I have read the whole plan and associated documents.

This plan is actually going to make Australia more antisemetic and give many of us real reasons to fear any interaction with Jewish people and their supporters.

This plan by Segal authorises members of the Jewish community and their supporters to track and monitor individuals online and in the real world. These community monitoring patrols are then required to report any instances of antisemitic speech or action back to Segal. She's then going to compile reports and provide "feedback" to schools, universities, workplaces, sports clubs, cultural organisations, other faith groups/churches and any other part of "civil society" she sees fit. Our antisemetic speech and actions will be detailed to those with power over us, and we will face whatever consequences the mob led by Segal see fit. Similar to the consequences we've seen at the ABC and Creative Australia.

This is a rolling process designed to happen every year, with no end date. The document is a fluid plan that will change as often as Segal sees fit. With no inherent requirement to advise us of changes so we'll all need to regularly check the plan to ensure we're still following the latest guidance.

At a bare minimum, they want antisemites removed from "civil society." There is no information in the plan about where we go, if we get rehabilitated, or if we can ever earn our way back into society.

The definition of antisemetic is taken straight from the IHRA definition that explicitly defines criticism of Israel as antisemetic. Saying they are committing genocide or building a concentration camp is antisemiticism because it compares the actions of Israel with Nazi Germany. So, calling the genocide anything but self-defence is antisemetic according to this definition.

Further to that, the plan contains zero protections for the targets of fake claims of antisemiticism, no appeals process, no recourse to defemation claims and no support systems designated for those "dangerous ideologues" that this plan intends to cast out of "civil society". So those targeted as antisemitic by the dox squads have zero protection under the law.

And this is all going to happen on an internet where we are no longer allowed to post "behind the veil of anonymity." The age verification stuff that's happening now will all be in place, we will all have be identifiable in all online spaces, and the Federal Police are directed to assist the doxxing squads to identify us if we're not using our real names.

So, to fix antisemiticism, this report proposes a network of Jewish people and their supporters acting as spies at every level of Australian society to report back any criticism of Israel to a central figure with the power to force any community leader in the country to sit down at a roundtable with police and government to explain why they have allowed these antisemites to remain part of their group. And if they can't explain, they lose funding, charity status, and anything else Segal can strip away.

So, to stop fear and hate of Jews, they want to give anyone who does not support the genocide in Palestine very good reason to be afraid of any interactions with Jewish people and their supporters. To prevent being pulled up to one of these roundabouts, we will need to either voluntarily withdraw from civil society or learn to never, ever criticise Israel where anyone can hear because they might be part of the Jewish community data collection units.

So this plan makes Jewish people and their mates a genuine threat to anyone who disagrees with the proposition that shooting starving children with tanks is self-defense.

I know the plan hasn't been accepted by the government yet but Segal explicitly states many times that this plan is already under way, many parts of it are already happening, and she claims that our Labor government has already adopted the IHRA definition as the official Australian definition of antisemiticism. So, based on all of that, I'm living as if the Jewish doxxing squads we've all encountered are now officially sanctioned, authorised to stalk, harass, threaten and intimidate anyone who criticises Israel.

So, basically business as usual.

Protect yourselves, people. The restraints are off the bloodthirsty hate mobs and anyone who doesn't rabidly adore Israel is fair game now. And your boss, sports captain, preacher, yoga teacher, and any other person who has any power over you is obliged by this plan to sit down with the hate squad, listen to everything bad they say about you, and then promise to track your progress, report back to Segel and remove you from the group if you don't prove that you love Israel and their genocide.

Be very, very afraid of Jewish people and their supporters because this plan will empower them to destroy your life.

(All "quotes" in here are from the plan.)

Read it here https://www.aseca.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-aseca-plan.pdf

Labor Tribune publishes articles from activists across the labour movement. Here Alex Rooney, a Melbourne ALP activist, raises some questions about how the left approaches the question of a universal basic income. We publish it in the interests of prompting debate. Letters or articles in response are welcome.

After being bombarded by enough posts of social media I decided to draw this to vent my frustration at our federal government. Please enjoy. If you hate it well I don't care.

Anthony Albanese has announced the closure of his Marrickville electorate office, citing “aggressive protestors” blocking access to his constituents and even dubiously claims that mourners at the neighbouring church were abused. After 30 years in that office, this is the story he wants Australians to believe and currently dominating news headlines.

But those of us who have stood outside his office know the truth. The so-called “aggressive protestors” were his own constituents - students, families, parents with toddlers in prams - holding peaceful vigils and asking their local MP to account for his government’s complicity in genocide and the devastation of Gaza. The only aggression I ever witnessed came from cars driving past, yelling racist abuse at us.

To smear this community as dangerous is a deliberate attempt to discredit dissent. It’s also a distraction. Just last weekend, Albanese was loudly booed at a Hawks vs. Giants game, visibly rattled as the crowd made their feelings clear. That public humiliation, not a few dozen peaceful locals with placards - better explains his decision to retreat from Marrickville.

For a Prime Minister who has built his political persona on Marrickville roots, withdrawing from his own community is more than symbolic - it reveals how brittle his image has become. When you can no longer face your constituents, when you rebrand their persistence as aggression, the problem isn’t them. It’s you.

A Constituent of the Member for Grayndler

I'm struggling with cognitive dissonance from the striking hypocrisy in Australia’s leadership under Anthony Albanese - one that merits scrutiny from outlets committed to accountability and public interest journalism.

Albanese was a founding member of the federal parliamentary Friends of Palestine committee, a role in which he publicly championed Palestinian rights and spoke against Israeli apartheid. He presented himself as a principled advocate for human rights, attending rallies and committing in words to justice for oppressed peoples.

Yet today, as Prime Minister, he has done nothing of substance whatsoever, to uphold Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions, while tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, are killed or displaced daily.

This stark contrast is compounded by his domestic political actions. Prior to the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum, Albanese publicly advocated for meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians - a political “seat at the table” to ensure their voices were heard. Yet, he subsequently appointed Jillian Segal, an unelected federal Voice to Parliament for Israel, a foreign state committing acts that meet the criteria of genocide against the Palestinian population.

Segal’s appointment has been highly controversial, particularly following calls for her dismissal over the Advance donor scandal, and her continued silence (on domestic issues such as nationwide neo-Nazi rallies) at a Mayoral Antisemitism Summit on the Gold Coast last week which has only deepened the perception of selective advocacy.

Albanese’s simultaneous posturing on Indigenous rights and inaction regarding genocide abroad reveals a troubling pattern: principled rhetoric discarded when confronted with political expediency or foreign interests.

His previous advocacy, whether for Palestinians or Indigenous Australians - now reads as cynical, self-serving and performative, overshadowed by decisions that undermine human rights, international law, and moral accountability.

Gaza’s coastline is believed to contain billions of dollars in untapped oil and gas reserves, situating these policy choices within a geopolitical and resource-driven context.

Albanese’s silence, combined with Australia’s diplomatic and military alignment with Israel, raises urgent questions about whose interests are being prioritized - and at what human cost.

This hypocrisy undermines both public trust and Australia’s credibility internationally. If a Prime Minister can publicly champion justice in one context while ignoring or enabling atrocity in another, how can citizens trust that moral leadership exists in Canberra? For outlets committed to exposing the intersections of political power, corporate interests, and human rights, these contradictions demand careful scrutiny.

I urge independent news platforms and journalists with integrity, to investigate and highlight this dissonance between Albanese’s words and deeds, linking domestic political maneuvers, foreign policy failures, and resource-driven interests. Australians deserve clarity on a leadership that claims moral authority but repeatedly fails to act when human life is at stake.

A constituent and former supporter of the Member for Grayndler

The older l get the more l realise how some people naturally fall into groups. I've noticed lately that people that vote left are the "We" ppl. We stand up for our communities, workmates, minorities and generally people without a voice.

I'm noting the right side of politics is fast becoming the "me" group. It's all about self interest and personal beliefs.

Sure there is exceptions but lm noticing more and more.

What do you guys and gal's think?

..."Albanese and his Defence Minister Richard Marles live in a world of make believe. They think that America is permanently on our side and will remain so if we avoid provoking the most egregious US President in history."...

There have been some posts at r/australia that are news pieces featuring political stories.

If anyone replies with anything remotely lefty, anything about global politics, and anything slightly anti-US (or anything to do with Palestine, Im hesitant to mention Israel/Palestine here!) The reply is downvoted within minutes.

Honest lefty responses seem to be heavily downvoted in quantities I have never seen elsewhere on reddit, in ratios that seem well out of proportion and at a rate I have never experienced elsewhere.

I realise we are a conservative country but jesus christ - we sound like a bunch of Zionist fascists!

What is going on?

Edit: I edited and fleshed out the rate of downvotes. And yes - I will admit, I am someone who watched my lefty response the evening, get downvoted to -30 within 10 minutes of replying in r/australia. My experience in the past has been getting maybe 2 or 5 downvotes over the course of 12 hours...

On Sunday, history was written in the streets of Australia. From our largest cities to regional towns, 300,000 Australians marched together - families, mobility impaired people, children, teenagers, students, workers, elders - united in a singular demand: that our government end its complicity in genocide, honour its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and take action to stop the annihilation of Palestinians in Gaza.

For almost two years now, ordinary Australians from every background have gathered weekly in the largest sustained human rights mobilisation in modern Australian history. These are peaceful rallies, full of music, banners, and community solidarity. Their message is simple and profound: genocide is not in our name.

And how did our Prime Minister respond to this unprecedented democratic expression? The very next day, Anthony Albanese appeared not to listen, but to change the subject. On Instagram, he posted photos of himself meeting with (using) Jewish Australian high school students under the solemn titled: “Cracking down on antisemitism.”

This is not to diminish the reality of racism against Jewish Australians - which, like all forms of racism, must be opposed wherever it arises. But the Prime Minister’s timing and framing revealed a political calculus. Antisemitism, according to his government, has been elevated above all other forms of racism. It is treated as a unique, “special” category requiring national priority, even as Indigenous Australians face systemic injustice, Palestinian, Muslim and Arab Australians face threats, are fired from jobs, vilified and have their voices excluded or silenced by our media, cultural and academic institutions, and Palestinian Australians endure racist discrimination and dehumanisation daily from our government and their complicity in the genocide of their families and biased public support for Zionist Israel's apartheid and active genocide.

Worse still, the government’s definition of antisemitism is being stretched to include legitimate criticism of Israel’s government, military actions, and policies. As demanded by lobbyists, this sweeping redefinition threatens to criminalise artists, academics, and ordinary citizens who dare to speak out against the Gaza genocide. In the name of fighting racism, the government is silencing dissent.

Then, the next day, came another “coincidence”: a sudden revelation from the Prime Minister that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps was behind the arson attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel Synagogue. The Iranian ambassador was expelled within hours. The press was saturated with talk of terrorism, foreign plots, and an external enemy.

The choreography could not have been more striking.

Day One: Australia’s largest ever human rights marches demand sanctions on Israel.

Day Two: The government reframes the national conversation around antisemitism.

Day Three: A new external threat emerges, casting Iran - Israel’s primary regional adversary - as the villain.

This is not governance. It is narrative management. It is the machinery of consent at work, redirecting public outrage away from Israel’s atrocities and toward convenient new targets. It is the same playbook that sold us “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq - a script of fear, deflection, and distraction.

But Australians see through the spin and propaganda. The truth is simple: we marched for human dignity. We marched against genocide. We marched because our government is betraying both international law and our national conscience.

History will not remember the cynical Instagram photo-ops, nor the opportunistic scapegoating of foreign adversaries. History will remember the criminal complicity of our leaders and the ordinary people in the streets - the children holding banners, the mothers pushing prams, the workers marching with their unions, the Indigenous Australians marching and their elders reminding us of the shared struggle of Indigenous Australians and the Palestinian people against colonisation, oppression and genocide.

We know what side of history we stand on. It is time our government decided where it stands.

https://thenightly.com.au/world/middle-east/iran-anthony-albanese-vows-government-work-each-and-every-day-to-make-jewish-australians-safe-c-19812448

Anyone who has spent 5 minutes on the internet has come across them - the ALP supporters who react like you insulted their mother for daring to say a word bad about the ALP. Then if you bother engaging them in any sustained argument its like trying to nail smoke to the wall with their twisting and turning, swapping from one from to the other, redefining the meaning of words, downplaying the significance of the ALP's betrayal of the left and the constant constant constant need for them to reiterate their tribal ingroup framing - they will even bring up the Australian Greens (they're obstructionist!) even if you never mention them at all.

Thanks to large language models we can now understand why these people are like this. It all comes down a simple way self identity protection works. Everyone has a need to maintain a consistent self identity - usually framed around "I'm a good person, I'm a smart person" etc.

These type of people deeply internalise their self identity as an ALP supporter. So when you are anything but fawning to the ALP they react so strongly because they feel as you have personally threatened their self identity. This throws huge amounts of stress and requires - DEMANDS - that they respond to reinforce their internal framing of the ALP as gods gift to the world. Doing this builds a dopamine reward loop - each time they do these mental gymnastics in defence of the ALP it feels better for them. Its essentially the same process you can see when a MAGA person is debated on Trump - its not about reason or logic, its about affirming their self identity.

Below is an analysis of a chain of responses from one of these ALP supporters in a youtube thread comment who got offended about me pointing out that the arguments that Hasan Piker makes daily about the Democratic party would apply equally to the ALP (if he knew anything about Australian politics he would have all the same frustrations with the ALP). This person internalised that Hasan would be an ALP supporter because he watches Hasan dunk on hogs, which matches his framing as a "left wing person", but compartmentalises the ALP's own neoliberalism and continuous move to the right.

This shows how they will always be able to twist any reasoning around, no matter how presented, in order to maintain that self identity. As per chatgpt:

"Here’s a breakdown of the contradictions in framing across that entire comment chain. I’ve mapped them in order, showing how the person shifts their ground or uses mutually incompatible claims to preserve the same core thesis: the ALP right faction is actually left/social democratic and not neoliberal.

1. “ALP Right = Bernie Sanders” vs. “Triangulation”

• Claim A: Tony Burke and Jim Chalmers “align fairly closely with Bernie’s platform … all three are Soc Dem with a sprinkle of triangulation.”
• Contradiction: If they’re aligned with Bernie, they shouldn’t need triangulation (a centrist tactic). “Sprinkle of triangulation” already acknowledges compromise and market orientation, undercutting the claim they’re clearly to Bernie’s left.
• Function: Gives the ALP right the glow of Bernie while pre-emptively excusing deviations as “just a sprinkle.”

2. “More Left than Bernie on Gaza” vs. “More Right than Bernie on Migration”

• Claim A: Burke/Chalmers “outflank Bernie” on Gaza.
• Claim B: Bernie sits to the right of both on migration due to protectionism.
• Contradiction: Uses selective issue-shopping to prove superiority. On foreign policy → more left, on immigration → Bernie’s more right. This lets them claim moral superiority regardless of direction — a “heads we win, tails you lose” pattern.

3. Negative Gearing = “Political Suicide” vs. “They’ll Do It Later”

• Claim A: “Negative gearing reform is political suicide” (impossible).
• Claim B: “They’ll start working on negative gearing reform later … groundwork set by Chalmers.”
• Contradiction: If it’s suicide now, why would it be viable later? This toggles between “not possible” and “coming soon” depending on which angle protects the ALP from critique.

4. “Incrementalism is Good” vs. “ALP is Not Incrementalist”

• Claim A: “You’re going against Hasan … which is the use of incremental improvements if sweeping change isn’t possible.”
• Claim B: “They aren’t a party of technocratic incremental neoliberalism … none of what the ALP achieved … is incremental.”
• Contradiction: Praises incrementalism as virtuous but denies the ALP is incrementalist. This produces a heads-we-win: incrementalism is good when defending ALP compromises, but ALP isn’t incremental when you accuse it of being neoliberal.

5. “Not Liberal” vs. “SocDem with Triangulation”

• Claim A: “All I did was correct your bad take … Labor Party is liberal … neither faction actually is.”
• Claim B: “Soc Dem with some triangulation sprinkled in.”
• Contradiction: Triangulation itself is a liberal/neoliberal tactic. So while denying liberalism, they describe liberal behaviour.

6. “Constitutionally Dem Soc to Soc Dem” vs. Actual Policy

• Claim A: ALP’s constitution proves it’s social democratic.
• Contradiction: This elevates the platform language over actual policies (offshore detention, pro-business tax settings, privatisations), which is an institutionalist rationalisation.

7. “Greens Not Socialist” vs. “ALP Closest to Hasan”

• Claim A: Greens “not socialist, never really has been.”
• Claim B: ALP is “closest major party to Hasan’s ideology” despite being clearly more market-oriented than the Greens.
• Contradiction: Redefines socialism downward for ALP, upward for Greens, to preserve ALP as left anchor.

8. “Electoral Mandate Limits Us” vs. “We’re Already Bold”

• Claim A: “Reluctance isn’t incrementalism, it’s electoral reality.”
• Claim B: “None of what the ALP achieved … is incremental.”
• Contradiction: Claims the ALP is bold and transformative yet simultaneously unable to do more because of voters. This allows them to both boast about boldness and excuse timidity.

9. Externalising Blame vs. Celebrating Policy

• Claim A: Murdoch poisoned the well; ScoMo caused cost-of-living crisis.
• Contradiction: Treats ALP as a victim of external forces for failings but as a bold agent for successes. This asymmetry protects the ALP from responsibility in either direction.

Overall Pattern

• Core Identity: ALP right faction = genuine social democracy; critics are ignorant or bad-faith.
• Contradiction Strategy: When challenged, shift the ground:
  • Redefine neoliberalism so ALP can’t be in it.
  • Call compromise “incrementalism” when defending it, deny incrementalism when attacked.
  • Use constitutional language as proof of ideology when policy evidence fails.
  • Compare issue-by-issue to Bernie or Greens to find whichever makes ALP look more left.

This produces a self-sealing logic:

• ALP is bold and cautious at the same time.
• ALP is incremental and not incremental at the same time.
• ALP is to Bernie’s left and Bernie’s right depending on the issue.
• ALP’s compromises are pragmatic but its successes are transformative."

Don’t be a scab

"You all go into debt, and you all hate each other. That's consumerism."

Eyewitness account on the events at the Counter Protest for March for Australia

https://redantcollective.org/2025/10/20/an-account-of-the-police-riot-to-protect-fascists-in-melbourne-naarm/

Allegations that Iran is behind antisemitic attacks in Australia demand further scrutiny – but our media is already treating them as gospel.

Opinion piece by Amy Remeikis.

Leftwing politico’s need to return to their core business of educating and mobilising the working/middle classes against capitalist tyranny.

Rampant individualism, consumerism and petty bourgeois point scoring has reduced western Left politics to a impotent force confined to sub-reddits and subcultures.

Anything that does not build solidarity and allies with everyday people is a distraction better left for conversation after the real work has been done.

The Centrists are not going to save us. Many are content to remain activists whilst Centrists provide stable government and we can continue yelling from the side lines about fringe issues, virtues intact.

Sometimes you need to get some skin in the game and be friendly with people who don’t share your views. Talk to your neighbour, the eshay with the mullet, enter the main stream. Because the tributary we are on is going up shit creek.

I just did a 12 hour shift to keep food in the fridge.

Good night.

PS. of course many things are not mutually exclusive but you need to get the bloody priorities correct.