Today is the day they bury Charlie Kirk, a man who was martyred in the cause of free speech. The assassin's act will define this period in our politics. US politics has become fratricidal, driven in large part by the Democrat Party which has demonised their opponents as "domestic terrorists" and redirected benefits, awards and positions to favour their supporters and subverting institutions to try to cement in their view of life.

I can see a lot of those trends here. We have a Senate inquiry into the funding of climate misinformation and disinformation going on at the moment which is a transparent attempt by the Greens to shut down any criticism of their favoured climate policies. There is even talk of criminalising climate dissent or preventing fossil fuel companies from having a say in public debate.

Where the US goes, so goes Australia, in a world where many of our people get their news from YouTube and "entertainers" like Jimmy Kimmel. During the last US elections Anthony Albanese repeated the absurd claim made by US Democrats that "Democracy was on the ballot paper", as though a Trump vote was a vote for a dictatorship.

A shocking thing about the Kirk death has been the number of people on the left prepared to either celebrate it, or to try to disclaim it by making out a case that really it is the Republicans that have raised the temperature, and by extension the right of centre in Australia.

The US seems to be in an undeclared Civil War that has gone from cold to hot and we can't be far behind. It can only end when those left-fascist elements in our society in the Greens and the Labor Party come to the conclusion that you have to live and let live and that having a difference of opinion does not make you a bad person.

This site was established on a basis of free speech and engagement. It was obvious 26 years ago where things were heading. Seems to me regretfully the need is even greater than it was.

I don't know that we will follow America. I think that we are already worse than America. Our lunatic Left might not have got around to murdering its opponents yet, but what sort of people reinstate a government like the Albanese regime with an increased majority! Americans had the intelligence and patriotism to get rid of their equivalent of Albanese. Things might be have been different with a sensible voting system.

They way things are now in benighted Australia, we should be applying to America to liberate us from our increasingly Communist government.

The 28th June 2025 was the day they buried Melisa Hortman, a woman who was martyred in the cause of free speech. The assassin's act will define this period in our politics. US politics has become fratricidal, driven in large part by the Republican Party which has demonised their opponents as "domestic terrorists" and redirected benefits, awards and positions to favour their supporters and subverting institutions to try to cement in their view of life.

I can see a lot of those trends here. We have a Senate inquiry into the funding of climate misinformation and disinformation going on at the moment which is a transparent attempt by the Liberals to shut down any criticism of their favoured climate policies. There is even talk of criminalising climate dissent or preventing renewable energy companies from having a say in public debate.

Where the US goes, so goes Australia, in a world where many of our people get their news from YouTube and "entertainers" like Tucker Carlson. During the last US elections Anthony Albanese repeated the astute claim made by US Democrats that "Democracy was on the ballot paper", as though a Trump vote was a vote for a dictatorship.

A shocking thing about the Hortman death has been the number of people on the right prepared to either celebrate it, or to try to disclaim it by making out a case that really it is the Democrats that have raised the temperature, and by extension the left of centre in Australia.

The US seems to be in an undeclared Civil War that has gone from cold to hot and we can't be far behind. It can only end when those right-fascist elements in our society in the Liberals and the One Nation Party come to the conclusion that you have to live and let live and that having a difference of opinion does not make you a bad person.

I have to agree with the youtube comment. Look how many posters put in some weird link to that site. I doubt anyone bothers to follow those links.

What a load of nonsense GY, elevating last weeks unknown to Australians, Charlie Kirk, to the lofty heights of martyrdom, next you will want the Pope to declare poor old Charlie a saint! There is no excuse for a nut job murdering Charlie, I believe there were 60 or so other homicides in America on that day, many involving firearms, how many were martyrs? How many of the hundreds of journalists murdered in Gaze by the Zionist-Nazi's do you consider to be martyrs to free speech? Since they don't conform to your political mantra, none I suppose.

"left-fascist elements in our society in the Greens and the Labor Party" You can claim what you like, but left-fascist's really. Who's in the Liberal Party, right-fascist, humm? I don't think so.

It was right for Republicans to deem Democrats to be domestic terrorists. Many Democrats are now ex-Democrats, emptying the party out, agreeing that it is the Left that they used to believe in that is now the source of violence, not the mythical “far right”. The Leftist are already demons: they don't need “demonising”. And yes, similar resistance is popping up here, in Australia, now that sane people are finally stirring their stumps against leftist maniacs in government, and in the general community.

Graham,

When I read both yours and ttbn's posts back-to-back with WTF’s parody, the problem becomes obvious: we’re drowning in mirror-image hyperbole.

Charlie Kirk hasn’t been confirmed to be a “martyr for free speech” any more than Melisa Hortman would be in WTF’s inversion. At this stage, there’s no confirmed motive. Declaring martyrdom without evidence is just weaponising a murder to score political points.

The “undeclared Civil War” language from both sides is just as unhelpful. The US is deeply polarised, yes, but it is not “at war.” Exaggerating it only raises the temperature further, and importing that language here makes us look more like culture warriors chasing drama than citizens debating policy.

And free speech?

Let’s be honest. The loudest voices demanding it for Kirk are the same ones cheering Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation after he mocked Trump’s response. Trump himself called Kirk a “martyr for truth,” blamed “radical left lunatics” before any motive was known, and even said “we have to beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” That isn’t protecting free speech, it’s exploiting a death to punish critics.

If free speech only covers the views you like, it isn’t free speech, it’s privilege.

Closer to home, inquiries into climate misinformation are not about criminalising dissent any more than truth-in-advertising laws are about criminalising opinion. They’re about preventing corporations from pumping out deliberate falsehoods while profiting from the damage. That’s the same principle that stopped tobacco companies from claiming cigarettes were healthy.

So yes, defend free speech by all means, ,ut don’t confuse free speech with freedom from criticism, and don’t mistake political spin for martyrdom.

he fact we’re all here posting without fear is proof enough that Australia is not under “Communist” occupation, nor on the verge of civil war.

It has been suggested this morning by another person I'm not going to name, that, over the last 20 years, what used to be unacceptable behaviour, as well as physical violence, has been “normalised by the Left”.

Much of the violence started with BLM, with “its burning, looting, murder, desecration of monuments, hate crimes against businesses and individuals ….”. Something had clearly gone wrong with the Left.

The crap mainstream media lied that the thugs “were mainly peaceful”, just as our Prime Minister lies about our weekend, anti-West thugs hiding behind pro- ‘Palestinianism’.

The writer, who is the sort that some people would think should be shot, believes that it is time “to have a conversation about the Left”. Rather naive. Conversations won’t deter the Left.

Freedom of speech is important - but is only a secondary freedom, whose main purpose is to protect the more fundamental freedoms such as the freedom to live one's life peacefully in one's own home, surrounded by one's loving family and friends and doing all the things one enjoys in life - that includes the freedom of worship and the freedom of association.

Now the United States of America already has the highest number of prisoners in the world and is the world's 5th in its rate of incarceration, surpassing even China and Russia on both measures, of people who do not enjoy their most basic day-to-day freedoms, suffering horrendously instead; and here came a person who, in the name of "free speech", threatened the public: "We don’t have enough people in prison in America. We need a lot more prisoners."

Well we cannot deny the freedom of speech from the vilest person even, but martyr for freedom he certainly is not!

Australia should never go where the US is going.

ttbn,

An ironic comment from you there, given the US Department of Justice has just removed a study showing which side of politics is actually responsible for most of this violence - and it’s not the one you're pointing at:

http://theconversation.com/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-more-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-what-the-data-shows-265367

When the actual numbers show the political right responsible for the overwhelming share of ideologically motivated murders in the US - and the DOJ removes the report just days after Kirk’s death and Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric - it’s hard not to see a pattern.

Instead of introspection, we get projection. Blame BLM. Blame Kimmel. Blame Albanese. Blame "left-fascists." And now, apparently, brush up against justifying political violence ("the sort that some people would think should be shot").

The more this kind of talk gets normalised - the more we rush to declare martyrs and enemies before facts are in - the more likely we are to push someone over the edge again.

Free speech is about defending other peoples right to say things we don't like.
Free speech is about saying things that may offend other people.
Free speech is about criticising the government, who restrict free speech.

Hi AC,

Agree, but where do you draw the line on extreme "hate speak", incitement to violence, scapegoating, disinformation, distortions and untruths designed to engender hatred towards others within society.

One danger with this Charlie Kirk assassination is the runaway train invoking Christianity, God, patriotism, with the extreme conservatives calling for blood as a necessary action to cleans society of undesirable elements. .

The Kennedy assassinations along with that of King, were, in retrospect, inflexion points in US and world history. This has that same feel, especially since it occurred in the same month as the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte.

The outpourings of grief along with the determination to make Kirk's life and death have real meaning, have, it would seem, galvanised the conservative youth in ways that terrifies the left. Whatismore, the way the previously immune left have been held to account for their expressions of joy over the murder, with many being cancelled and not a few jobs lost (with more to come) signals a complete reversal of the days of BLM and the Flyrod riots.

To be sure, it could all fizzle out. The right has a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But MAGA and TPUSA are of a different ilk to the old GOP. We'll see.

As to Australia, it is true that where the US goes, we eventually follow, as does the rest of the west. The change will come here, which is why the Liberal Party needs to hold fast to liberal values rather than chase each voting block down the rabbit-hole. The current ruling elite are in love with censorship. They tried to enforce it over X and Musk and wound up looking foolish. But the left doesn't give up.... they always double down. The current proposed rules about censorship of kids are the latest route. Remember that stopping people under 16 getting access to the WWW means requiring everyone to prove they are over 16 and therefore declare who they are. (Absorb that and then go and get your VPN).

/cont

/cont
The latest moves on the climate front are to be expected. The alarmist and anti-capitalist groups have long ago decided that the best way to win the climate debate was to not have it. Just declare that the "science is settled". The current claims about the efficacy of the 62%-70% targets go unrebutted among the political leadership even within the Liberals, because there is no longer any way to have a rational climate debate. Just on climate censorship, everyone should see how the science is done these days to see how the truth is being suppressed.... http://tiny.cc/v4xs001.

The pendulum was always going to swing back to the right, to the family, to Christianity especially as times got increasingly hard for the working class in the US under the globalist elite. Of course the pendulum got an almighty push from Trump. Australia doesn't have a Trump and is unlikely to produce one. So the pendulum will take a little longer to swing back. But back it will swing.

Hi Paul,
"Agree, but where do you draw the line on extreme 'hate speak', incitement to violence, scapegoating, disinformation, distortions and untruths designed to engender hatred towards others within society."

I'm not convinced that everything others claim to be hate speech actually is, I think many issues have merit and are worthy of serious discussion, but some terms seek to stifle discussion, frame a narrative and ensure issues are never dealt at all with adequately.
- And both sides of the political aisle seem to have their own extreme members and viewpoints and are as bad as each other.

'incitement to violence' - I will stand against any outright 'calls for violence' against any group or individual but 'incitement' (to violence or hatred) might be a more grey area depending on the particular issue.
I'm not sure I'd oppose anything considered incitement, if that thing was a part of seeking a serious discussion and seeking a better outcome, for example a discussion on immigration numbers might lead to those who oppose such a discussion because it goes against their interests to argue that said discussion incites hatred of immigrants, but this doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't be had.

"One danger with this Charlie Kirk assassination is the runaway train invoking Christianity, God, patriotism, with the extreme conservatives calling for blood as a necessary action to cleans society of undesirable elements."

- They are a dying breed becoming irrelevant, by their own hand, and maybe because of immigration a little too, I doubt many Christians are immigrating to Australia.
Blind support for Israels atrocities exposes them as hypocrites unfit to hold opinions that cherish and value human life.

mhaze,

You’re right that the reaction to Kirk’s death feels like an inflection point, but only because of how quickly it’s been mythologised and weaponised. We still have no confirmed motive. Declaring Kirk a martyr or historical turning point is premature at best, political theatre at worst.

The "outpouring of grief" has been matched by a wave of dangerous rhetoric, including Trump’s call to "beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics." That’s not mourning. That’s mobilisation. And those cheering the job losses of a few insensitive left-wing posters are the same ones howling when Jimmy Kimmel was axed for mocking Trump.

That’s not a defence of free speech, it’s just wanting it both ways.

Your reference to "Flyrod riots" and BLM violence is familiar but misleading. According to multiple independent reviews, 93% of BLM protests were peaceful, and right-wing extremists have committed the vast majority of ideologically driven murders in the US over the past decade - and, by some measures, the past century.

As for censorship, protecting children online doesn’t mean outlawing anonymity. We already restrict access to gambling and pornography. Requiring some form of age assurance for adult content isn’t a conspiracy to unmask everyone, it’s just basic digital safety.

And climate? The only people trying to shut down the debate are those demanding equal airtime for long-debunked myths. “The science is settled” doesn’t mean “no more questions.” It means the burden of proof has shifted, just like it did with tobacco. Debate continues, but it’s evidence-based, not PR-driven.

You say the pendulum will swing back to the right. Maybe. But if you need to distort data, pre-empt motives, and frame every safeguard as tyranny… maybe it’s not the pendulum swinging.

Maybe it’s just the narrative you’ve chosen to believe.

Dear Paul,

«where do you draw the line»

For me it is clear: one should be free to say anything whatsoever - but only to those who consent to listen to them:
the freedom not to hear should override the freedom to speak.

Public channels should be especially careful not to air anything that may be controversial, just bare-bone facts, limited to what they are supposed to report. One should be able for example to listen to the weather forecast on the radio, or find whether there are any new laws affecting them, without having to also hear what the American Mr. Trump said (or any Australian politicians for that matter), nor about crimes or sports. Those who want to hear such things may tune to dedicated channels.

"We still have no confirmed motive."
- Seems the partner transitioning from male to female was a factor in the shooters mindset.
Enraged trans defender?

"We already restrict access to gambling and pornography."
- You can't stop kids accessing pornography, who are you kidding?

"According to multiple independent reviews, 93% of BLM protests were peaceful"
- They're obviously not that independent because BLM were lunatics rampaging, smashing and looting.

When the left constantly talk about Trump et al being Hitler or fascist, its inevitable that someone is going to draw the implications that it would be admirable to eliminate 'Hitler'. After all, who wouldn't want to have stopped Hitler before he really got started? (There's an interesting counter-historic book by Stephan Fry called "Making History" that explores the unintended consequences of eliminating the actual Hitler.)

This rhetoric leads to two direct attempts on Trump's life, the Kirk assassination, attacks on Rand Paul, Scalise and Kavanaugh, among others.
The thing about the "civil War" rhetoric is that it is the right that hold all the cards if a hot civil war broke out. We don't have such a war because the right is more civil than warlike.

There have been attempts to link the right in Australia to fascists (I recall Abbott being branded a 'Hitler') but these have largely failed, mainly because the right is so insipid and the left is much more civilised when they are running things. The real test will come when that pendulum reverses.

Through it all, freedom of speech must be protected from the censors of the left. The internet was the great democratiser of information and the elite doesn't like that they've lost control of the narrative.(Elon's purchase of Twitter was a seminal moment). Hence their attempts to get control back. If speech can be protected in the US, it will be easier to protect it here.

______________________________________________________________________

"Mostly peaceful"

25 dead. At least $US5 billion in damages and losses. Yep...peaceful protest.
http://tiny.cc/abxs001

mhaze,

Fascinating how you warn that labelling someone “Hitler” might inspire violence… and then, in the same breath, boast that your side would win a civil war if it came to it. That isn’t a warning. It’s a threat dressed in civility.

Speaking of Hitler, I saw a message on social media the other day that was apt, given how many boxes Trump is checking when comparing his administration's actions to the slides into dictatorship of the past:

"Dear America, whatever you wish more Germans would have done in 1933, do that now."

You claim the right is “more civil than warlike” - yet Kirk’s death has been met not with calls for de-escalation, but with slogans like “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics,” firings, and mass blame before a motive is even confirmed. The rhetoric hasn’t cooled, it’s been poured like petrol.

You also imply that Trump critics somehow invited assassination attempts by using strong language. But Trump has used far stronger rhetoric - calling journalists and the judiciary “enemies of the people,” saying opponents should be jailed, even joking about shooting migrants. If you believe words lead to violence, shouldn’t you apply that standard to both sides?

As for your “mostly peaceful” jab, yes, some BLM protests turned violent. No one serious denies that. But you’re cherry-picking a minority of cases. Over 7,750 demonstrations were recorded in 2020. Over 93% were non-violent. And unlike January 6 - or actual terrorist attacks by the far right - BLM wasn’t trying to overturn democracy or assassinate political officials.

The real threat to speech isn’t protecting kids from harmful content or moderating disinformation - it’s treating accountability as censorship. When companies drop toxic personalities, that’s not tyranny. It’s consequences in a marketplace of ideas.

Elon’s Twitter moment wasn’t democratic, it was oligarchic. One billionaire buying the public square doesn’t liberate speech. It consolidates power.

You’re right that freedom of speech matters. But if it’s only free when it’s your side talking - and “terrorism” when it’s not - then what you’re defending isn’t speech. It’s supremacy.

"That young man....I forgiving him"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6nfubORZAY

Its the Christian thing to do.

But there are also those like Trump who know that if you turn the other cheek, they'll try to shot that as well. There must be consequences or the ill behaviour will continue. Trump knows that. At our heart, we all know that.

That's where the pendulum is taking us. Christian notions of love and forgiveness coupled with steely eyed determination to return their country, and eventually ours, to is Christian western heritage.

Trumpster,

Did you not support those Trumpsters who stormed the Capitol Building, Jan 6th 2021, egged on by Donald himself? Weren't you the bloke sporting the buffalo horns and red, white and blue face paint? I'm sure you were all in favour of that typical American act of democracy, guns blazing and all!

I hadn't heard of Charlie Kirk before he took one for The Donald's version of democracy". Nor had I heard of that other wiz Jimmy Kimmel, I believe his program is called 'Jimmy KImmel Live', wont out rate 'Charlie Kirk' Dead, what do you think?

mhaze,

Yes, that was a gracious and moving moment in what was otherwise a political spectacle that Trump - unsurprisingly - made all about himself. But what followed in your post seems almost designed to negate her example.

//Its the Christian thing to do.//

Yes, and Christ didn’t add, “unless you think the other side will take advantage of it.” That’s the whole challenge of Christian forgiveness: it costs something. It’s unconditional. It’s not followed by “but…”

//But there are also those like Trump who know that if you turn the other cheek, they'll try to shot that as well.//

That’s not Christian doctrine, that’s retribution dressed up as realism. If we justify retaliation on the basis that mercy will be “taken advantage of,” then we’ve abandoned the Sermon on the Mount entirely.

Also, “turn the other cheek” wasn’t a naïve call to passivity. It was a radical ethical standard. Trump’s worldview is the inverse of it - mocking, vindictive, and transactional.

//There must be consequences or the ill behaviour will continue. Trump knows that. At our heart, we all know that.//

What Trump “knows” is how to channel grievance into power. And “consequences” is doing a lot of work here. What sort of consequences are we talking about? Social accountability, or the kind of threats and calls to violence that have been escalating since Kirk’s death?

And no, not “all of us” know that retaliation is the answer. Some of us still believe restraint is strength.

//That's where the pendulum is taking us. Christian notions of love and forgiveness coupled with steely eyed determination to return their country, and eventually ours, to is Christian western heritage.//

If we’re selectively quoting Christian virtues while ignoring their deeper teachings - especially the command to love our enemies and reject vengeance - then we’re not reclaiming heritage. We’re rebranding it.

The rapid elevation of Charlie Kirk’s death into a political martyrdom narrative resembles Goebbels' "Horst Wessel effect."

The similarities are striking.

The politically charged killing of an unremarkable right-wing activist (in Wessel's case, communists), even with unclear motives, is swiftly mythologised to rally support, vilify opponents, and justify ideological escalation.

A tragic death becomes a symbolic event. Complexity gets stripped away. The person becomes a slogan. And soon, we’re no longer responding to facts - we’re responding to a myth.

Within days of Kirk’s killing, we’ve seen comparisons to JFK, declarations of cultural war, and open calls for vengeance - some of them wrapped in religious language, others in populist outrage. Even Erika Kirk’s moving moment of public forgiveness is already being reframed as a prelude to retaliation.

That’s the danger of the Horst Wessel effect: it transforms grief into political capital and creates momentum not for healing, but for escalation.

And boy has Trump done what he can to escalate!

We don’t yet know why exactly Kirk was killed. But that hasn’t stopped the narrative from hardening. And the more it hardens, the less room there is for restraint, nuance, or truth.

Thanks John,

The use of Kirk's death by Trump and his inner circle to engender outrageous fear in supporters, and then fuel demands for retribution on those cast as the real danger to the ordered society, as envisaged by the great leader himself Donald, its nothing short of Nazism and what Hitler and his lieutenants did in Germany in the 1930's. It all begins rather innocuously with a few minor measures against the undesirables, all cast as necessary for the greater good, but over times those measures are escalated as the regime becomes more dominant and more assertive within society, drawing in a wider base of supporters, from the hard core to the moderates. Particularly as more the moderates in society perceive that things are working for their benefit, and they justify to themselves the regimes excesses as totally necessary.

Oh good. A big part of the problem has been the utterly a-historic and illogical claims that Trump is Hitler reincarnate and MAGA a neo-nazi movement, and so, right on cue, Kirk becomes Horst Wessel.

The similarities exist only in the perverted minds of those who've bought into the antifa lunacy. They won't easily surrender comforting lies.

In the meantime, they want all Christians and others on the right (the right and the righteous) to not ensure there are consequences for those who break the laws of the society, let alone the mores of civil society. As with their attitude to debate - its much easier to win if the other side is silenced - their attitude to civil conflicts is that its much easier to impose our views if the other side is constantly physically intimidated. They are distraught that the other side is no longer turning the other cheek.

Laughingly they use their meagre understanding of the Gospels to instruct Christians on what Jesus would have done. Jesus was, or at least is portrayed as, a mild-mannered type. A Kirk-like figure. But he wasn't beyond physical enforcement when required http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

Meanwhile the rise of the conservative youth movement continues apace, spurred on by the atrocities seen in Utah and Charlotte. It is now estimated that millions watched the Kirk memorial and heard his wife's eulogy. Of that, gigantic numbers have chosen for God and MAGA.

In Australia, it was already clear that there was a movement back to Christianity especially among the Gen Z males. There are reports that requests to set up TPUSA chapters in Australian universities (TPAUS?) have exploded.

Of course, on the other side in Australia, the censors will be working overtime to ensure that only approved information is available. Luckily, for the moment, we have libertarian safe-house like X to ensure the truth gets through...for the moment. (and in recent days YouTube has also pledged to abandon wanton censorship), The e-safety commissioner (now there's a misnomer) will have her work cut out.

"guns blazing and all"

There were no guns among the protestors on Jan 6 2021. The only guns were on the other side. The only person shot was a (mostly!!) peaceful protestor.

So completely wrong. And sadly that was the least erroneous part of Paul's lunatic post.

Nothing happened on cue, mhaze.

The Horst Wessel effect isn’t about comparing Kirk to Nazis, it’s about recognising a pattern: the rapid mythologising of a political death before facts are known, to galvanise a cause and vilify opponents. I never suggested Kirk shared Wessel's beliefs, only that the narrative machinery looks strikingly familiar.

Calling that “perverted Antifa lunacy” doesn’t refute the point, either, it just dodges it.

You also equate “the right” with “the righteous,” as if morality maps neatly onto political alignment. That’s not religious conviction, that’s political branding. And it’s precisely this blending of ideology and identity that makes martyr myths so potent and so dangerous.

No one’s arguing against consequences for criminal acts. What’s being questioned is the rhetorical escalation - the rush to treat critics as enemies, to frame a still-unclear tragedy as proof of a cultural war. That’s not justice. It’s narrative opportunism.

Your citation of Jesus flipping tables - to justify “physical enforcement” - is a stretch. That act wasn’t about cultural opponents or political enemies. It was an internal rebuke aimed at corruption within a faith community. And it doesn’t override the central ethic of turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, and rejecting vengeance.

Then there’s the idea that the Kirk memorial sparked “millions choosing for God and MAGA.” That fusion of spirituality and political allegiance should give anyone pause. If your revival depends on a death and a flag, it might not be the Gospel you're spreading.

Finally, calling X a “libertarian safe house” is optimistic at best. A billionaire-owned platform curating speech according to his personal views isn’t liberation, it’s just someone else’s gatekeeping. X has turned Twitter into a platform for unfettered hate speech and misinformation. There's nothing about that to celebrate.

This isn’t about silencing anyone. It’s about being honest when tragedy is co-opted. If your cause is grounded in truth, it shouldn’t need martyr myths to carry it. Nor should you need to misrepresent what others say.

Try responding to what others actually say rather than focusing on how you can spin it.

My point remains.

At the UN today... first they cut off the escalator just as Trump stepped on. Then they cut off the teleprompter as he was about to speak. Big mistake since Trump is a past master at speaking off-script.

And he did.

And what a speech. The European pro-palestinian nations got eviscerated. Then this...

"Now, the righteous task of protecting the nations that they built belongs to each and every one of us. So together, let us uphold our sacred duty to our people and to our citizens. Let us protect their borders, ensure their safety, preserve their cultures, treasures, and traditions, and fight, fight, fight for their precious dreams and their cherished freedoms, and in friendship and really, a beautiful vision. Let us all work together to build a bright, beautiful planet, a planet that we all share, a planet of peace and a world that is richer, better, and more beautiful than ever before. "

Quite the warmonger.</sarc>

Jesus Christ never forgave anyone.

Forgiveness is a remedy for anger and upset.
Better not get sick, then no remedies are needed.

I liked GY's description of Charlie Kirk's assassination as being part of a "second cold civil war" similar to the "second cold war with China". But like the cold war the civil war never ended it just went through new cycles.

Thanks ttbn, Armchair Critic, mhaze for your comments.

mhaze,

That's an old rhetorical trick. Anyone familiar with Trump’s style knows the pattern: inflame early, divide throughout, and end on "beauty and friendship" to create plausible deniability.

Trump's certainly no master off-script, though:

"The building is right next to a thing called the Potomac River. The beautiful Potomac River. That means lots of water.

"And the water is right under the building. And they decided to build the basement under the building in the Potomac River.

"So in order to do that, you need the biggest pumps that God ever created. And they were pumping their hearts out. But as big as those pumps are you can't pump it fast enough because it's the Potomac River. If the pump were bigger than this room, you could pump it. But they tried.

"And they've been building a basement. And I said, why did you want to build a basement? I thought it would be a good idea. Sure. A basement is the least valuable floor in a building. I know a lot about real estate. The least valuable thing is the basement, and you don't build a basement under a building that is two feet above the river. That's right next door.

"You know, it's right near the river. People don't realize a river is right out their window. And that’s the beginning. They… they did just a terrible job. They instead of…

"I could take a ceiling like this. They’d rip out the ceiling because they see it crack. Let’s hear about the ceiling. And I would fix the crack, and I would paint the ceiling. And under the ceiling, they put the most incredible protective material. They go up by three inch brand new, gorgeous three quarter inch plywood and sheetrock, hardened sheetrock, and they had it all over the building.

"So this little piece of flake came down. But the problem is, when they took the ceiling down and it would hit, they spent millions of dollars on protective material that you didn’t have to spend anything."

- Trump at the unveiling of the Kennedy Centre Honourees

Jesus Christ never forgave anyone.

"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34

Yuyutsu says “Jesus never forgave anyone.”

mhaze rightly pointed to Luke 23:34: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

But that’s not an isolated moment - it reflects a broader theme. Jesus forgave sins publicly (e.g. the paralytic in Mark 2:5), taught forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive…”), and made it central to discipleship: “How many times must I forgive my brother? Seventy times seven.” (Matt 18:21–22)

So yes, forgiveness is a remedy - but in Christian teaching, it’s not a backup plan. It’s the ideal.

What’s more interesting is how selectively some are invoking that teaching right now. Erika Kirk’s public act of grace was powerful - but it’s been immediately followed (even in this thread) by talk of vengeance, retribution, and political revival.

If we’re quoting Christ, let’s follow through on his example - not just borrow it to score points.

Dear John,

"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."

As if... Father, Creator and Sustainer of the universe wrongly believed that Jesus' assailants knew what they were doing, so His son Jesus had to remind and correct Him?

Or was Jesus an imperfect human being?

What we observe here and in similar verses, is Jesus teaching his students at their own level, rather than the highest ideals, understanding that they are not yet ready to grasp the idea of not being upset in the first place because whatever comes is by God's will alone - He asks his disciples to forgive because that is the best they can do for now.

«Erika Kirk’s public act of grace was powerful - but it’s been immediately followed (even in this thread) by talk of vengeance, retribution, and political revival.»

How else can one forgive 77 times?

To catch Jesus on his superficial literal word, there was a rich American who was not happy with the verse "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”, so he constructed a giant needle then successfully passed his camel through its eye... did he actually reach the kingdom of God...?

Forgive those who had no choice ! Discipline those who did !

"but it’s been immediately followed (even in this thread) by talk of vengeance, retribution, and political revival."

Enforcing consequences for evil behaviour isn't the same as seeking vengeance no matter how many times it is asserted otherwise.

And somehow political revival is a bad thing? Oh to a leftist, anything that advances the right and the righteous is bad. Got it!

Is Charlie Kirk the greatest martyr to the cause since the Jewish/Communist Herschel Grynszpan, assassinated the Nazi diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris in 1938. Rath like Kirk was also portrayed as a martyr, and we all know what came from that.

Dear Mhaze,

«Enforcing consequences for evil behaviour isn't the same as seeking vengeance»

Yes, the two are different, yet both unwise.

While seeking vengeance is outright evil, attempting to enforce consequences is silly and only lands one in trouble because God takes care of that task anyway, which is not the job for humans.

«And somehow political revival is a bad thing?»

Not necessarily - that depends on what it is that you attempt to revive. If indeed it is so good and worthy of revival and indeed supports righteousness, then speak for its merits to convince others of its virtues.

mhaze,

No one’s claiming that accountability is vengeance. Of course societies must enforce consequences for harmful actions. The distinction I’m pointing out - and that keeps getting blurred - is tone and intent.

When people start saying things like “if you turn the other cheek, they’ll shoot that too,” or framing retribution as a sign of strength, or declaring that “consequences” must serve as a cultural turning point, we’re not just talking about law enforcement anymore - we’re talking about using tragedy to push a political reset. That’s the point.

As for “political revival,” I never said it’s inherently bad. What I did suggest is that when a political movement wraps itself in religious language, builds momentum around a symbolic death, and starts drawing clean lines between “the right and the righteous,” people should stop and reflect.

Because that’s not just political revival - that’s moral absolutism, and history has shown where that road can lead.

It’s not “leftist” to say that religion should caution us against conflating political power with divine favour. In fact, that used to be a deeply conservative principle - the idea that human governments are fallible, that political leaders aren’t messianic, and that faith is not a flag to be waved in the heat of battle.

Erika Kirk extended grace. That’s what real Christian witness looks like. But what followed in much of this thread hasn’t been in that spirit - it’s been triumphalism, grievance politics, and hints of “a reckoning is coming.” That’s not accountability. That’s narrative escalation.

If this is about moral revival, then let’s start by reviving moral clarity - including the difference between justice and vengeance, and between faith and faction.

JD,

You're the only one talking about vengeance (other than those quoting it back to you). So no one talks or wants vengeance and then you tell us its wrong to talk of or want vengeance. Typical.

This pretty much sums it up....
"Remember this: The corporate media, Democrats, and Hollywood don’t call us Nazis because we’re Nazis. They call us Nazis to justify their ongoing murder campaign against us." John Nolte. http://tiny.cc/pu0t001

mhaze,

You say no one is talking about vengeance, but you just quoted a man claiming there’s an “ongoing murder campaign” against conservatives - and that the left calls you Nazis not to insult you, but to justify killing you.

That’s not a calm observation. That’s a rhetorical Molotov cocktail.

When I raised concerns about vengeance, it wasn’t random - it was in response to repeated posts framing Kirk’s death as not just tragic, but catalytic. Trump’s call to “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” Posters celebrating “consequences” and a coming moral reckoning. The implication that grace is weakness. You might not be using the word vengeance, but the tone is unmistakable.

And the Nolte quote? It’s the same kind of inversion we’ve seen a lot lately: claim your side is under existential attack, then justify any response as self-defence. If someone else talks about authoritarian overreach, it’s hysteria. If your side talks about being hunted by Hollywood, it’s truth-telling.

I’m not here to silence anyone. I’m saying that when political movements start believing their own martyr myths, they lose the ability to check themselves - and to lead with anything resembling grace, justice, or truth.

And that’s not about right or left. That’s about reality.

Yuyutsu,

You’re right to point out that Jesus often taught people where they were, not where He was. That’s the essence of good teaching - to meet others with compassion and adjust the lesson to their capacity.

But even if forgiveness is just a "remedial virtue," as you suggest - a stepping stone toward transcendence - it’s still what was being taught. And it’s still what’s being ignored by those who, in this very thread, have reframed grace as weakness and "turning the other cheek" as naïve.

If forgiveness is a temporary tool to help humans move beyond vengeance, then surely the current flood of justified anger, moral crusades, and talk of reckoning reveals just how necessary that tool still is.

As for your "77 times" question, yes, to forgive again and again requires us to first encounter conflict. But that doesn’t mean seeking or justifying it. You don’t teach someone to forgive by manufacturing enemies. And you don’t honour Christ’s teaching by quoting it one moment and undermining its spirit the next.

The metaphor about the camel is clever, but I’m not the one forcing scripture into literalism. I’m simply pointing out the disconnect between invoking Christ’s words and pursuing a narrative driven by punishment and revival through cultural conquest.

If we’ve moved beyond forgiveness, as you imply, then what are we offering in its place? Silence? Surrender? Or just a more elegant excuse for the same old cycle?

ah ... The Dennis Denuto defence....its the vibe or in this case the tone.

"You might not be using the word vengeance, but the tone is unmistakable."

No one is talking about vengeance except for you but you see it everywhere.

You know, if you're the only one hearing the dog whistle, you're the dog.

Yes, mhaze, tone matters - especially when it comes from people with power and platforms.

When Trump says we need to "beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics," or when posters frame Kirk’s death as a cultural reckoning and celebrate the coming "pendulum swing," that’s not just "consequences." That’s escalation. That’s how movements prime their base emotionally before any policy even enters the conversation.

But sure, maybe no one has used the word "vengeance" outright. That doesn’t mean the vibe isn’t clear - and pretending not to notice that vibe, while quoting people like John Nolte claiming there's a literal "ongoing murder campaign" against conservatives, is more revealing than you think.

As for the dog whistle line, it only works if there’s no broader context. But I’m not the only one hearing this. Plenty of people across the political spectrum are pointing out how quickly Kirk’s death is being used to justify moral retrenchment, purging, and rhetorical hardening.

Sometimes, the dog whistle isn’t a whistle. It’s a bullhorn. And no amount of sarcasm about "vibes" changes what’s being signalled loud and clear.

It’s not just what’s said, it’s what’s implied, what’s repeated, and what kinds of reactions are rewarded. That’s tone. That’s direction. That’s how culture shifts.

If you want to talk about consequences, fine. But if you want to pretend the tone hasn’t changed - and that no one’s aiming for payback - then yes, I’m going to call that out.

Totally agree John,

When Trump said; “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” it would be interpreted by Trumps lunatic fringe, fringe, to do just that, it would be a call to arms in the American way, guns blazing and take no prisoners. For our resident Trumpsters it means, dust off the Buffalo Horn outfit and slap on the red, white and blue face paint! Charge!

"maybe no one has used the word "vengeance" outright. "

Not true. Someone did....constantly. You.

But no one else is talking about vengeance. Not me. Not anyone at the Kirk Memorial. Not Nolte in the passage I quoted. But you see it everywhere because you want it be true. Not even Trump in the quote you dug up. Just pointing out that the thigs on the left need to be confronted isn't seeking vengeance. (BTW were you equally vexed when Obama recommended to his henchman that they bring a gun to a knife fight, or punch back twice as hard? Didn't think so.)

But this is standard JD. When you can't deal with the actual views, create others and then desperately try to defend the fabrication with the "oh you implied it" defence.

You say there is vengeance in the air. Where is it? This week three murderers or attempted murderers were in US courts. All were from the left. All targeting people from the right. Where's this vengeance you keep thinking you see?

Dear John,

I completely agree of course.

If one has already descended into hate, then forgiveness is the answer.

«If we’ve moved beyond forgiveness, as you imply, then what are we offering in its place? Silence? Surrender? Or just a more elegant excuse for the same old cycle?»

Well surely you already know the answer - it is LOVE!

Indeed, Jesus said: "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

mhaze,

You’re right, I used the word “vengeance.” Because what’s being communicated, even when not spelled out, walks and quacks like it. That’s the whole point. Tone, implication, and emotional framing matter - especially when powerful figures are involved.

Trump didn’t need to say “vengeance.” He said, “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” He didn’t call for a moment of silence or national unity. He went straight to “They did this. We must fight.” That’s not just confronting ideas. That’s confrontation as identity. And no, I wasn’t thrilled when Obama used dumb “bring a gun to a knife fight” metaphors either - but we both know Trump’s rhetoric is constant, personalised, and directed at fellow citizens.

As for the Nolte quote, again, you're pretending it’s neutral. He literally claimed that Democrats, Hollywood, and the media are running a murder campaign against conservatives. That’s not analysis. That’s fantasy justification - If they're trying to kill us, we must act first. That’s how vengeance is framed without ever using the word.

You’re asking for a smoking gun in a room filling with smoke.

And no, pointing out the dangerous direction of rhetoric doesn’t mean excusing political violence from the left. I’ve condemned it repeatedly. But cherry-picking individual court cases doesn’t change the broader concern: that grievance + dehumanisation + glorified retaliation creates an atmosphere where justice and revenge blur.

What I’m doing is flagging the shift in tone, the myth-making, and the narrative momentum. If you're unwilling to hear that without demanding a verbatim quote from a villain twirling his moustache, you’re not defending reason - you're defending denial.

"He didn’t call for a moment of silence or national unity."
- What would be the point of this?
The progressive left are not going to make friends with the religious right, or vice versa.
It 'sounds good', but where does it exist in practice?

When the religious right try to draw a line in the sand, the progressive left see it as an existential threat to and attack upon their identity.
When the progressive left draw a line in the sand, the religious right see that as an existential threat upon their religion and their way of life.

"He literally claimed that Democrats, Hollywood, and the media are running a murder campaign against conservatives."
- Well they kind of do, each side sees the others mere existence as a threat.

The left is a gay and an immigrant saying "Everything must change" and "Free Palestine"
The right are old religious grandpa's saying "Things must stay the same" and "I support Israel unconditionally"
Between these 2 camps is a grey zone the rest of us have to live in

Hi AC,

You're probably right, although I don't have a problem as a progressive hang'n out with a few of the old "churchies" who tend to be somewhat dogmatic and very conservative at times. I can tolerate their views, no matter how misguided, and way out they can be. Then I have to say, no person is a total progressive or a total conservative, although a couple of the Old Farts on this little forum come pretty close.

Surprisingly politics in America is very divisive at the moment, even thought I always believed it's a one party state, with two heads vying to run the show, with no one willing to upset Capitalism, which ultimately controls the system. I call it hamster politics, you can change the hamster, but the wheel must continue to turn in the "right" direction. What do you think?

Surprisingly politics in America is very divisive at the moment,
Paul1405,
Wrong wording, Democrats in America are very divisive. Just like here !

"You’re asking for a smoking gun in a room filling with smoke."

And you can't point to a single example from the right of this vengeance that you see all around. Think about that.

More:
10/9 Kirk murdered
14/9 Bombs placed under a Fox new van
19/9 CBS studios shot up
20/9 Nashua Country Club shooting
24/9 Dallas ICE facility shooting

All from the left.

When Floyd died there were riots, murderers, lootings, fires, destruction aplenty. City blocks destroyed. All for a drug addict with a long and sorry criminal record.

When Kirk died, they held a memorial when thousands came to or reaffirmed their religion. The only violence was from the left protesting those peacefully lining up for the memorial.

They are not the same. But people like JD desperately want the guilt to be reversed and so sees a smoke filled room where none exists.

When people from the right start shooting up innocents on the left, then JD will have some credence. But alas he won't recognise it even then.

PS: This is what consequences look like... http://tiny.cc/cb2t001

This is what conservative vengeance looks like...http://tristardaily.com/lsu-announces-lecture-series-honoring-charlie-kirk-to-promote-free-speech/

mhaze,

I don’t need a “smoking gun” because I never said the right was committing violence over Kirk’s death. I said the rhetoric around his death is escalating into something dangerous - with martyrdom narratives, grievance framing, and the kind of emotionally loaded language that primes escalation. That’s how it always begins.

You demand examples of right-wing violence in response to Kirk, while overlooking the larger concern: that grief is being used to mobilise, not mourn. Trump’s “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics” line. Nolte’s claim of a “murder campaign” against conservatives. These aren’t calls for reflection. They’re setups for justification.

As for the incidents you cited:

- The Fox News bomb claim turned out to be a false alarm involving fireworks.
- The CBS studios “shooting” involved a single non-political gun incident in LA with no confirmed motive.
- The Dallas ICE facility incident has had no official link to ideology.
- The Nashua shooting was a domestic dispute misrepresented as political.

Throwing vague, decontextualised events into a pile doesn't prove a pattern - it’s narrative laundering. Meanwhile, we have well-documented right-wing attacks: Charlottesville, Tree of Life, Buffalo, January 6, and a foiled plot to kidnap a governor - all explicitly ideological, all carried out in the name of “saving the country” from some perceived leftist evil.

I've already covered the comparison in a different thread, an mentioned it in my first comment on this thready. Remember? It's not a road you want to go down.

And now we’re watching Kirk - a divisive political figure - elevated into a martyr-saint archetype, complete with lecture series, moral crusades, and spiritual revival language. That’s not consequence, that’s canonisation. And it’s being fuelled not by facts, but by a curated story of cultural persecution.

I’m not reversing guilt. I’m pointing out a dangerous narrative drift - where grief becomes myth, and myth becomes mobilisation. It’s not about who’s shooting. It’s about who’s lighting matches.

If you can’t see the smoke, that’s your prerogative. But don’t pretend the people waving the torches are just lighting candles.

"The Fox News bomb claim turned out to be a false alarm involving fireworks."

Let's see....

"Two suspects are in custody after an incendiary device was found under a vehicle belonging to KSTU, a local TV station known as Fox 13 News Utah.
The incendiary device “had been lit but failed to function as designed,” according to court records obtained by CNN affiliate KUTV.
The device was discovered in Salt Lake City on Friday, two days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University, about 45 minutes south of the Utah capital.
KUTV reported that two suspects were arrested after FBI agents and local bomb squads converged on a home in Magna, Utah.
Additional explosives, along with firearms, illegal narcotics and other paraphernalia, were found in the home, according to court records.
Photos and videos from the scene showed anti-Trump signs on display outside the home."

And the men's names? "Adeeb Nasir, 58, and Adil Justice Ahmed Nasir, 31,"

Obviously white supremist!!

More?..."single non-political gun incident in LA with no confirmed motive." Actually Sacramento.

Motive? The FBI found a note...""For hiding Epstein & ignoring red flags. Do not support Patel, Bongino, & AG Pam Bondie [sic]. They're next. – C.K. from above."

And sadly, JD, these were the least inaccurate part of you last post.

mhaze,

Happy to revise where details shift. You’re right that the Utah incident was more serious than early reports suggested. I’ll also concede the Sacramento/LA mix-up (thanks for the correction).

But notice what’s happening here: you’ve turned the conversation into a body-count ledger, as if the relative morality of political movements rests solely on isolated incidents, rather than how those movements talk, react, and mobilise.

[Again, given the right's whopping lead in the tally count there, it's not a road you want to go down. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400168)]

I’m not defending violence from the left. I’ve condemned it. What I’m pushing back on is the growing rhetoric that turns a tragedy like Kirk’s death into a symbolic catalyst - a mythic moment tied to spiritual revival, political vengeance, and “the pendulum swinging back.”

And I find it telling that the more I raise concerns about tone - about the atmosphere, not the incidents - the more determined you are to argue the technicalities of those incidents, while avoiding the central point.

You posted a quote saying the left is running a “murder campaign” against conservatives. Trump said we must “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” That’s not calm discourse. That’s emotional mobilisation through dehumanisation - and yes, that’s how retribution culture grows, whether you admit it or not.

I’m not pretending there’s no violence from the left. I’m saying that when the narrative becomes “we’re under siege, and God is with us,” history shows us what often comes next. You don’t need a manifesto to light a fire - just a cause, a symbol, and a villain.

So yes, let’s be accurate on details. But let’s not pretend this is just about fireworks and crime reports. It’s about how stories are being shaped - and what those stories are preparing people to believe and do.

"What I’m pushing back on is the growing rhetoric that turns a tragedy like Kirk’s death into a symbolic catalyst - a mythic moment tied to spiritual revival, political vengeance, and “the pendulum swinging back.”"

That's not all all what's happening. I'm not joining in an attempt to turn the murder into a 'symbolic catalyst'. I'm observing that it is an inflexion point. The US changed that day, just as it changed when JFK, RFK and MLK were killed. The pendulum was already swinging back under the efforts of Trump and the murder of Kirk gave it an almighty shove.

But the left is pushing back in the only way it knows - through violence. And the veterans of the MAGA movement know that the only way to combat that is to ensure there are consequences for the violence - not counter-violence but consequences through criminal courts and the courts of public opinion. The left have been calling MAGA and its supporters Nazis for a decade now and before that they were calling anyone to the right of Clinton, Hitler/Gestapo/Nazi etc and declaring that they had to be fought. Since 20/1/25 they've constantly said they were at war and need to defeat the enemy - ie the 80-odd million that voted Trump in.

But that's what's changing. But its not about vengeance. You keep hoping to make that label stick but you can't find one example of the right exacting vengeance in the form of violence and then cry foul when the multitude of examples of the left waging violence against their perceived enemy are mentioned.

And that's part of the change. Waging politics through violence as done by Antifa and BLM and the transgender crazies is now being faced full on and it will be defeated.

mhaze,

You're trying to sound like an observer, but everything in your rhetoric screams participation, not analysis. You didn't just "notice" Kirk's murder as an inflection point - you framed it that way, then echoed the biblical-vengeance tone of those mythologising it, right down to "the pendulum was already swinging back."

You say it's "not about vengeance," then immediately lapse into culture-war sloganeering - "Antifa and BLM and the 'transgender crazies'." You don't need to endorse vigilante violence to be part of the rhetorical scaffolding that justifies it. Cast your enemies as demonic threats, downplay right-wing escalation, and call the pushback "consequences" - and you've already done the rhetorical work of legitimising retaliation.

You demand a smoking gun from the right while ignoring years of right-wing bombings, mass shootings, political plots, militia organising, and stochastic terrorism - then cherry-pick a handful of left-wing incidents this month to declare a pattern. And I'm the one "desperately" shifting the narrative?

You're not defending the right from defamation. You're laundering its worst instincts through euphemism and selective outrage. When Trump says "beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics," you call it colourfully blunt; when the left shouts back, it's a murder campaign.

I'm not interested in your tally sheet or your sudden legal piety. I'm interested in the tone, the language, the narrative you're helping construct - one that casts your side as righteous victims and their opponents as violent degenerates. That's the oldest recipe for rationalised brutality in the book.

This is how it always starts - not with orders, but with stories; not with weapons, but with words that cast neighbours as threats and vengeance as virtue. You're not watching history unfold, you're helping it repeat.

"not with weapons, but with words that cast neighbours as threats and vengeance as virtue."

Still trying to pretend that you're not the only one seeing vengeance as an aim. I thought you'd already learnt that wasn't going to fly. You'll never learn, especially when you don't wan to learn. But calling for consequences for bad actions isn't the same as calling for vengeance - at least not on the right.

mhaze,

You keep retreating to the line that “calling for consequences” isn’t the same as calling for vengeance, fair enough as a principle. The problem is you don’t apply that standard consistently.

You say courts and due process are the answer now, yet for years you and others here have ridiculed or distrusted those same institutions when they produced inconvenient outcomes. Suddenly invoking them as your preferred outlet looks less like principled restraint and more like tactical selectivity.

Words matter. If you want to insist on consequences, then insist on them across the board - publicly, immediately, and without relish. Don’t couple that claim with rhetoric that paints whole groups as existential enemies, or repeat lines that describe opponents as a “murder campaign.” Those aren’t neutral descriptions; they’re mobilising metaphors. And when leaders in your camp talk about needing to “beat the hell out of” their opponents, claiming you’re merely seeking accountability is a hard sell.

If you can show real, consistent insistence on lawful accountability from your side - including repudiation of dehumanising rhetoric by prominent figures - I’ll stand with you on that. Until then, pointing to a handful of left-wing incidents while ignoring the broader pattern of right-wing political violence, and insisting the rhetoric is harmless, looks like special pleading.

Consequences through courts are legitimate. Using tragedy to canonise leaders, sanctify anger, and normalize dehumanisation is not. Words like that are the dress rehearsal for far worse.

Zooming out a bit for a moment, mhaze...

You keep talking about the pendulum “swinging back” to conservative values, but pendulums don’t erase evidence on the way through. We now know things we didn’t fifty years ago - about minority stress, the health impacts of discrimination, the protective effects of inclusion, and the measurable harms of policies that ignore those realities.

To “swing back” in the way you describe would require deliberate amnesia: pretending decades of social research never happened. It would mean ignoring the data showing that marginalisation raises risks of depression, substance abuse, and suicide - and ignoring the equally strong evidence that inclusive laws and cultures reduce those harms. That isn’t a pendulum. That’s regression disguised as inevitability.

And the irony is that while dismissing this research, you’re at the same time leaning into one of the most studied and dangerous social dynamics of the last century: the Horst Wessel effect. That’s the process where a polarising figure is mythologised into martyrdom, and their death is used as symbolic fuel for movements that thrive on grievance and sanctity. It’s a dynamic we know doesn’t end in moderation or balance, it ends in escalation.

So when you frame Kirk’s death as an “inflexion point” and couple it with talk of a righteous pendulum swing, you’re not analysing. You’re narrating. You’re building the very scaffolding that turns tragedy into mobilisation.

The real question isn’t whether history swings back and forth. It’s whether we’re prepared to ignore what research has already uncovered - about minority stress, about myth-making, about how rhetoric escalates - just to make the swing feel comfortable.

If a revival of conservative values is realised, then it would have to be brute-forced - and probably with a lot of book burning along the way - which would explain the approach the Trump administration is taking.

Not really much of a a pendulum swing at all, when you think about it.

Trumpster,

Sitting in from of your 'puter, dressed in your Buffalo Horn outfit, with face painted red, white and blue, having Donald pics plastered all over the walls, with the trusty 303 at the ready, banging away at your keyboard with much diatribe. Me thinks we know where you are coming from, FROM FAR OUT RIGHT FIELD!

I see Donald has ordered the "lynching" of some dude he don't like. A Mr Comey, defiantly martyrdom material, a living saint, no less.

"That’s emotional mobilisation through dehumanisation - and yes, that’s how retribution culture grows, whether you admit it or not."
- Why do we have to even care about 'retribution culture'?
Why do we have to be civilised?
Why do we have to pop on our woke underpants to be acceptable to your way of things?
'Dehumanisation' 'retribution culture'
It's all very weak and pansy-like.
Why can't people just say what they think?
'incite' 'retribution', that's a guilt-ridden expectation to self censor.
If other people break the law that's on them, it's not on Trump for saying things others didn't like hearing.
These are the 'not my President' crowd, they didn't vote for him, he doesn't owe them anything, his job is to defend those who gave him a mandate.

Nothing wrong with calling them 'radical left lunatics' if that's what they really are.
- 'Release the hounds'.

"I’m not pretending there’s no violence from the left. I’m saying that when the narrative becomes 'we’re under siege, and God is with us,' history shows us what often comes next. You don’t need a manifesto to light a fire - just a cause, a symbol, and a villain."

- You make a valid point, but on the other hand most US regime changes are done often with student movements and people on the left, civil society groups etc to topple 'authoritarian regimes'.
I'm not saying the right isn't responsible for it's fair share of dramas, but left-wing movements the world over create huge enough messes of their own.

Take Ukraine, Started in 2013 with a US sponsored regime change of the government lead by Viktor Yanukovych, 12 years later, a million dead and maybe double that more in wounded.

hi Paul,
"I see Donald has ordered the 'lynching' of some dude he don't like. A Mr Comey, defiantly martyrdom material, a living saint, no less."

He's a bit slow the old Donald, probably meant to sort that out back in January and forgot.

Comey's no saint, being FBI director during Russiagate hoax, fake FISA warrants and spying on Trump campaign 'Crossfire Hurricane' interfere in a US presidential election, undermine 'democracy' - Comey deserves it and more, he was probably laundering money for the Clinton's over at HSBC when he was there prior to 2013. That's probably why he got promoted to FBI Director.

Hi AC,

Only in America, Trump's America is thrashing about like a beached whale, its time in the Sun is rapidly coming to an end, it will soon economically and morally cark it, and then stink to high heaven. All this MAGA nonsense is only forestalling their inevitable collapse.

p/s When America goes down, they'll put on the biggest "fireworks" display the world has ever seen, as they unleash their arsenal of atomic weapons on the rest of the world.

JD.

"We now know things we didn’t fifty years ago - about minority stress, the health impacts of discrimination, the protective effects of inclusion, and the measurable harms of policies that ignore those realities."

Alas and alack, you've utterly misunderstood the nature of the change currently occurring. This isn't about winding back changes from the last few decades in regards to social issues as you mistakenly think. This is about returning the US to its spiritual and conservative base, not retracting social advances. You might want to notice how many of the minority groups are on board with this. They aren't threatened by it.

But people like you are threatened by the changes because they challenged the cosy shibboleths that the left have developed this century. And that's the point.

__________________________________________________________________

"Sitting in from of your 'puter, dressed in your Buffalo Horn outfit,..."

More highly considered insights from Paul. Struth what a dill.

__________________________________________________________________

As to Comey, I notice no one is saying he didn't do it. Just that he shouldn't suffer consequences for it.

______________________________________________________________________

And since the usual crowd have raised J6 a few times...
Remember when it was a conspiracy theory to say that the FBI had agents embedded in the crowd? Never mind... http://tiny.cc/c44t001

mhaze,

Hard to take claims of a harmless “return to base” seriously from someone who just wrote off an entire community as “transgender crazies.” It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric decades of social research have shown to be harmful - linked to higher rates of stress, depression, and suicide among marginalised groups.

//This is about returning the US to its spiritual and conservative base, not retracting social advances.//

You can’t “return to a spiritual and conservative base” without retracting social advances. That’s the contradiction baked into your metaphor. Religious conservatism has consistently opposed the very evidence-based gains in equality that research has demonstrated protect people’s health and wellbeing. To claim you can revive one without rolling back the other is wishful thinking.

//You might want to notice how many of the minority groups are on board with this. They aren't threatened by it.//

Every large-scale study - Pew, Gallup, Ipsos - shows minorities and younger cohorts overwhelmingly support inclusion, not regression. Cherry-picked anecdotes don’t erase the data.

//But people like you are threatened by the changes because they challenged the cosy shibboleths that the left have developed this century. And that's the point.//

Pointing to decades of peer-reviewed research on minority stress isn’t a “cosy shibboleth.” It’s evidence. And pretending it’s just a leftist comfort blanket is how you avoid engaging with that evidence.

//As to Comey...//

A pivot, but irrelevant to the question of whether your “conservative revival” means dismantling social science progress. You still haven’t addressed that directly.

//And since the usual crowd have raised J6...//

Even if FBI agents were present, it doesn’t erase the fact that Jan 6 was a violent attempt to overturn an election. You don’t get to wash away right-wing mobilisation by pointing at the FBI.

That’s the real problem with your “pendulum” story: it only works if we all agree to forget the evidence. The past fifty years of research tell us what marginalisation does, how inclusion protects, and how rhetoric escalates. To revive your “base” is to uproot all of that. That’s not a pendulum swing. It’s an evidence denial project.

Trumpster is this not YOU!

The Trumpster, also known as mhaze, also known as the QAnon Shaman, Q Shaman, and Yellowstone Wolf, is a conspiracy theorist dressed in buffalo horns wearing red white and blue face paint he participated in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. He is a supporter of Donald Trump and a believer and disseminator of the QAnon conspiracy theory.

That certainly sounds like YOU.
p/s Calling yourself the Yellowstone Wolf, now that's rather catchy.

What keeps getting lost here is the way the "conservative revival" argument sidesteps evidence.

Decades of social science are clear: rhetoric that marginalises communities increases stress, depression, and suicide risk, while inclusion reduces harm and improves wellbeing. Instead of addressing that, the research gets relabelled as "woke ideology" or "shibboleths." Evidence is written off as fashion.

When data from Pew, Gallup, or Ipsos shows that minorities and younger cohorts overwhelmingly support inclusion, it gets brushed aside in favour of cherry-picked anecdotes. Statistics are replaced with isolated exceptions, as if one cancels out the other.

The "pendulum" metaphor is another escape hatch. By casting equality gains as just a swing that will naturally reverse, the real-world harm of undoing them disappears. But if history really worked like a pendulum, we’d still be in the Dark Ages. Progress doesn’t endlessly swing back and forth - it ratchets forward when the evidence shows it improves health and strengthens societies.

And the "back to base" slogan assumes the base was where it should be - conveniently, right around the time its advocates grew up. But what if the true "base" was earlier, before civil rights, before suffrage, before the Enlightenment itself? The very idea collapses once you stop treating nostalgia as destiny.

And whenever the pressure rises, the focus drifts - onto side issues or political conspiracies - anything but the actual findings of social research. The point isn’t to engage, it’s to change the subject.

The pattern is consistent: evidence becomes ideology, data becomes anecdotes, regression becomes a pendulum, and "base" becomes whatever era flatters the speaker. That’s not analysis. It’s a strategy for avoiding what the evidence actually says.

The great Selino Zito gets it...http://salenazito.com/2025/09/22/our-counterculture-revolution-is-here-and-it-is-a-revival/

I'm afraid JD never will

Counter-culture or reaction to Charlie Kirk?

From your article mhaze:

“Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus.”

From Google:

"Charlie Kirk had 1.7 million Instagram followers. Today, that number has grown exponentially to over 13.1 million and keeps climbing! This kind of legacy could only come from a man that was driven by his faith in the Lord. His death signified an explosion of movement and growth that the world has never seen before."

So after the Charlie Kirk assassination we have Americas religious youth out making themselves known, yeah ok, so what?
We're talking about millenials and Gen Z, and they're just about on schedule to throw a fit being disillusioned with the world after the way they were raised into it.

Sorry, no offense to Jesus, just I just don't believe he suddenly came back into fashion or that this claimed 'revival' will hold.

He was starting to become more critical of Israel, and his base seemed to be divided, it seems he was friends with Carlson and Owens.
http://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/charlie-kirks-death-has-revealed-israel-is-as-polarizing-on-the-right-as-it-is-on-the-left/

"What people don’t understand is that upwards of 40 or 50 percent of the questions Charlie would receive, the challenges he received… were attacking Israel and attacking Charlie for being so pro-Israel..."

"It is hardly surprising that young conservatives are questioning the U.S. support for war crimes. Israel is conducting what countless human rights authorities, lately a U.N. commission calls a 'genocide'."

Something you should wake up to mhaze.
What Jesus taught and what Israel does are not compatible.
Which is it you support? One or the other?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So long as you turn the other cheek at murdered women and kids, all you'll ever be is a fake Christian, not one who follows Jesus teachings.

Your heart and mind belong to Netanyahu, not Jesus.
- And I'm not even religious and I know that.

Look at the Jewish money pouring in, to keep young Christian hearts and minds subverted and focused on Israel, and not Jesus teachings, what chumps.

There will never be any Christian revival without Jesus, you moron.

Hi AC,

Didn't the Jews reject Jesus as a false prophet, and have him carted off to the Romans to face a horrible execution.

mhaze,

Zito’s piece is moving, but it doesn’t answer the point I raised. It’s anecdote dressed as inevitability. A spontaneous baptism in Pittsburgh or 600 students at “Pitt for Jesus” is powerful imagery, but it’s not the same as a wholesale cultural realignment. Every generation has bursts of religious enthusiasm. What matters is whether they reshape society, or fade like the Jesus Movement of the 70s.

And even if there is a religious revival among some young people, that doesn’t erase decades of social science. We now have robust evidence on minority stress, discrimination, health outcomes, and the protective effects of inclusion. A “revival” that ignores those findings or insists they’re just “leftist shibboleths” isn’t counterculture - it’s regression.

Zito herself concedes that the last 60 years were built on noble advances like civil rights and equal pay. You can’t separate those gains from the broader arc of evidence-based progress without rolling them back too. That’s why I called your pendulum metaphor amnesia. It romanticises a swing “back” without admitting what has to be discarded to make that swing possible.

So yes, people gathering for baptisms is moving. But the hard question remains: are you willing to jettison the research that shows inclusion protects lives, or do you intend to carry that evidence with you into this so-called revival? If it’s the former, then this isn’t a counterculture movement - it’s an evidence-denial movement with a hymnal.

[Cont.]

Discrimination... Well nobody likes being told no, you're not good enough, you're not the right age, gender, ethnicity etc.

Should I not be prevented from going into the opposite sexes toilets?
Should I not be prevented from becoming a firefighter if I'm a 45kg woman or a 145kg obese man neither of which can carry a person from a burning building?
Why should I not be discriminated against?
Should I not be prevented from wearing a pilots uniform and flying passengers around the country when I do not have a pilots licence?
Not all discrimination is bad.

Are 'straight' or 'white' or 'male' not discriminated against by gay, female and ethnicity quotas when the aim is to meet the quotas and not simply hire the best for the job?
- A race to the bottom, for feelings?

I went down to Wellington Point the other day.
Muslims and Indians everywhere, there were some Indians with their family gathered for their lunch, they looked over at me and I smiled and waved pleasantly, welcomingly.
But I can't help thinking that things weren't like this 'multiculturfied' when I roamed the streets as a young teen jumping off the jetty and going out in the boat with my mates 4 decades ago.

minority stress, what if they cause me stress?

If they can fit in without causing problems in the community, I'll tolerate the change.
If they tell me I'm the problem and I need to change to accommodate them, then they can go back to where they came from.
Maybe we can all be kinder, but my attitude's largely a result of their ability to fit in when they come to live in my neighbourhood, and why should anyone feel different?

"minority stress, discrimination, health outcomes"
- imported problems?

Family and friends...
These are the people one should seek support from.

"And even if there is a religious revival among some young people, that doesn’t erase decades of social science. We now have robust evidence on minority stress, discrimination, health outcomes, and the protective effects of inclusion. A 'revival' that ignores those findings or insists they’re just 'leftist shibboleths' isn’t counterculture - it’s regression.

Inclusion. Conflict.
Tradition religious views are family oriented (i.e. kids) and aren't exactly welcoming of gay people.
So when it comes to 'inclusion' you have a fundamental conflict you can't get around there.

Gay people think they're normal.
Religious people would say 'Yeah-nar. sorry, you're not.'

The inclusion people aren't exactly included, and they're offended.
They like to go into Christian bakeries and ask for penis shaped wedding cakes for gay people, just to stir up shite.

"minority stress, discrimination, health outcomes"

Family and friends...
I'm not a minority, or maybe I am now are Aussie born minorities yet?
Sure they might have some stress, is that my fault?

(Fyi, these 2 comments were accidentally posted in the wrong order)

Watching this discussion of "pendulum", the elephant in the room which is being ignored, is human population levels.

So long as this planet is so overpopulated, one can neither return to traditional families nor progress into a liberal lifestyle: in this unprecedented situation we live in, neither is viable and thus we are cornered and can go neither forward nor backward. While through the use of extreme government controls, physical survival is still available, we have entered an unplanned frustrating era of emergency lifestyle where no one is satisfied or happy, only breathing.

Blaming each other is not going to help - only a drastic reduction in population.

Stupid Christian Zionists consumed with helping Israel because they want to bring about the rapture and the end of the world so Jesus returns.

Crazy people.

Trump supporter shoots up a Mormon church....
Accused church shooter seen wearing Trump shirt
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-politics-live-trump-slams-targeted-attack-on-us-10-shot-including-kids-in-mass-shooting/live-coverage/fd4f3cfbcf36eca2cbe038969ef12328

There's really no point getting upset with things when it comes to the grey zone the 2 main parties constantly create for people.
We're lead by deranged fools, just accept it.

Some interesting reading...

Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer, was ‘frightened’ by pro-Israel forces before death, friend reveals
http://thegrayzone.com/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-netanyahu-israel-assassination/

Top pro-Israel TPUSA donor terminated support for Kirk in days before death, sources say
http://thegrayzone.com/2025/09/22/israel-tpusa-donor-terminated-kirk/

When will you all realise how flawed our democracies really are.
You want to know why 'democracy' is so great?
It's because of how easily it can be bought.

Watch this.

Israeli American donor boasts of owning Trump
http://youtu.be/W3FrhA_zzWc

How many billions of US taxpayers wages do you think that 100 million actually bought?
- Pennies on the dollar, that's for sure.

Armchair Critic,

There was so much there in that comment of yours replying to my points that I wasn't sure if I'd respond to it. Hopefully the numbering makes it clearer.

1. You're blurring two very different things. Saying "a 45-kg firefighter can’t do the job" or "a pilot must be licensed" is ability-based selection. Saying "you’re gay/Indian/Muslim/female so you can’t have this job" is identity-based discrimination. The research on minority stress is about the second category.

2. LGBT people aren’t a foreign problem to be "tolerated" - they’ve always been here, just like left-handers or redheads. The only thing that’s changed is whether society recognises their rights. Calling inclusion an "imported problem" is simply a way of making your discomfort sound like someone else’s fault.

3. You’re right that some religious doctrines reject same-sex relationships. That’s why anti-discrimination law draws a line between private belief and public service. You can hold your beliefs inside your church. You can’t impose them on other people’s jobs, housing or medical care.

4. A stunt about "penis-shaped cakes" is no more representative of LGBT rights than one fake disability claim is of wheelchair access. Citing a few provocateurs to dismiss decades of evidence is a rhetorical trick, not a rebuttal.

5. Minority stress is about health, safety, security, and opportunity - not a sensation of mild annoyance over who's temporarily in your presence.

6. Most "quotas" are actually short-term targets or reporting requirements to counter entrenched bias. The evidence shows they don’t tank standards; they broaden the candidate pool. That’s not a "race to the bottom," it’s dismantling barriers that kept whole groups out for decades.

7. Why should we be "civilised" or self-censor? Because societies that normalise dehumanising rhetoric and grievance politics become angrier, less safe, and more authoritarian. History is full of movements that started with "we’re just telling it like it is" and ended with actual violence.

You can criticise bad policies and disagree with inclusion, but let’s not pretend nostalgia, edge-case anecdotes or personal irritation outweigh decades of research showing that discrimination harms people and inclusion protects them.

Thank you John Daysh, well reasoned, well said, and spot on.

p/s I'm right out of kudos, but a generous sprinkle of pixie dust for the above comment.

Hi AC

"When will you all realise how flawed our democracies really are."

Fortunately not as flawed as sources of your information. Churchill's observation is still a good one.

Hi John Daysh,
Yes, my comment was a bit of a mess, especially so posting them in the wrong order.

1. The point was we all experience discrimination in some form.
Some people get discriminated against just for being ugly.
And ethnic / gender / LGBT quotas discriminate against 'straight white males'.
Discrimination is not tolerated against some foreigner who just came here, but it's ok to discriminate against someone who was here for generations to make happy someone who was here for 5 minutes because of white privelidge? That's a racist ideology too btw.

And you can talk up inclusion, but if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then the other side of that coin is increased disunity and conflict amongst the citizenry.

2 and 3. In the context of a religious right revival I'm just saying there's conflict between the religious and LGBT and there isn't any unity.
4. If wanting to put people out of work and lose their business such as Christian bakeries, it's snidely, shallow, petty and proves there's no love or unity to be had between sides. (sometimes I'll criticise a group, depending on the situation, other times I'll defend them)

5. 'health, safety, security, and opportunity', do you think these issues only concern minorities? They concern all individuals.

6. You may or may not have a valid point on 'broadening the candidate pool', but lets accept the pools now been broadened - if selections aren't based upon merit and given to the best candidate regardless it's still a race to the bottom. Quotas don't broaden the existing pool of applicants however, they merely discriminate in selection.

7. Your insinuating that laws aren't enough and that there's this other set of invisible laws we all must abide by.
Expecting people to self censor for the sake of keeping the peace so other peoples feelings aren't hurt, is denying some a voice on issues important to them.
Also a voted leader doesn't necessarily owe anything to those who oppose him.
The left can criticise the right, but the right can't criticise the left?

Hi Fester,
"Fortunately not as flawed as sources of your information."
- Which did you take issue with?

You may know that my entire geopolitical outlook stems from opposing sanctions (collective punishment) and overthrows (foreign interference and attempt to install puppet rulers, make nations vassal states)

You bring up Churchill's observation,
In the case of Miriam Adelson's 100m political donation to the Trump presidency, and the billions Israel has gotten in return, is democracy broken or just the laws for registering as foreign agents?

I'm not sure democracy is the best, or whether its just flawed, hasn't been fine tuned properly.
It gives us 2 idiots that never agree, except on loyalty to the US.
In leadership quality it's like the bar is lowered every time to someone even more hopeless than the last, that's not progress, it's regress.
Nothing ever gets done in a hurry, lies, cost blowouts, incompetency.
It's divisive in nature and they spend more time in disagreement achieving little.

And if the country is dancing to the tune of a foreign power it's not democracy at all, it's a captured nation acting in subservience.

Besides that, this whole idea of 'bringing democracy' to the world seems more thinly veiled imperialism, and has cost millions their lives in Western interference in sovereign nations affairs.

Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk BOMBSHELL Revelation | Middle East Faces Total COLLAPSE
http://www.youtube.com/live/pMZ202d8Auc

Armchair Critic,

Everyone faces hardship, yes, but let’s not pretend all discrimination is created equal. It's frustrating to be judged superficially when applying for a job, but it’s not the same as being systematically denied fundamental needs.

That’s the difference between everyday misfortune and structural inequality.

You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage "straight white males." But for most of modern history, being a straight white male was the quota. It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed. Successful applicants still need to be unqualified, though.

On the surface, DEI just looks like another form of discrimination - only in the other direction. I get that. However, DEI measures:

- are a bias that we're actually conscious and in control of.
- surface overlooked talent.
- promote productivity, creativity and profitability.
- and most importantly, they aim to ultimately render quotas unnecessary and naturally render themselves increasingly obesolete over time as biases fade (whereas unconscious biases are self-perpetuating).

Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does. If the presence of different people - culturally, sexually, religiously - feels threatening, the problem isn't diversity. It’s fragility. Unity doesn’t require uniformity. It requires maturity - the ability to coexist with those who aren’t just like us.

Regarding religion, yes, there are conflicts between some views and LGBT rights. That’s why we differentiate between personal belief and public responsibility. We’re free to hold any religious beliefs we like, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to impose them on others in shared spaces.

As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation. Expecting people to moderate their words in the public square isn’t about silencing them, it’s about choosing to live in a society where dignity and peace matter more some boofhead's freedom to announce their ignorance to the world.

You say you want unity, but it can only start with inclusion. That should actually be quite obvious, when you think about it.

American democrats and Australian Labor are two different identities.
There is no comparison.
To make out there are similarities is unjust.
Australia is allowed to have an opinion.
Trumps republican's and AU labour are more alike than many like to admit.
We have common enemies and we have enemies within. It's only the far right that are a problem. Australia is a very balanced society after 10 years of a non govt.

Unity -
I've often thought it impossible with a focus on personal identity.
We'd need to set that aside for some greater cause, something neutral.
Like 'Unity in self sufficiency'.

What do you mean by 'systematically denied fundamental needs'.
Who and what is being denied?
Often minorities get the lion share of assistance.

"You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage 'straight white males'."
- I did. It makes me sound racist when I put 'straight white male' together, but maybe it's conditioning, societies expectations and narratives reinforced, but if the topic is discrimination, then any attempt to move away from the idea of 'the best person suited for the job should offered the job' is an attempt to discriminate.
Arguing that its for a good reason doesn't change that.

"It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed."

It's sounds like an attempt to psychologically reeducate people away from their own judgements, gut instincts and personal preferences when it comes to hiring employees, probably easier in a corporate environment when the person doing the hiring doesn't own the business.

"Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does."
You touched on the religious aspects and conflict, but you didn't go deep enough.

Lets say churches or religious schools are forced to hire gay stayy and gender quotas, this won't bring unity, it will cause conflict and disunity.

Take a look at at those anti immigrant marches a few weeks back.
You think 'inclusion' isn't causing disunity?

[Cont.]

Lets say you have 100 white male Australians.
They all grew up the same, shared generally the same experiences, generally look the same, and have similar beliefs about how the country should be, share a tribal sense of belonging.
Now lets say we add in 20 Somalians, 20 Indians, 20 Chinese, 20 Muslims and 20 Jews.
Are you really going to try to tell me the group will now be more unified, I don't think they will be more unified, I think there will be far greater conflict between individuals, and the level of unification held prior just isn't possible now.

Change the people = Change the government.

Call it conspiritorial, (I don't care) but I've always thought that the multicultural agenda is in some ways nefarious.
A nation divided amongst itself with identity politics can never unify and rise up to overthrow a tyrannical government.
The populace will fight amongst themselves instead.

"As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation."
- You miss the point, sometimes difficult discussions are essential.
And these discussions simply can't be had while others scream 'offense'.

I'll give an example:
How are you going to have a serious discussion with someone on the topic of Israel / Palestine, if the person you're talking to accuses you of being an 'anti-semite' with every point you make, it's not possible.

Likewise serious discussions about immigration when people scream 'racist', and every other catch word for every other topic there now seems to be to silence criticism and prevent any critical discussion.

Try to talk about Russia / Ukraine and the catch word there is 'Russian propaganda', these words and conditioning / bias make serious discussion impossible.

Hi doog,
"American democrats and Australian Labor are two different identities.
There is no comparison."
- Let me offer you one then.

'It really doesn't get much worse than a government deliberately importing people to bolster its political base, win seats and retain government.'

It's deliberate electoral interference.
And US Democrats, AUS Labor Party = BOTH GUILTY.

Feel free to criticise the far-right.
I may agree depending on the argument.
I'm not prejudiced, I'll criticise both the left and right when it suits me to do so.

So did anyone actually dig into the Charlie Kirk thing?
I never followed him, never saw any of his online content or followed events related to TPUSA prior to his assassination.
I knew little prior to his passing, some of those grayzone.com links and Max Blumenthal videos I shared earlier told quite an interesting story about Israel losing it's evangelical conservative base amongst the young people (Republicans), while Charlie Kirk was purported to have become frustrated with his Israeli handlers near the end and was increasingly questioned about support for Israel during the war in Gaza by his followers.

Armchair Critic.

I'll have to break my rule about not posting double posts this time. My 350-word draft almost looked cagey and evasive.

//Unity – I've often thought it impossible with a focus on personal identity.//

Identity doesn’t prevent unity, exclusion does. You’re describing tribal cohesion, not national unity. Unity isn’t about sameness, it’s about accepting differences under shared values, like fairness and opportunity.

//What do you mean by 'systematically denied fundamental needs'?//

I mean things like housing, healthcare, safety, and work. It’s not just bad luck or isolated incidents. LGBT youth are far more likely to end up homeless, Indigenous people still die years younger on average, and even something as simple as your name can affect whether you get a call back for a job.

These patterns show up in the data again and again. There's mountains of data on this stuff, too, I should add. It's assumed by most, however, that DEI solutions are just some sort of brain fart a few academics had one day over a quiet lunch.

//Often minorities get the lion share of assistance.//

That’s often because of the systemic barriers they face. Equity isn’t giving everyone the same support, it’s ensuring everyone has a fair chance to stand on equal footing.

//It makes me sound racist when I put 'straight white male' together...//

The reason it feels charged is because it’s been centred so long in discussions of "default" Australians. Acknowledging others doesn’t erase anyone.

//Any attempt to move away from 'best person for the job' is discrimination.//

Only if you assume merit is currently assessed fairly. Decades of research shows unconscious bias affects hiring decisions. Quotas don’t guarantee unqualified people get jobs, they prompt employers to cast the net wider. It’s not discrimination to correct a rigged system.

//Churches forced to hire gay staff and gender quotas… will cause conflict.//

Religious organisations already have exemptions in many anti-discrimination laws. The point is not to force beliefs - it’s to ensure publicly funded or secular institutions don’t exclude. No one’s forcing theology to change, just the treatment of people.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

//Take a look at anti-immigrant marches… Inclusion is causing disunity.//

Marches aren’t evidence that inclusion is the problem. They’re evidence that some people react poorly to it. We shouldn’t mistake resistance to change for evidence that change is wrong.

//Are you really going to try to tell me the group will now be more unified...?//

Not more unified in the sense of sameness, no. But potentially stronger, and more innovative. When managed well, multicultural societies can produce better ideas, stronger economies, and better social resilience. It depends on whether a country invests in fairness and integration, or fuels resentment and fear.

//Change the people = Change the government.//

Yes, that’s how democracy works. Diverse voices vote, and policy reflects a broader spectrum of lived experience. That’s not nefarious, it’s the point of democracy. And frankly, plenty of immigrants vote for conservative parties. They’re not a monolith.

//Multicultural agenda is… nefarious. A nation divided amongst itself… can never rise up to overthrow a tyrannical government.//

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. By that logic, unity requires forced cultural conformity to ensure hypothetical revolutionary readiness. But history shows the opposite - authoritarian regimes often suppress diversity to prevent uprising.

Division doesn’t protect tyranny, it often challenges it.

//Sometimes difficult discussions are essential. And these discussions simply can't be had while others scream 'offense'.//

Sure, but what you call "offense," others call survival. Speech has consequences. You can’t demand the freedom to speak hard truths while denying others the freedom to react to them. If someone cries "racist" or "antisemitic," the right move isn’t to silence them - it’s to ask why they feel that way, and whether your point can survive scrutiny.

//Catch words… ‘Russian propaganda’… make serious discussion impossible.//

Labels can be misused, yes. But so can the idea that "no one will let us speak." Often, people are speaking - we just don’t like the response. If we want serious discussion, we need to rise above buzzwords on all sides and engage with good faith, evidence, and humility.

Charlie Kirk has now ascended into heaven and is sitting on the far right hand of God. Seems, a woman in Winkleman Arizona name Donna, believes Charlie visited her in her TRAILER, and has commanded her to become the next "Joan Of Arc", rather Donna Of Winkleman. Doona will lead a great army of Conservs, and crush the ratty Demos, minus the burning at the stake thing! Donna thinks that's a bit to hot.