By definition if you are a Zionist Jew you would not be living in New York or anywhere outside of Israel, if you had the means to do so which nearly all Jews do given the support from the Israeli government, they will even pay for your flight.
You could also be "volksdeutsch". Like slavik people from former German territory or at least German influenced. They could be proper Nazis but with for instance polish background. Don't ask me how it actually works out but you asked...
Some would have been Aryan, but you'd be naive to assume Nazism has exclusively white Aryan followers. And anyway, It doesn't matter. Ethnicity and political beliefs are categorically different things. You're engaging in an antisemitic trope by conflating Israeli and Jewish values.
Was it ethnic cleansing the way we persecuted and prosecuted Nazis post WW2? Despite them mostly making up and representing the Aryan ethnic group? Zionism is a political position distinctly different to Judaism.
Let me ask you a question - Can we ascribe blame to all Jews if the state of Israel were to do something bad?
> Was it ethnic cleansing the way we persecuted and prosecuted Nazis post WW2?
No, just as it wouldn't be ethnic cleansing to evict one Jewish person. We convicted a relatively tiny handful of Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger eventually served as chancellor of West Germany!
> Can we ascribe blame to all Jews if the state of Israel were to do something bad?
Certainly not. But kicking them all out of NYC would still be ethnic cleansing!
This was always my argument. They’re very obviously lying but I should have stated that in my original comment. It’s so obvious that they are lying that I forgot to state that was my position.
"We have lots of babies so it can't be fascism" is a really out-there argument I'm having trouble following. It's like posting "Turtle is purple ice cream 203-B"; I don't follow.
I'm not certain "start a war with half the region that gets the other friendlier half of the region's entire economic engine blown up by Iran" counts as viable in the long run.
You live in stolen land, surrounded by people that hate you (the number which is growing daily), run by genocidal thugs who are on a fascist death drive. That is non viable, pal.
The Holocaust only happened after there was a viable functional Jewish settlement in Israel. Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 just to give you a sense of the infrastructure that existed.
Jews are not meant to live out their lives in exile
They were unable to go to Palestine because when they tried to leave it was too late. There were many Jews who made Aliyah from Germany many years before because they could see the handwriting on the wall
Our societies are both committing suicide by fascism. Do you think any country in the world will tolerate the existence of "Israel" in the wake of this genocide? I expect every single Israeli citizen who ever served in the IDF (most Israeli people) to have to face trial for conspiracy to genocide and crimes against humanity at The Hague. Participating in Israel's military apparatus has been clearly and openly genocidal since the Nakhba at least.
“Social conditioning” does not strictly determine the birth rate of developed nations. For that you must look at economic policy making it financially untenable to build a family. What you conveniently ignore here is Israel’s own economic policy of subsidizing orthodox jewish families, which is the main source of that growth.
If you have below replacement birth rate it means that more people die than are born, meaning that eventually your society will die out. By definition this means that your system of morality is non viable, it cannot produce a society that can perpetuate itself.
This may have less to do with morals and more with populations adjusting their growth as needed naturally.
The population of world Jews has still not recovered from the Holocaust, and needs exponential growth to catch up.
Most other developed countries have saturated populations due to advances in medicine and life expectancy, and a downward adjustment wouldn’t hurt them, and is likely to lower the price of housing and food etc with lower demand.
As soon as those populations go below a certain point, growth will kick back in - if only because the minority of the population who do want more kids will grow faster, and it will be easier for them as resources will have become cheaper.
> The EU is specifically European - its in the name.
I don't disagree, but by this standard North Korea is a democratic republic, and Turkey's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a bit odd.
> Our immigration process is non political - it’s run by a government department who write, publish and enforce our policies.
This is a deeply unserious claim.
You could make a claim for it being setup as non-partisan. But non-political? Government officials aren't subject to political issues? That's a new one.
> One Nation said on Monday it would cut the number of temporary migrants in Australia by more than 750,000 over three years, targeting international students and family members of skilled migrants.
> Hanson’s announcement comes as Labor and the Coalition consider new cuts to overseas arrivals, in an increasingly charged contest before the next federal election. Hanson will hope her plan plays well in the lead-up to the Victorian state election, due in November.
> U.S. goods and services (exports plus imports) trade with Australia totaled an estimated $102.0 billion in 2025, up 15.6 percent ($13.8 billion) from 2024.
> Brussels and DC are almost the same distance from Canberra.
Yes. We’re not interested in joining the EU. And we’re not interested in becoming a US state.
But trade doesn’t need to go all the way to DC. By plane, Sydney to LA is about - 13.5 hours. Sydney to Brussels is 20 hours. I imagine the difference is even greater for cargo ships, which can sail directly through the pacific. I have no idea how cargo goes from Australia to Europe. That sounds like a complex route.
As for trade, the US is important but they’re not our most important trading partner. China accounts for $326 billion aud in trade annually. If your numbers are right, that’s more than our trade with the US and Europe combined.
I suspect integrating into the EU single market wouldn’t be worth it for us. We’re not part of Europe. We’re not a European country.
The article isn't about joining the EU (as the original post you replied to called it, "unlikely anyway").
> But trade doesn’t need to go all the way to DC.
Nor Brussels; Perth to Greece via the Suez cuts the time, too.
> As for trade, the US is important but they’re not our most important trading partner.
OK, but the EU and US trade with Australia roughly equivalently per the numbers, and you said "Our major trading partners are nearby countries, like China, Japan, NZ, and the US. Not continental Europe." It's just a flatly false claim.
Chill, nobody said anything about Oz joining the EU. We live in quite different time zones. A free trade agreement on the other hand might work. Canada has one if the remaining 10 EU state would bother to actually ratify it.
AN AU-EU free trade agreement has been negotiated, with the deal agreed in March 2026. It’s now making its way through both sides‘ political processes.
> I document a dominant narrative consistent with a framing that assigns near-exclusive agency and responsibility to Israel...
Gosh, it's almost like they're the occupying power with an overwhelming weaponry advantage.
> Another measure related to assignment of responsibility is a simple count of mentions of “Hamas” versus mentions of “Israel”.
And how many mentions of Gaza/Palestine?
Israel : Palestine/Gaza :: Hamas : Likud/Netanyahu
> It describes Hamas’s October 7 attack followed by Israeli military violence and mounting Palestinian casualties, while largely omitting Israeli casualties post-October 7, Hamas fighter casualties, and post-October 7 Palestinian violence.
Sure. Because they're been almost zero civilian deaths in Israel post-October 7. Are they supposed to invent some for balance?
A middle school science teacher would reject this writeup for irreparable flaws in methodology.
> Every single one of them I saw so far has the same bad faith attacks, claiming that that guy's mental health would be compromised…
That's because the substantive discussion happened in 2024 when this whole mess started. He was commenting here - which resulted in screenshots showing up in federal court filings - in deeply unwise fashion.
Do you still happen to have any links there? Or pointers of phrases or similar.
This would check out indeed for me, as it would invoke the same responses as an astroturfing campaign in normal people, as the whole "social cohesion" stuff would pull them towards trying to shut stuff down and re-establish coherent reality. By any means necessary and as they see fit.
So that's a hypothesis that would satisfy the data given.
I see what you mean with "unwise", though, I would not say that it would validate the bad faith attacks I'm seeing.
After all, all he did there is show his hand, which (possibly) hurt him in court.
I suppose the takeaway there is that page 24 proves that his intent was to do harm, and that's why there's this counter-reaction by people that feel harmed, but that still makes stuff exactly as bad faith as it smells.
But we do not need to discuss this further (unless you have further thoughts), as stuff now makes sense to me.
reply