There’s a contradiction at play here. One Nation is often vague and even self-contradictory, which combined with targeted messaging (and microtargeting in the digital realm) allows people to project onto them, I believe. They don’t want to alienate the white supremacist much, nor the “everyday aussie”, nor the non-white immigrant who agrees with some of their messaging.

It’s a juggling game. Sure, you get the neo-Nazis agitating directly about Gina saying we should give free land near Townsville to the Zionist Regime^[1], and an ON MP disclosing they have an immigrant Muslim boyfriend^[2], and more. But… who else are they going to vote for? Neo-Nazis are opportunists, they won’t just abstain. They’ll just call it ‘optics’ for the ‘normie lemmings’ and try to recruit those brought into their sphere through ON. So ON gets to sanitise their message and claim “we’re not really racists” and “stop calling everyone you don’t like a nazi”, without alienating the hardcore open bigots.

You can’t put the immigrant voting for ON and the neo-Nazi in the same protest for long, or a public meeting, but if it’s just votes from unenthusiastic masses you need, then vague mass messaging and contradictory targeted messaging works.

What rubbish. Predictable and pathetic.

Would have been cool if you preempted it, since it’s predictable.

^[1] : [official transcript] / [leftist article] / [nazi article (TW for bigoted ads)]

^[2] : [centrist article] / [nazi article (TW: homophobic framing, bigoted ads)]

She has not even defined what she would change.

And then she claims ‘ownership’ of the Socceroos, because that was what was thrown in her face as a great example of multiculturalism.

It’s just dog whistling at this point.

Monoculture sounds like the kind of thing they’d accuse communists of wanting.

I laughed