Politics Aussie Fascists, (neo)Nazis and Leg Spinners

[Donakebab]

Apologies, I may have gotten them mixed up - it is difficult to keep track of the amount of disingenuous posters I have on ignore.

DI you have yourself on ignore? Is that even possible??

 

[faible]

There are some far right governments doing horrible things at the moment, and there is support/cheerleading for them by some SRP posters.

Most of them get turfed out of SRP because they can't avoid posting hateful stuff for too long and that generally gets them pinged. There's a few on the conspiracy board that are pretty hard right, some because they're probably not educated* enough to realise they've been conned by far-right talking points, some because they're genuine believers in some fairly problematic things.

*note: you don't require a degree to be 'educated' in this scenario, just very poorly aware of much outside of a very limited corner of the internet.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Looks like the war against the Australian Far Right is moving into the 'financial strangulation' phase independent of governmental action. Great to see!!

The neo-Nazi behind anti-Jewish rally in Sydney has bank accounts frozen

While federal and state governments, police and national security agencies grapple with how to respond to the National Socialist Network, several financial institutions and service providers have acted independently to restrict the flow of funds to the white supremacy group.

www.abc.net.au

November 21, 2025

An Australian bank has frozen the accounts of a prominent Neo-Nazi leader, while a US-based technology firm has blocked the group's attempts to solicit donations online.

The nation's corporate watchdog has also revoked the group's proposed company name, "White Australia".

Despite these actions, the Neo-Nazi organisation claims it has collected 1,495 of the 1,500 signatures required to register as a federal political party.

The Neo-Nazi organiser of an anti-Jewish rally outside NSW parliament has had his personal bank accounts frozen, as private-sector companies quietly move to cut off the group's financial pipeline, frustrating its ability to fundraise and recruit.

While federal and state governments, police and national security agencies grapple with how to respond to the National Socialist Network (NSN), the ABC can reveal several financial institutions and service providers have acted independently to restrict the flow of funds to the white supremacy group.

Jack Eltis, a 28-year-old part-time air-conditioning mechanic from north-west Sydney and the NSN's third-in-command, discovered on Monday that his bank accounts had been cancelled.

He told supporters he was unable to use his cards or withdraw cash.

"All my cards fully frozen, debanked again from another bank," he said

A message from ME Bank, which Mr Eltis posted online, stated: "An internal decision has been made to no longer maintain your products or services with ME … that decision is final."

The ABC has independently verified the Bank of Queensland-owned institution did terminate his accounts.

Its terms and conditions allow the bank to close accounts used to "defame, harass or threaten any person … or promote violence against any person"...

 

[evolved2]

There are some far right governments doing horrible things at the moment, and there is support/cheerleading for them by some SRP posters.

Is Hamas a far right government?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Is Hamas a far right government?

 

[CD Xbow]

I was glad to see they have nabbed some of these neo-nazi dickheads, including Joel Davis.

Two men charged over threatening messages to Lidia Thorpe and about Allegra Spender

Third man charged for allegedly harassing ‘Australian high-office holder’ as police target people ‘causing high levels of harm to Australia’s social cohesion’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Chief]

So you are intolerant about intolerance ?

ok.

Correct.

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Seeds]

Correct.

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

John stewart mill would argue you can only reason as to why intolerant ideas are wrong if you continue to do so by enabling the freedom of expression to debate them. if you ban certain ideas then they become dogma and you forget why they were wrong in the first place.


And if you ban intolerant ideas you will end up banning other things as well that leads constraints on the pursuit of truth and eventually, ironically, increased intolerance. Like Rawls, on this issue I think Popper is wrong.

 

[BFew]

neo-nazi dickheads

I generally reserve the label of dickhead for way less worse than those neo-nazi scumbags/terrorists.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Is Hamas a far right government?

Theocracies are a 'special' kind of Far Right. Instead of a superior ethnic group it is THEIR brand of faith that is the superior one. Unlike an unreachable and therefore unbreachable ethnicity though, they at least give you the 'chance' to convert, even from outside the ethnic origins of the faith.

How nice of them, right?

But yeah, I'd consider the Religious Right as among the Far Right, for sure. If in power they'd make life for those outside their faith either impossible or as close to impossible as possible.

Hamas belong nowhere near political leadership in my opinion.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

John stewart mill would argue you can only reason as to why intolerant ideas are wrong if you continue to do so by enabling the freedom of expression to debate them. if you ban certain ideas then they become dogma and you forget why they were wrong in the first place.


And if you ban intolerant ideas you will end up banning other things as well that leads constraints on the pursuit of truth and eventually, ironically, increased intolerance. Like Rawls, on this issue I think Popper is wrong.

All you have to do is measure the ideally banned outright ideology of the Far Right/Racist Right (Only ONE race/ethnicity is permissible - all others are inferior and should have less rights or even no rights in society) against the idea of universal human rights (we all have equal rights).

Nobody with sound reasoning would ever back the Far Right/Racist Right again.

 

[CM86]

John stewart mill would argue you can only reason as to why intolerant ideas are wrong if you continue to do so by enabling the freedom of expression to debate them. if you ban certain ideas then they become dogma and you forget why they were wrong in the first place.


And if you ban intolerant ideas you will end up banning other things as well that leads constraints on the pursuit of truth and eventually, ironically, increased intolerance. Like Rawls, on this issue I think Popper is wrong.

Outside of some random fringe exceptions, can you give real world examples of this?

How long do you need to have a debate around the genocide of a people based on the colour of their skin, before you decide that it is OK to be intolerant of their intolerance?
When did the Holocaust become 'dogma' to you? When did you start to forget why Hitler's actions were wrong?



The easiest way to get you to address why you don't support your argument (honest or not), is by relating it to child abuse.
Would you ever argue that we should be tolerant of pederast values and ideas, to better society? If not, why not?
They are intolerant of consent.

The answer is societal harm. And the knowledge, experience and history we already have around these concepts and ideas, that have proven that being intolerant of them is better for society.


And finally, there's no such thing as being bigoted towards bigotry.

 

[Grin]

I was glad to see they have nabbed some of these neo-nazi dickheads, including Joel Davis.

View attachment 2483920

Two men charged over threatening messages to Lidia Thorpe and about Allegra Spender

Third man charged for allegedly harassing ‘Australian high-office holder’ as police target people ‘causing high levels of harm to Australia’s social cohesion’

www.theguardian.com

Looks like foetal alcohol syndrome. Not that it justify the behavior, but mitigates it somewhat imo.

 

[faible]

Outside of some random fringe exceptions, can you give real world examples of this?

How long do you need to have a debate around the genocide of a people based on the colour of their skin, before you decide that it is OK to be intolerant of their intolerance?
When did the Holocaust become 'dogma' to you? When did you start to forget why Hitler's actions were wrong?



The easiest way to get you to address why you don't support your argument (honest or not), is by relating it to child abuse.
Would you ever argue that we should be tolerant of pederast values and ideas, to better society? If not, why not?
They are intolerant of consent.

The answer is societal harm. And the knowledge, experience and history we already have around these concepts and ideas, that have proven that being intolerant of them is better for society.


And finally, there's no such thing as being bigoted towards bigotry.

Forgetting why Nazism was wrong in the first place is a pretty damn long bow to draw.

 

[CM86]

Forgetting why Nazism was wrong in the first place is a pretty damn long bow to draw.

It was rhetorical.

 

[faible]

It was rhetorical.

I meant Seeds' argument that something like banning Nazism would result in people forgetting why Nazism was banned in the first place

 

[Seeds]

All you have to do is measure the ideally banned outright ideology of the Far Right/Racist Right (Only ONE race/ethnicity is permissible - all others are inferior and should have less rights or even no rights in society) against the idea of universal human rights (we all have equal rights).

Nobody with sound reasoning would ever back the Far Right/Racist Right again.

And yet even some of those wildly against the far right are forgetting the equal human rights justification. We must remember why we are against certain ideas, even the ridiculously vile ideals, rather then just be against them for purity reasons alone.

 

[Seeds]

I meant Seeds' argument that something like banning Nazism would result in people forgetting why Nazism was banned in the first place

I didnt say anything about not banning things. Dont claim i said things I didnt say. I strongly believe in banning certain things (murder, cocaine, religous schools, selfie sticks). Banning is fine but we must remember why we ban them and be free to debate why they should or should not be banned. Thats my point. Not that we shouldnt ban things. The only thing that should be off the table for banning is discussion. As soon as we ban open discussion on certain topics we turn ideas into unquestioned dogma. And governments and majorities are going to take advantage of that as they have in the past.

 

[the_interloper]

All you have to do is measure the ideally banned outright ideology of the Far Right/Racist Right (Only ONE race/ethnicity is permissible - all others are inferior and should have less rights or even no rights in society) against the idea of universal human rights (we all have equal rights).

Nobody with sound reasoning would ever back the Far Right/Racist Right again.

Amazing this needs to be pointed out but yes, agreed of course.

And yet even some of those wildly against the far right are forgetting the equal human rights justification. We must remember why we are against certain ideas, even the ridiculously vile ideals, rather then just be against them for purity reasons alone.

This is precisely why I listened to Thomas Sewell and his dickhead mate on Sam Newman's podcast, in a way I wanted to make sure I disagree with them (which I do for the record, only lasted 5 mins).

I read some of the YT comments, one in particular worried me, was along the lines of "this Sewell bloke makes a bit of sense, I'd never quite thought about it like that etc etc". I get uneasy about outright bans on speech, but they do lead vulnerable along with them, I don't know what the answer is basically.

 

[jannissary]

Amazing this needs to be pointed out but yes, agreed of course.



This is precisely why I listened to Thomas Sewell and his dickhead mate on Sam Newman's podcast, in a way I wanted to make sure I disagree with them (which I do for the record, only lasted 5 mins).

I read some of the YT comments, one in particular worried me, was along the lines of "this Sewell bloke makes a bit of sense, I'd never quite thought about it like that etc etc". I get uneasy about outright bans on speech, but they do lead vulnerable along with them, I don't know what the answer is basically.

the stupid are easier to lead than the vulnerable. i've never met a smart neo nazi in my life, probably won't either.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

the stupid are easier to lead than the vulnerable.

Agree, the recent Australian federal election highlighted this point well.

 

[bourbons]

Agree, the recent Australian federal election highlighted this point well.

A touch defensive, not everything is about you mate

 

[Beerfish]

Agree, the recent Australian federal election highlighted this point well.

Cry more.

 

[jannissary]

Agree, the recent Australian federal election highlighted this point well.

considering the amount of people who voted for the LNP, it’s true. they had a significantly higher voter turnout than they deserved.

 

[faible]

considering the amount of people who voted for the LNP, it’s true. they had a significantly higher voter turnout than they deserved.

FascismByIrene gets very upset when people don't support authoritarianism.