Zagorath
@Zagorath@aussie.zone
- Comment on ‘We’re living in an Orwellian nightmare’: Grace Tame calls Anthony Albanese a ‘coward’ in scathing critique 45 minutes ago:
YEEEAAAAAAAAH
- Comment on ‘We’re living in an Orwellian nightmare’: Grace Tame calls Anthony Albanese a ‘coward’ in scathing critique 2 hours ago:
Those cats do it, By. The. Book.
Well may he say trace every lead, but when the trail leads to Langley… 😎
…the case goes cold. 🕶️
- Comment on ‘We’re living in an Orwellian nightmare’: Grace Tame calls Anthony Albanese a ‘coward’ in scathing critique 1 day ago:
A CIA leaker has said that Kerr was referred to as “our man Kerr” within the CIA. And Kerr had known ties to an organisation that was secretly backed by the CIA. And it was not long before the Dismissal that the US appointed a new Ambassador to Australia, a man known as “the coupmaster” for his role in the acknowledged US-backed coups elsewhere, including Indonesia. None of these is anywhere near a smoking gun (especially since the leaker ended up defecting to the Soviets, IIRC, and may have had ulterior motives).
You’re right that the evidence is “circumstantial”, though in a legal sense that isn’t nearly as damning as the screenwriters of CSI and other legal/cop dramas would have you believe. Circumstantial evidence can be quite powerful in making a legal case. And I think it’s a bit of an understatement to say that there is “no more evidence…than to suggest Whitlam wasn’t the US’ first choice.” Not a smoking gun. Certainly not a sure thing. But quite a bit less of a crazy conspiracy theory than anything to do with Holt is.
Also speaking of Holt, shout out to James “Haha Nice” on YouTube (he’s also on TikTok) who’s currently doing an in-depth series of videos on the whole Holt government and just how wild it was.
- Comment on ‘We’re living in an Orwellian nightmare’: Grace Tame calls Anthony Albanese a ‘coward’ in scathing critique 1 day ago:
Honestly I think they just conflated Holt with Whitlam.
- Comment on An 18-year-old woman in Queensland faces two years in jail for wearing a shirt that says "from the river to the sea." 1 day ago:
Oh sorry. I actually had to Google that just now to get it.
Farnsy’s not really my sort of music.
- Comment on An 18-year-old woman in Queensland faces two years in jail for wearing a shirt that says "from the river to the sea." 2 days ago:
Thanks, I appreciate that. But I’m just some random white dude on the Internet. The voices we really need are more prominent figures (including politicians) who can greatly influence their followers, brave anti-zionist Jewish people who can provide a clear counterexample to Israel’s false conflation, and the voices of the people directly affected by Israel’s genocidal activities.
- Comment on An 18-year-old woman in Queensland faces two years in jail for wearing a shirt that says "from the river to the sea." 3 days ago:
Close. There are two potentially relevant Farnam songs that may have been conflated in this discourse. One is That’s Freedom, which includes the lines “From the mountain to the valley / From the ocean to the alley / From the highway to the river”. And the other is Two Strong Hearts, which repeatedly uses the line “Reaching out forever like a river to the sea”. Neither quite uses “from the river to the sea”, but together they give the same sort of impression.
- Comment on An 18-year-old woman in Queensland faces two years in jail for wearing a shirt that says "from the river to the sea." 3 days ago:
Australia’s constitution has been interpreted by our High Court to contain an implied right to freedom of political communication. Restrictions on that right may be constitutional if they are (1) for a valid purpose and are (2) narrowly targeted towards that purpose.
The law she was arrested under was only passed by the Queensland state Parliament earlier this week (or late last week? I forget). It is definitely going to face constitutional challenge, and there is a very good chance it is ruled struck down. This is because the law literally outlaws two specific phrases from one side of a political issue, and is likely to be seen as stifling free flow of political discourse, rather than being a more “content-neutral” law.
This article, written by a constitutional scholar, gives some great insight: theguardian.com/…/the-lnps-phrase-banning-law-is-…
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 4 days ago:
Seagoon has not posted to clarify the thinking behind their comment.
You see how that’s a bad thing, right? Surely. If they don’t clarify their stance is anti-genocide in very unmistakeable terms, one must conclude that they are, in fact, a Nazi. Choosing to remain silent should not be allowed to give someone ranting about lebensraum the benefit of the doubt during an active genocide.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
Sorry but I’m afraid this time I’m the one who has to admit to not understanding the reference.
( Oh, and also: this is an Australian Community. In that context, Texas is kinda small. It would be Australia’s 6th largest state or internal territory. :D
)
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
The purpose of moderation is to prevent people from being exposed abhorrent content
That may be one purpose. But it isn’t the only one. Another is shaping the norms of a community and what is acceptable. I’ll share the parable of the Nazi Bar, but put it behind a collapsible spoiler in case you or anyone else is already familiar:
The Parable of the Nazi Bar, by Michael B. Tager
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.” And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.” And i was like, oh ok and he continues. “you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.” “And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.”
I’ve shared my thoughts on why this particular user deserves the label Nazi elsewhere in the thread, and my reply to Lodion in particular also includes some of the justification for including the screenshot. But I’ll elaborate on that particular point here.
I don’t think mere exposure to that kind of Nazi rhetoric causes direct harm. Which is why I did not think it was causing harm to screencap the comment. Instead, it is the long-term permissibility of that content which causes harm. The Nazi Bar. If Nazis’ views are permitted, you get more Nazis.
I shared the comment first of all to highlight that user in particular to anyone viewing the thread to warn them off from engaging. And also to highlight that same parallel that I made in the reply to Lodion. That even if one person may not themselves be a Nazi, they are engaging in some ideology that is dangerously close to that of Nazis. Highlighting an actual Nazi whose views they would agree with was supposed to serve to emphasise that parallel, while serving as a dis-endorsement of the Nazi’s own view. I think that sharing harmful views in the specific context of highlighting both that and why they are harmful is not at all similar to simply having those views and sharing them sincerely.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
To be clear, I fully believe that the user in question is a Nazi. There is no other rational explanation for their behaviour. Any space that allows that user is a Nazi bar.
The legislation itself I do not believe is only supported by literal Nazis. But that the ideology in support of them is a similar far-right reactionary one. It necessarily involves gleeful support at the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, including the deliberate killing of medics and journalists whose only job is to reduce suffering and expose how awful the regime inflicting this is. It also necessarily involves support for the restriction on civil rights including freedom of expression. It may not be capital-N Nazi necessarily, but it is certainly far-right authoritarian, of the sort that might have attracted a less formal lower-case-n “nazi” label a decade ago, when actual Nazis were more closeted. But that shouldn’t be surprising. My point was to demonstrate that being a Zionist, in 2026, necessarily puts you ideologically very close to Nazis, even if you don’t necessarily cross the line into actually being a Nazi, like this particular user obviously does.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
That’s good to see, but as of right now the Nazi’s explicit mask-off comment is still up, and they are still not prevented from commenting further in the future.
Fwiw, I didn’t learn the phrase from online discourse about neonazis, I learnt it from education about WWII in its original comment. Until reading other comments in this thread I was not even aware that it was popular among neonazis as a dogwhistle. So we both learnt something unfortunate here today.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
Ah fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
It’s hard to take the word of someone who evidently has a history of genocide denial and who then turns around and talks about lebensraum as anything other than an admission of a Nazi-like ideology.
Being someone who you can have a conversation about other subjects with does not affect that. Then turning around and denying it does not change anything.
The only thing that might change my mind would be a complete retraction of both the lebensraum comment and the “there is no genocide” ones.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
I think I get what you mean, but I would say that it only “justifies it” to people looking for a reason to justify it. It doesn’t actually make the government more likely to give Israel support than they already were, IMO.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 5 days ago:
Fyi you’re currently talking to the Nazi who caused this conversation to start.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
As much as I tire of pro Palestine activism in Aussie spaces
Surely not as much as we tire of anti-Palestine actions being taken by our state and federal governments.
If Albanese’s government were sanctioning Israel instead of selling weapons to help with their genocide, and if Crisafulli had banned pro-Israel messages rather than pro-Palestine ones, you would probably see a hell of a lot less pro-Palestine activism in Aussie spaces. Because for many of us, the activism isn’t about directly affecting anything in the Middle East—we know we can’t do that—it’s about affecting how our own government acts in response.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
To suggest that lebensraum is just some random policy that Germany happened to have in the '30s and ‘40s, and wasn’t one of the core things that made the Nazis the Nazis (as in, the personification of and byword for evil itself that they have since become) is an absolutely wild take to have, in my view.
I screen capped it because I did not want to engage directly with a Nazi. But it was nevertheless important to publically call out that behaviour for what it was. I don’t believe it has no effect to ban Nazis while also, in the relevant context, to use Nazis’ words as examples of what to look out for with other Nazis. If others disagree with me there I would be happy to have a respectful conversation on the topic of whether my comment should have been removed or edited. But I do not believe that there is that nuance to be had with whether the Nazis themselves should be welcome.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
The user in question posted two top-level comments
Uhh, no. They posted exactly one comment, and it was explicitly a Nazi talking point. I didn’t check their history myself, but according to @Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone they have quite a history of pro-Israel comments. With that context it’s impossible to read their comment as anything other than endorsing the genocide. Not even the sort of genocide denial Israeli supporters usually go for, but explicitly saying “this is genocide and it’s good.” If that’s not worth banning I don’t know what is.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
It’s not ironic when the nation of Israel is actually acting like Nazis.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
Because I don’t want to bring attention to an actual Nazi. The admins have received a report on the comment in question and I’ll happily provide more details if they request.
The comment in question was justifying Israel’s invasions with reference to “living space”—exact words.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
I’m an aussie.zone user commenting on !meta@aussie.zone to understand the aussie.zone admins’ and users’ stance. I’m not sure what any of your comment has to do with this.
- Comment on Are users who openly parrot literal Nazi talking points allowed here? 6 days ago:
It was a user suggesting that Jews need “living space” (exact words) and that this justifies Israel’s multiple invasions of its neighbours.
- Submitted 6 days ago to meta@aussie.zone | 60 comments
- Submitted 1 week ago to australia@aussie.zone | 5 comments
- Comment on Activist group Pride in Protest banned from Mardi Gras parade over social media posts 2 weeks ago:
So brutally assaulting anti-genocide protestors is ok with Mardi Gras, but calling out those who support genocide is a step too far.
- Activist group Pride in Protest banned from Mardi Gras parade over social media postswww.theguardian.com ↗Submitted 2 weeks ago to australia@aussie.zone | 1 comment
- Comment on Cape York man’s conviction overturned after court finds magistrate made ‘inappropriate’ remarks 2 weeks ago:
Read the fucking comment you fucking turd.
I even went to the effort of bolding the relevant section for you.
- Comment on Cape York man’s conviction overturned after court finds magistrate made ‘inappropriate’ remarks 2 weeks ago:
Wrong
