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.