Remove this Banner Ad

Politics Aussie Fascists, (neo)Nazis and Leg Spinners

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

We don't tolerate intolerance. It's just the way it is.
Too right. There should be no possible way we humans should be able to strip or restrict the ideal of universal human rights through the political process. Even if a majority, a tyranny of the majority in such a case, wills it.

If that means stepping back from 'true' democracy, so be it.
If that means stepping back from unfettered free speech, so be it.

Some ideas and ideologies are just too abhorrent for any civil society to live with.
 
We don't tolerate intolerance. It's just the way it is.
Obviously our judicial system does.


Oh and for those like JustaBattler who are for free speech, even for nazis. Well they already have it in this society.

Why? Coz we now live in a society (or more accurately a judicial system) that seemingly doesn't want to deter anti-social and violent behaviour.

We're now seeing anarchical behaviour from hateful nazis all the way to misguided youth and anywhere in between because of zero deterrence.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

If that means stepping back from 'true' democracy, so be it.
We're past 'democracy', democracy doesn't turn a blind eye to anti social behaviour, like our judicial system does.
If that means stepping back from unfettered free speech, so be it.
Free speech isn't the problem, it's free speech that is abhorrent and not punished / deterred that is the problem.
 

This is who some here would see in parliament. A Nazi thug and criminal.

And he wasn’t alone, he, his supporters and their admirers do not deserve an legitimacy.
I only heard about this guy recently and found myself interested and wondering if perhaps he suffers from mental illness or could be mentally ******ed. There's no way a rational mind could believe he would be able to gain enough followers to ever do any damage in parliament when you talk about Adolf Hitler with admiration and actually call yourself a Neo-Nazi with pride. The vast majority of people aren't going to put up with that crap and both the left and right minded people hate nazi's.
He could be a special kind of stupid.
 
I only heard about this guy recently and found myself interested and wondering if perhaps he suffers from mental illness or could be mentally ******ed. There's no way a rational mind could believe he would be able to gain enough followers to ever do any damage in parliament when you talk about Adolf Hitler with admiration and actually call yourself a Neo-Nazi with pride. The vast majority of people aren't going to put up with that crap and both the left and right minded people hate nazi's.
He could be a special kind of stupid.
The guy self admitted to "recruiting hundreds of autistics". And claimed to have recruited "lost" people post NZ defence force career. They are all about targeting weak and vulnerable young men, as they are easily manipulated.
 
I only heard about this guy recently and found myself interested and wondering if perhaps he suffers from mental illness or could be mentally ******ed. There's no way a rational mind could believe he would be able to gain enough followers to ever do any damage in parliament when you talk about Adolf Hitler with admiration and actually call yourself a Neo-Nazi with pride. The vast majority of people aren't going to put up with that crap and both the left and right minded people hate nazi's.
He could be a special kind of stupid.
He’s actually not the problem. He’s just a deadshit with bizarre and extreme ideologies that have no chance of being accepted in any rational society.

What he does, though, is extend the parameters of acceptability in that general direction. He allows for people less extreme but still bigoted, racist and misogynist to exist. He normalises behaviours and opinions halfway to his extremity.

If he didn’t exist, these “halfway” opinions would be considered extreme, and could be more easily reined in accordingly.
 
He’s actually not the problem. He’s just a deadshit with bizarre and extreme ideologies that have no chance of being accepted in any rational society.

What he does, though, is extend the parameters of acceptability in that general direction. He allows for people less extreme but still bigoted, racist and misogynist to exist. He normalises behaviours and opinions halfway to his extremity.

If he didn’t exist, these “halfway” opinions would be considered extreme, and could be more easily reined in accordingly.
David Duke in the US being a classic example of the "less extreme" version

He's not actually less extreme he just doesn't say it as loudly or as openly

he lets his underlings do that while maintaining the public facade
 
----------------

Gough more white Saffers upholding their fine reputation..

His influencer missus has privated all her shit as expected


With Musk and Thiel running amok too I can't help but think we might all be better off if white South Africa's worst fears about the end of Apartheid had been realised.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

So you are intolerant about intolerance ?

ok.
If we tolerate intolerance to the point intolerance gains traction in our society than that will lead to the death of tolerance itself.

By the language used I guess this is aimed at early secondary school students - those just starting out on the journey of socio-political awareness. But the point is well made;


...Imagine you have a friend who is super nice and lets people do pretty much whatever they want. That’s like a tolerant society. But suppose some people start being mean to others, and because your friend wants to be nice to everyone, they don’t stop the mean behavior. This could lead to even more people being mean, and eventually, nobody would feel safe or happy. This is what the Paradox of Tolerance is about—it asks if it’s really good to always let people do and say whatever they want, even if it means some people will use that freedom to harm others.

Another way to look at it is to think of a game with rules. If the rule is to play fair, but someone cheats because they say there’s freedom to play however you like, the game might fall apart. Should the other players say it’s okay to cheat? Or should they say no to cheating to keep the game fun and fair for everyone? That’s the dilemma of the Paradox of Tolerance: deciding when being “too nice” might actually be bad for the group as a whole...
 
David Duke in the US being a classic example of the "less extreme" version

He's not actually less extreme he just doesn't say it as loudly or as openly

he lets his underlings do that while maintaining the public facade
Who, this David Duke?


...The Mexican birthrate in this country is five times that of white people. The black birthrate is four times larger. America will become a Third World nation if these trends continue. Unless we slow down and cut off immigration by beefing up border control and encourage welfare recipients to have fewer kids, the white population in America will be swamped.” — David Duke in the run-up to the KKKK’s 1977 “Border Patrol” operation...

In true David Duke style, the foundation of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKKK) is shrouded in political myth. Duke’s claim that the Knights were founded in 1956 by Ed White (a pseudonym for Jim Lindsay) has, however, been largely discredited as a propagandistic attempt by the budding Klan leader to fend off depictions of his group as an inconsequential upstart. The group seems to have first appeared briefly in New Orleans in 1973, with Duke billing himself grand dragon and Jim Lindsay grand wizard. But records show that the KKKK was not formally incorporated in Louisiana until 1975, following Lindsay’s murder, when Duke listed himself as founder and national director and his then-wife, Chloe, as secretary.

Duke’s attempts to win over the old guard of Klan leaders, both by re-imagining the origins of his group and by reaching out early on to fellow “Klan brothers,” belied his revolutionary plans. Famously calling on fellow Klansmen to “get out of the cow pasture and into hotel meeting rooms,” Duke saw himself as the leader of a slick, new Klan which would captivate the public through political discourse, eschewing the violent methods of the past. Duke thus brought the art of media manipulation to the Klan, wooing mainstream media personalities such as NBC host Tom Snyder and attracting dozens of reporters to write excited stories about the Knights’ 1977 “Border Patrol” publicity stunt, a supposed effort to close the U.S.-Mexico border to undocumented entrants that lasted just a few days. Under Duke’s management, the Knights opened its doors to women and Catholics (while never giving up entirely on the view that women are, above all else, best utilized for producing white babies). This all served to reinforce the public image of a more modern, educated Klan, an image that Duke reinforced by shunning Klan robes for suits and ties.

Duke also revamped the Klan’s particular brand of bigotry. No longer a mere horde of cross-burning minority-haters, the Knights, like many other American hate groups, became “Nazified” — focused on Jews rather than blacks as the primary enemy — with Duke spinning elaborate theories about everything from Jewish control of the Federal Reserve to a Jewish conspiracy behind the civil rights movement. Likewise, the leadership of state KKKK chapters boasted a pantheon of budding neo-Nazi figures, including notorious anti-Semite Don Black in Alabama, White Aryan Resistance founder Tom Metzger in California, and David Lane, a future leader of the terrorist group The Order, in Colorado...

I don't see Sewell 're-branding bigotry' all that much. He seems to be a garden-variety hater who is trying to use the media to lift his profile.
 
Who, this David Duke?



I don't see Sewell 're-branding bigotry' all that much. He seems to be a garden-variety hater who is trying to use the media to lift his profile.
I wasn't suggesting Sewell would become David Duke
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.




Fm1CIcZaYAMv96e.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you're saying I should start tearing down socialist / communist signs and bashing those promoting it?

Yep because these two groups are definitely the same kind of thing.


Those socialists are so darn dangerous.

You've been brainwashed FascismByIrene.
 
So you're saying I should start tearing down socialist / communist signs and bashing those promoting it?
it's pretty telling that you're equating fascism with socialism, despite being very different things!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics Aussie Fascists, (neo)Nazis and Leg Spinners

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top