-principles-for-journalists-reporting-on-neo-nazis

Absolutely. It should, and unfortunately it won’t be until plenty of us get together and force it to.

I only learned about it afterwards, but I couldn’t have made it there anyway. Glad they also got the one perfect day of the lot!

It’s been some time since I tried them (a shared kitched had four different -mite spreads), but I remember Marmite being sweeter and softer/less thick, almost syrupy, and a quick search confirms that’s what others have said.

“Marmite is saltier, and the spread has a smoother texture. Vegemite, on the other hand, is more bitter with a more robust umami flavor.” - (chefsresource.com)