Why facts (voters) can’t get a look-in against ‘Huge Australia’ groupthink

For virtue-signalling Greens, even 300,000 is discriminatory. Earth to Max Chandler-Mather, we never topped 200,000, before 2007.

Only a global pandemic disrupted Big Australia – what on earth could derail Huge Australia? At least, know thine opponent. Visibly, Huge Australia groupthink covers the spectrum of power players, public and private, "left" and "right".

Little use targeting landlord-politicians alone. To win pre-selection is to favour open borders. Industry and developers dominate (buy) them.

Revenue-sensitive mainstream media offers limited windows to counter the lies.

But also, be sceptical of "public" service, universities, unions, economists, planners, and lobbyists. Their mega-migration equity stiffs fellow Australians. Call out their hypocrisy.

Stakeholders generally seem uncaring that Huge Australia depreciates living standards and natural environment. They're buoyed by newer orthodoxies on racism and climate.

But most Australians want low migration - and low population growth isn't racist.

In my own suburbs, I get this 1-2. Dislike Huge Australia? You're an extremist (racist).

There's lots of us. Hundreds of millions in the OECD (whose chummy reports endorse Albanese's climate policy and open borders). But most member nations practise very low immigration.

Check Australia's 17-million electoral roll. With poll after poll supporting low migration, are they racists?

Conceding the 7-1 Voice debacle, Albanese noted indigenous inequalities. But refused to acknowledge the division between powerful city-enclaves (Yes) and the rest (No).

This power, not the people, loves mega migration. Voters have no voice or choice.