Something big is happening in the West. Mainstream media organisations are finding that their values and the stories they cover do not match the values and concerns of many of their viewers. People are voting against the status quo, and defying the politically correct box in which the moulders of public opinion in politics, the media, and academia, usually try to frame issues.
This defiance is being expressed in the winning vote for Brexit in Great Britain, alongside growing anti-EU sentiment and a revitalisation of a sense of national identity within European states. In the US, support for Donald Trump may well reshape the Republican Party, and Washington D.C. itself. In Australia on this election day, fury on the right side of politics over the sacking of Tony Abbott, will likely lead to a strong vote for minor parties on the right, altering the balance of power in the Senate. In Europe, the USA, and Australia, there is a growing populist revolt against the politically correct “progressive” narrative, and against the speech suppression which the “progressive” elites and their army of keyboard SJW’s try to enforce. This has generally been ignored or dismissed by the elites, until events force them to confront this challenge to their worldview. The XYZ is a part of this revolt. It is in this context that it is worthwhile looking back at The XYZ’s first year in operation as a media organisation, and the major events which shaped our world.
The successful Brexit vote last weekend has caught many by surprise, but it roots can be found in a subject The XYZ has covered extensively – the European Migrant Crisis / Middle East Migrant Crisis. From The XYZ’s inception we have pointed out the folly of luring migrants to their deaths at sea through the promise of welfare to anyone who can simply appear on a country’s shores, unannounced. Australia remains the only country in the Western world to have been able to stop this flow, twice, by ruling that anyone who arrives illegally will not be let in. Tony Abbott has advised the Europeans to do the same, but they simply have not listened, and thus have had to deal with the consequences – a million migrants from North Africa and the Middle East pouring in, and millions to come.
This has caused a crisis for the European Union, with a series of shocking terrorist attacks, the closure of national borders, and the demographic, cultural and political options facing Europe becoming stark. The people of Europe have responded by demanding their sovereignty, their democracy, and their countries back from an EU which has become undemocratic, overly bureaucratic, and whose leaders have appeared intent on social engineering European national identity out of existence. This is groundbreaking, because the charge of “racism” has until now been effective at silencing political dissent to the EU project. But the European Migrant Crisis has made it clear to Europeans that this politically correct speech suppression will see the end of Europe. Thus, the European Migrant Crisis provided the final impetus for the British to decide to leave the EU.
In the United States, a similar pattern started to emerge as the contest for the Republican nominee for President heated up. As Donald Trump made the transition from novelty candidate to serious contender, it became clear that something new was happening. Again, liberals were perplexed by his success, the fact that the usual charge of “racist” against his supporters wasn’t working, and that someone openly talking about controlling immigration and protecting the border could attract mass support.
What is interesting about Trump’s rise is that an insurgency had already been underway inside the Republican Party against the “establishment” – the Tea Party had been pushing for smaller government, strict adherence to the American Constitution, and stronger border protection. But the Trump revolt has managed to eclipse and divided the Tea Party, just as it has divided the party itself. This has been reflected in differences of opinion at The XYZ too, with Ryan Fletcher enthusiastically supporting Trump, while Jeremy Morgan and myself have been more cautious.
In Australia, signs began appearing last year that ordinary Aussies don’t actually like being told they are living on stolen land, or seeing teenage girls being humiliated on national television for saying a nasty word to a grown man. The booing of Adam Goodes perplexed Australian “progressives” because nothing they could do or say seemed to be able to stop it – again, the false accusation of “racism” lost its effect. The XYZ had a great deal of fun mocking the “progressive” reaction to this, and pointing out the hypocrisy and double-speak they employed.
This open revolt in the public sphere is likely to be reflected in the result of today’s Federal Election. On the right, a massive protest vote is on the cards. People have been angry since September, after what they see as the knifing of elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and his replacement with the “small l” Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull. Although Turnbull has remained committed to a strong border protection policy, and has kept Abbott’s commitment to put the issue of gay marriage to the people, via plebiscite, the sense of betrayal has only been inflamed by Turnbull’s apparent soft stance on Islamic terror, and his refusal to tackle it in the open manner which Abbott did, regardless of the criticism it drew him from the ABC and the rest of the left.
Therefore, it is becoming clear, as pointed out so gleefully by Peter Hitchens on the afternoon following the Brexit vote, that the traditional big political parties no longer reflect the crucial dividing cultural and political lines in society. Hitchens suggested that new political parties in Great Britain should replace the old Tory-Labor divide, to reflect the values of those who support Brexit on one side, and those who oppose it on the other. A similar trend is occurring in the USA and Australia, with Donald Trump attracting masses of votes from people who have never voted before, while alienating much of his Republican base, and in Australia the Coalition is likely to bleed votes to the right in the Senate, to the new Australian Liberty Alliance.
Although the new protest movements aren’t necessarily “pure” in their conservative or classically liberal philosophy, the political movements across Great Britain, the USA, and Australia are united by two key issues:
a) The importance of national identity, the philosophical outlook of a nation, and being able to protect national borders so that sense of identity and outlook can be maintained.
b) Tackling the political correctness and speech suppression which has stifled public discourse, and hamstrings us from dealing effectively with the challenges of burgeoning debt due to an out of control welfare state, and the link between the ideology of Islam and terror.
This gets to the heart of why The XYZ was founded. In Australia, we fund the ABC to the tune of $1,000,000,000 a year. The XYZ has modelled itself as a classical liberal/cultural libertarian foil to the Cultural Marxist ABC, choosing letters at the opposite end of the alphabet and even aping its logo. When The XYZ demands half of the ABC’s budget, a full $500,000,000, we are only half-kidding. The reality is, it is not fair to fund a propaganda arm for one side of politics to this exorbitant extent, a propaganda arm which, regardless of how many “progressive”-led “enquiries” maintaining the contrary, is most certainly in breach of its charter. We really have two options: privatise the ABC so it can be free to pursue its left-wing agenda without extorting the Australian taxpayer; or fund to an equal extent its equivalent, which will present an opposite point of view to the ABC.
Thus, The XYZ exists to oppose a publicly funded institution setting the national political agenda. As a movement, classical liberals, cultural libertarians, anarcho-libertarians, anybody who is committed to free speech and free markets, must attack these institutions, to either get an equal footing inside them, reform them, or bring them down completely. In this respect, The XYZ was inspired by organisations such as Breitbart News, PJTV, Truth Revolt, Info Wars and Free Domain radio, which have been working tirelessly, some for the good part of a decade, to challenge the politically correct narrative of the mainstream media.
It is instructive to consider how Andrew Breitbart, when alive, founded the news platform which would do so well in his name. He deliberately went after an institution, ACORN, (Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now,) a “non-profit organisation” which had been involved in vote-rigging for the Democrats, with a series of videos which exposed illegal activities by its workers. Its contracts with the government were subsequently terminated and the organisation was liquidated.
Why is this example important? Because Andrew Breitbart understood that the way the left sets the agenda throughout society is through control of the institutions of society. Education institutions attempt to indoctrinate to youth to reflexively react to non-“progressive” ideas as though they are fascist. The media polices language, focuses on stories with a “progressive” agenda, and presents “progressive” bias as though it is unbiased. And our culture reflects this “progressive” bias.
So, The XYZ has set out to challenge these leftist institutions, the speech suppression, and “progressive” culture. If you are a writer, a poet, a play-write, an artist, a musician, a video producer, and you want to challenge the Cultural Marxist agenda in our political parties, the media and academia, and our culture, now is the time to join the XYZ. We can provide a platform to express yourself, to oppose the “progressive” narrative.
The West is in open revolt. The XYZ is part of that revolt.