Antifascists, in the rare occasions where they need to mask up, hide their faces from the state (incl police) and from neo-Nazi terrorists who have murdered antifascists in the past.
Fascists hide their faces from their communities. They’re such scumbags that everyday citizens know they deserve to be identified and ostracised for their personality and actions.
In light of the popularity of these images in response to their stunt, I’d like so share this. It discusses the Australian neo-Nazi equivalent org (the totally-for-real disbanded National Socialist Network), but the message is universal.
https://thewhiterosesociety.writeas.com/9-principles-for-journalists-reporting-on-neo-nazis
So let’s talk about Patriot Front:
Plenty more, might add some more in replies. They’re a serious issue, make no mistake, but there are far better jabs to make than “they wear masks and conservatives don’t - gotcha!”
However, public buildings in NSW, South Australia, the ACT, and Tasmania — including the Sydney Opera House and Canberra’s Parliament House — won’t be taking part.
At least there’s that. We already had the Sydney Opera House and Canberra’s Parliament House both lit up in blue and white for the Zionist Regime in 2023.
note: a non-exhaustive list of illuminations of Parliament House
Do people not realise, or not care?
For most, I suspect it’s the first. Media bubbles are crazy, and that’s why it’s vital for everyone to mention these things in day-to-day life (ideally without being preachy or inflammatory).
Conversations have a network effect(fun interactive demonstration).
They weren’t polling AFR readers. On the Accent Research site, the report is described as
The monthly RedBridge/Accent Research survey run for the Australian Financial Review.
The report also has further breakdown by age demographic, home ownership, education level, gender, language spoken at home, etc.
Monoculture sounds like the kind of thing they’d accuse communists of wanting.
It’s dog whistling, absolutely.
There’s a contradiction at play here. One Nation is often vague and even self-contradictory, which combined with targeted messaging (and microtargeting in the digital realm) allows people to project onto them, I believe. They don’t want to alienate the white supremacist much, nor the “everyday aussie”, nor the non-white immigrant who agrees with some of their messaging.
It’s a juggling game. Sure, you get the neo-Nazis agitating directly about Gina saying we should give free land near Townsville to the Zionist Regime[1], and an ON MP disclosing they have an immigrant Muslim boyfriend[2], and more. But… who else are they going to vote for? Neo-Nazis are opportunists, they won’t just abstain. They’ll just call it ‘optics’ for the ‘normie lemmings’ and try to recruit those brought into their sphere through ON. So ON gets to sanitise their message and claim “we’re not really racists” and “stop calling everyone you don’t like a nazi”, without alienating the hardcore open bigots.
You can’t put the immigrant voting for ON and the neo-Nazi in the same protest for long, or a public meeting, but if it’s just votes from unenthusiastic masses you need, then vague mass messaging and contradictory targeted messaging works.
What rubbish. Predictable and pathetic.
Would have been cool if you preempted it, since it’s predictable.
[1] : [official transcript] / [leftist article] / [nazi article (TW for bigoted ads)]
[2] : [centrist article] / [nazi article (TW: homophobic framing, bigoted ads)]
Just realised Tom shared a link to the background loop video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XQSLnVRefeI
( ; ~ ; )
¯\( ’ - ’ )/¯
Did you read the article?
You’ve raised great questions.
I second those notes on national figures. I personally see an orange flag when people point to national metrics of economy, luxury, etc. as a sign of governance success (or failure). I’ve seen neglected public housing and gentrified tech-worker luxury a suburb apart, jump a couple more suburbs for mega-million mansions on the waterfront. This is all within an electorate or two. So what the heck do national statistics matter?
You mention means, medians and modes… I like to see medians when they show their face, do you have some critiques of medians in these kinds of statistics? I’d like to be aware if I’m giving them too much credit, perhaps because they so clearly contrast against means to demonstrate inequality in distribution.
Anybody have good data sources they’d like to share?
I’m afraid I don’t, especially not for Australia. I could try and adapt the Wealth Shown to Scale explainable to Australia’s ultrawealthy…
Yes, wow how did I miss that. I’ll delete and repost.
And why the heck are there six upvotes on an empty post?
Consider the following: aussie.zone doesn’t want either the campist anti-Western propagandists nor campist pro-Western propagandists.
Them existing elsewhere does not give you a right to repeatedly spam political think tank pieces here. From your behaviour now and in the past, it is crystal clear that you have no respect for our community.
That’s a great point about social media, especially considering the biggest examples (Meta group, Twitter) are owned by some of the most ultrawealthy people on Earth, with technofeudal ambitions. I was thinking about more traditional media so I’m glad you emphasised social media.
I’m not saying the following to argue, but to add caveats and challenge assumptions.
Not wrong, but all over the world does not have compulsory voting
I see some other people treating compulsory voting as an anchor, but we’re seeing a prolonged shift away from the dominance of Coalition and Labor. We’re talking about a reactionary politician promoted by plenty of mainstream mass media outlets with astronomical funding - many casual apathetic forced-voters will be exposed to more of her populist policies and less of her terrible perspectives and Gina-service than we see. Especially if everyday people like us don’t talk to people about it.
Add to that a high proportion of immigrants
Many immigrants will vote for One Nation. It sounds unintuitive, but there are plenty who openly support Hanson. They’ve already immigrated, and might trivialise the racist attitudes of the party in support of other gripes, especially if they feel association with Australia and see themselves accepted as “one of the good ones”. One Nation is a racist party, but as a whole, it’s selectively racist: they will back candidates from most non-Arab ethnicities and have elected immigrants [admittedly not the best example].
a solidly left leaning younger demographic
Yes, but that doesn’t outweigh the larger, solidly right-leaning older demographic. Unfortunately Wikipedia haven’t updated their table since 2016 and I cbf summing the numbers on the ABS population pyramid, so I’m happy to be contradicted.
Also consider that (judging by the first line of the ABS 2024 age/region summary plus my own assumption) younger populations are likely to be concentrated in cities, reducing the influence of a young vote on suburban and rural electoral seats.
and Trump’s example
And that’s been a useful tactic in dissuading ON prospectives, according to GetUp!, which to me also implies that plenty of people don’t recognise the similarity of Trump’s USA and Pauline’s ON.
So, my perspective is, we should be optimistic and confident, but we must not be complacent and passive. These points you make only work if politically-informed people share our knowledge with the apathetic. And this doesn’t have to be preachy or direct, even passive exposure and “didjyahearabout” conversations will accumulate.
Plenty of surprises on this survey. Historical or contemporary enemies (Vietnam, China, Russia, Philippines, perhaps even Mexico) are balanced or outright favourable compared to Northern & Northwestern Europe.
It’s not a contradiction, but it’s still unintuitive.
Still reading, I want to give you thanks for posting the archive link and copying the text across. It’s much easier for me to read (especially now that the archive.md Google captcha is now asking some people for phone verification)
And to emphasise my perspective, it’s harmful to supply “airtime without criticism” - that stunt drew attention to a sharp critique. It hijacked what would have otherwise been a notable occasion regardless. And as a minor side effect, the event highlighted the party’s fragility.
What does that even mean?
I suspect it’s a reaction to “multicultural”. Their demand isn’t a cohesive vision, it’s a tantrum.
I’ll have to give that a read, thanks for the recc!
I’ve started watching an interview video with the author and Kris Goldsmith and already Kris has mentioned they witnessed PF members in 2020 “talk their way through a cost-benefit analysis about deliberately contracting [COVID] and traveling to black and brown neighborhoods to try and spread it” in the belief that members were biologically superior and had better access to healthcare, making potential death “worth the risk”.