This article was originally published July 7, 2016.
Liberal Party senator and conservative luminary Cory Bernardi is embarking on a new political movement, ‘Australian Conservatives’, in a bid to unite conservatives in Australia, regardless of political affiliation. Specifically, Senator Bernardi is seeking support to establish a new conservative network which will rival the prominent leftist lobby group, GetUp!
After the ousting of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott by Malcolm Turnbull last September, the XYZ predicted the likelihood of a new conservative party, headed up by Senator Bernardi.
Australia’s 2 July federal election registered a strong protest from voters, coinciding with the launch of a suite of new conservative and libertarian political parties. This election also produced the highest vote for independents and minor parties the nation has ever seen, with nearly one quarter of all voters giving their first preference to parties other than Labor and the Coalition.
Both of these developments speak to widespread dissatisfaction of Malcolm Turnbull’s Labor-lite prime ministership, from conservatives who have traditionally voted for the Coalition.
While there is at present a strong protest against established parties, political elitism, and political correctness, both at home and internationally, Australia’s Federal election also displayed an unhelpful splintering of votes from those unhappy with the status quo. While Pauline Hanson has been returned to the Parliament, and looks likely to bring another member or two with her, the well-organised and articulate Australian Liberty Alliance disappointingly failed to elect a single member. It is division and a lack of unity, rather than a lack of votes, that is plaguing the right side of politics.
“We might not all be able to get along, but if we can’t find a way to unite at least some of these hard-working activists, sparse resources and courageous public figures under fewer than the current dozen banners, the future looks grim.”
While my preference would have been to see members of the ALA elected to the Parliament, Lucas is absolutely right: the resurgence of political movements on the centre-right will continue to flounder and fail to have the desired impact on the political scene if individuals and groups stay divided, squabbling amongst ourselves themselves.
A cross-party organisation such as the one flagged by Senator Bernardi could be exactly what the doctor ordered, bringing together conservatives and libertarians in a political movement which is long overdue.
Earlier today, Australia’s most read journalist, Andrew Bolt was kind enough to give your XYZ a plug on his News.com.au blog, for which we feel most humbled and grateful.
Source: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbfor which we feel most humbled.
The XYZ stands beside Andrew Bolt and others in speaking out against speech suppression, political correctness and violent ideologies.
Like Andrew, we will not be cowered into submission by bullies.
We have been utterly appalled and disgusted by the death threats that have been made against Andrew and his family, by supporters of the Islamic State.
Andrew, on behalf of all of us at the XYZ, thank you for your work and courage in speaking out on these important issues, and please be assured of our thoughts and prayers for you and your family during this time, and our ongoing support.
Recently I wrote a piece – Where are All the Feminists in response to the Council of Islamic Ideology declaring that violence committed by Muslim husbands against their wives is a-okay, thanks for asking.
But upon reflection, I realised I have been naive, if not in denial. I know exactly where the feminists are and what they are saying, but at least a part of me does not want to believe it.
Source: azquotes.com
Feminists, including theorist and leader of the radical feminist movement Robin Morgan, have been spouting their hatred of Western Culture, and self-loathing as white westerners for decades.
Radical feminism sees its own culture as negative and beyond redemption. Its acolytes lust after their own self destruction, intent on dragging the rest of us westerners along with them. Arnold Toynbee famously stated: “Civilisations die from suicide, not by murder.”
Of course, radical feminists aren’t the only ones that are intent on cultural suicide.
Let’s be honest, the West’s current dominant philosophical narrative is bleak and suicidal.
Even the left’s vision of utopia appears to have been cast aside in recent years. While there are small pockets that are holding firm to the Judeo-Christian tradition or Enlightenment Humanism, these life philosophies are diametrically opposed to the post-modern/post-colonial/nihilist/moral and philosophical relativism that now dominates the West in its leading institutions. And this dominant narrative in the West is one that is self-loathing, that sees our achievements as oppressive to others, and as moral failures.
Behind the moral posturing and virtue signalling of political actors and their pseudo-compassion is a death wish. Not necessarily their own personal suicide – they’re too busy consuming the goods the West has produced, and lining up cushy jobs for themselves and their mates, while denigrating our culture. There are environmentalists who preach climate doom and gloom, yet jet-set around the globe for the next talk fest. Activists protest the treatment of refugees, yet abort their children by the millions. There is no genuine concern for refugees from our cultural narrators and political class. But by virtue signalling their purported care, they can feel superior to everyone else. What’s more, refugees can certainly be a pawn in destabilising and weakening Western and European culture; so fling open the doors and dissolve all national borders!
One of the key tactics of the death-wish set has been to play down, excuse or completely ignore the crimes committed by migrants and Muslims. Remember the Norwegian politician who “felt guilt and responsibility after he was sodomised by a Somali refugee? And more recently, the female German politician who lied about the race of her gang-rapists? For the left, rape is simply par for the course in their disordered minds when dealing with refugees.
Perhaps the ‘anti-fascist’ group wasn’t aware that their wish to “trade racists for rapists” was made on the basis of a doctored image. The original post actually stated: “will trade racists for refugees”.
Regardless of what the original image actual stated, ANTIFA and other leftists have made their suicidal tendencies perfectly clear: they prefer rape and violence to self-defence and preservation of the West as Western. Of course, violence is not justified, unless it is carried out against whites and so-called racists, which is not only allowed but encouraged. Whites can never be the recipients of racism, because they are by definition “oppressors”, and so on…
These self-loathers in the West have made a death-pact on our behalf, and bound themselves in a moral and intellectual straitjacket, which they are currently trying to force on the rest of us.
Today, Milo Yiannopoulos was interviewed by Andrew Bolt on Sky News. The discussion between the longstanding conservative stalwart and the new conservative rising star covered some diverse topics:
Same-sex marriage – Yiannopoulos believes there should be a government mechanism for homosexuals to formalise their relationship.. he just doesn’t think they should do it. He views the left as attempting to domesticate gay people, to put them into a bloc; in the past, homosexuals have been over-represented in creative fields because they don’t have the usual responsibilities of married straight people.
Islam – he discussed the inconvenient truth that 100% of British Muslims interviewed a couple of years ago in a gallup poll said they believed homosexuality was an immoral lifestyle, and half of them believed that it should be illegal.
Christianity – he pointed out that it has been reasonably tolerant at times to homosexuals, and has a far better track record than the religion of peace.
“Progressive” control of institutions – the ridiculous situation that exists today whereby to keep one’s job in the media, you have to say things which nobody believes are true, like the ideological construct that Bruce Jenner is a woman. In essence, there is a “gap between what we are forced to say and reality.”
Andrew Bolt posited to Milo that he is a “walking contradiction of modern identity politics.” In this, Milo joins a long list of people whom the left have designated as belonging to a “minority” which should vote left and believe in left-wing ideals, but have broken this mould, and thus gained the left’s hatred, and the right’s admiration; Margaret Thatcher and Thomas Sowell come readily to mind. As such, he the embodiment of the political wedge.
Milo summed it up best, and earns The XYZ Quote of the Day, with the following:
“I’m only a mystery to you if you have internalised things that the left have told you about homosexuals which have simply never been true.”
With this, Milo Yiannolpolous articulated his determination to resist the left’s attempt to divide Western society into smaller and smaller conflicting groups, so that they can be controlled by the State. In doing so, he exposed the true restrictive, stereotyping bigotry at the heart of Cultural Marxist ideology.
A great event in Australian political and television history will occur today. Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, who has been steadfast for years in calling out socialist policy and propaganda, will be interviewing the rising star of the Western revolt against the socialist elites, Milo Yiannopoulos, on Sky News at 7pm.
Yiannopoulos first rose to prominence as a writer for tech site The Kernal, where he covered the Gamergate controversy. Since being picked up by XYZ inspiration, Breitbart News, he has shot to superstar status with his provocative but incisive articles on the failings of feminism and socialism, in pointing out that as a homosexual, he is f—ing terrified of muslim immigration, and by conducting a speaking tour of US colleges where he has attracted equal measures of exuberant support and rabid opposition. (One can only imagine what would happen were Milo to tour Australia.)
As The XYZ pointed out yesterday, both journalists have been the recent subjects of violent intimidation for expressing their views. The conversation promises to be fascinating, and if Bolt’s blog page is anything to go by, his readers are champing at the bit to tune in.
To give a taste of what you can expect tonight, here is a video of Milo giving the shortest, but best, lecture in American college history.
On the day that Australia finally gets its government back, it is worth remembering some wisdom which Ronald Reagan imparted to us. Reagan understood that liberty and economic prosperity rested on giving as much freedom to ordinary people as possible, and getting government out of the way. He summed up this principle with the following statement:
“Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
It is worth considering the context in which Reagan made these remarks. They were made during his first inaugural address as President of the United States on January 20, 1981. America had endured a number years of weak leadership, economic stagnation, and foreign policy retreat in the wake of the Vietnam War. Reagan made a point of returning power to the people, wary of a “government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”
Thus, although Reagan’s one-liner makes for a great meme, it is also the focal point of a passage in His speech where he sums up the problem, identifies the source of the problem, and proposes a solution to the problem:
“The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
“From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”
The full text, and an excellent summary provided by the Heritage Foundation, can be read here.
The Sydney International Piano Competition is currently underway at the Conservatory of Music in Sydney, running from July 6-23. For piano junkies like myself, who pronounce the acronym as “sip-ke” it is a feast, hell, it’s an orgy, for the ears, which, given it is held every four years, is a bit like our Olympics.
It follows a similar format to a tennis grand slam; hundreds of applicants are whittled down to 32, who compete in a series of rounds, performing longer and longer sets, and more difficult music, with the top six performing concertos at the Sydney Opera House for the final.
The tone of music you will hear in a piano competition is a little different to what you will hear in a concert from a touring pianist. When a professional presents a concert on a tour, they may present a balance of music from two or more contrasting or complementary musical eras and composers; for example, some Bach from the Baroque Era, leading into a Mozart Sonata from the classical, then skipping to some early Twentieth Century Shostakovich; or they may present an entire collection from a suite of compositions which have artistic and historical significance, such as all 24 of Chopin’s Preludes, Opus 28, or all of Rachmaninov’s Etude Tableaux from Opus 33 and 39.
In a competition, what you generally hear are the highlights: the biggest, the most virtuosic, and most famous pieces from the repertoire. Due to specific categories being demanded in each category, and the ultra-competitive nature of the event, one will often hear the same incredible work being performed by multiple pianists in a row. Rather than an overload for the listener, it hones the ears to distinguish difference in technique and interpretation from performer to performer; a great example of the way that music which could be centuries old, is still “alive.”
The finals are always spectacular affairs, with contestants regularly choosing the most difficult concertos in the canon, usually the Russians, Rachmaninov and Prokofiev, as they pull out all the stops to impress.
Another element, always present, although not always acknowledged, is the element of bloodlust. In a competition featuring some of the best young pianists, all with formidable techniques, from all over the world, it can be difficult to pick who must drop out from round to round. A wrong note, or just a moment’s slip in concentration, which can lead to a little unevenness in the left hand, or a phrase in the right hand being played too forcefully, rather than sounding like liquid silk, can mean all the difference in the world between success and failure.
For these reasons, piano competitions provide a unique form of entertainment. They are an excellent way to introduce students and music lovers alike to the very best of the piano repertoire. It has been suggested that competitions favour showy playing over more introspective, and perhaps more artistically worthy playing. Some of the great controversies in the classical music world have centred around this fact. But winners still need to display lyricism and subtlety. You can’t just bash your way to victory. Sergei Prokofiev rose to fame/infamy when he performed his first piano concerto at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory in 1914. Argentian pianist Marta Argerich gained her fame when she won the seventh International Chopin Piano Competition in 1965, but then stormed off the voting panel of the tenth in protest when the contestant who she thought was the best didn’t win.
Recognising piano competitions for what they are, their unique place in the classical music scene, and the opportunities they provide to young performers, and just enjoying the show, is the best way to approach them.
I have deliberately avoided politics until this last paragraph, and if you want to, you can skip it. The entire SIPC is being broadcast on ABC Classic FM radio around the country. You can listen to it during the day at work, in the car or on public transport on the way home, and in the evening as you relax. Simply put, this is exactly the sort of thing our publicly funded broadcaster should be doing. However, I am quite sure a private organisation could pull it of just as well, and they could most likely turn a profit.
To finish off, let’s listen to a bit of Martha Argerich, performing Chopin’s Mazurka Opus 59, No. 1, from that competition in 1965.
Let me start this with an anecdote. A story from Reddit once recounted an event where a man was walking down the street followed closely by his girlfriend, who was crying, trying to drag him back, and clearly upset. All of a sudden, he turned around and hit her. This was witnessed by multiple men. These men then proceeded to beat the man half to death.
Now have a look at this video.
Again, the social stigma regarding violence against women is apparent. But when the situation is reversed, nobody comes to the aid of the male. This tells us several things. This tells us that female violence against males is not considered to be equivalent to male violence against women. In such a situation, the male has no recourse to expect any kind of help, or any defence. Ironically, this is the very definition of violence – the man is rendered completely helpless, and is expected to endure such violence without complaint. Other people, particularly males, appear unwilling or hesitant to defend the male under assault – perhaps they are influenced by the prospect of being accused of violence against women if they try to defend the male, and the prospect of violence being inflicted upon them as a result.
Importantly, it is an example of how many women feel empowered to act more aggressively, even violently, in private and in public, because society either excuses or even encourages their behaviour. For males, the scope of normal masculine behaviour they are allowed to exhibit is increasingly diminished in Western society. The situations in which aggression and violence are acceptable from males is greatly diminished, so that when they are presented with a situation in which violence is permitted, such as when they see a man hitting a woman, the violence comes out disproportionately, like a burst geyser.
Thus, even with a brief look at identity politics in modern Western society, we can see there are mixed and hypocritical messages given to both genders regarding what kinds of violence and what levels of violence are acceptable. Now consider this quote from Barack Obama:
“It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”
Any proceeding claim that this does not condone violence is a non sequitur. It means that if you say something which is deemed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamiphobic, etc, or support a political party or candidate who is deemed to be so, that violence is a proportionate response. It means that when words or ideas labelled intolerant can be presented as threatening, or violent, or make “minorities” feel that they are being threatened with violence, even though no threat has been made, that violence is a legitimate response.
It is due to this (il)logic that Black Lives Matter activists feel justified in violently intimidating Milo Yiannopolous at an event at DePaul University in the US. It is why a feminist feels she has the right to yell and swear at a person who disagrees with her. It is why a student feels they can scream and swear at a University Chancellor for suggesting that we should be able to discuss ideas, even if we consider them to be bigoted. It is why anti-Trump protestors feel justified in assaulting people leaving Trump rallies.
It is how the statistics can be ignored, so the narrative of police brutality against black people can be maintained: statistics show that although disproportionately more black people are killed by police because they commit a disproportionate level of crime, white people are proportionally more likely to be shot by police for committing a crime (and in overall numbers, more white people are shot by police); implying that proportionally, police are more cautious when confronting black criminals due to concerns over racial tensions.
It is why, therefore, we argue that Barack Obama has blood on his hands. His public doublespeak – quoting Ghandi but justifying violence – inflames the racial tensions which led to the shooting of five police officers in Dallas. If intolerance is violence, violence is a proportionate and legitimate response to anything which is deemed intolerant. In essence, if you identify yourself as a member of an oppressed minority, you are allowed to react violently to anything that offends you or makes you uncomfortable.
Thus, the political sphere has been infantilised.
A similar dynamic is at play here in Australia. 20 years ago when Pauline Hanson burst onto the political scene, left-wing activists violently picketed and harassed the grandparents who tried to go to her One Nation meetings. In recent times, violent left-wing activists have assaulted and intimidated ordinary Australians, regardless of colour or creed, who tried to articulate concerns about Islam at the Reclaim Australia Rallies.
We see the irony that when the direct threat is made by the Grand Mufti of Australia, that criticism of an Islamic cleric who advocates violence against homosexuals will encourage terrorism, (i.e., if you criticise Islam, we’ll kill you) and Andrew Bolt is forced, due to the threat of violence, to move his children to a safe location after pointing out that this due to violence being threatened against him, Bolt is seen as the intolerant one.
We see the irony that XYZ contributor Ryan Fletcher can be bashed for wearing a “rapefugees” t-shirt because it is deemed intolerant, when in fact the t-shirt is pointing out the despicable actions of “refugees” in Europe who have caused a precipitous rise in rape and sexual assault across Europe – a situation which even left-wing activists who have been themselves raped by “refugees” are not prepared to see as it actually is, and have covered up the crimes against themselves because they consider the potential for backlash against the “refugees” to be worse.
If we are being honest, we can see that the left has a history of violence, because it deems the things it sets itself against, whether it is capitalism, patriarchy, inequality, etc., to be inherently violent – thus they have felt justified for generations, whether in protests, union disputes, etc, in exercising political violence. (This article could perhaps be called “More of the Same: Left-wing political violence”). On a macro level, this is why we see a disproportionate focus on crimes of Western colonialism, national socialist Germany, or American foreign policy during Cold War, yet ignore or forget the much greater crimes of Islamic war, conquest and colonialism, and the crimes of Communist regimes in the Twentieth century: violence to the point of genocide is excusable if you are deemed to be oppressed, or the ideas or systems you purport to oppose are deemed intolerant, and thus structurally violent.
What this means for the coming years in the West, is that we can expect violence on the part of the left to increase, both in volume and intensity. Violent opposition against Trump and his supporters in the US, against those concerned about immigration and the authoritarianism of the EU in Europe, and those expressing similar concerns here in Australia, (especially now that political parties explicitly articulating these concerns have been elected to parliament) will only get worse. What we can do is continue to fight politically and culturally. We can turn their own arguments on their heads, to show that the way they wield the labels of “racism,” “bigotry” and “intolerance” are themselves ideological constructions. We can demonstrate that they have been socially conditioned to react in ways which are out of all proportion to the supposed provocation or violence they believe is being directed against them.
Ultimately, we need to delegitimise the political violence committed by the left. To do this, we first need to delegitimise the ideological construct that whatever the left opposes is inherently violent, and demonstrate that it is consistently the left which initiates violence.
Bill Shorten has just conceded defeat in the federal election on behalf of the Labor Party. Although the Coalition has not yet attained the 76 seats necessary to form government, Shorten has accepted that Labor will not be able to form a government.
Whether the Liberal and National Parties can govern in their own right, or whether they have to make deals with one or more of the independents or minor parties in the Lower House, the big questions in Australian politics now turn to how this new government should govern.
What are the most important issues to you in the coming three years?
How should the government approach Australia’s rising level of debt? Higher or lower taxes? Higher or lower spending? Less regulation?
What should happen to Medicare? Reform, privatisation, or strengthening?
Where do you see the economy going in the coming decade?
What are the biggest challenges facing Australia? Its biggest opportunities?
