What the Voice Revealed

In the aftermath of the Voice referendum, polling data demonstrates a classic case of 'anarchy-tyranny'. Guest writer Jo Gullet explains what this means for the right. [4 Minute Read]

Article by Jo Gullett, find more of his content @Jo_Gullett on 𝕏

To the surprise of nobody on our side of the metapolitical battlefield, the mainstream commentariat’s response to the nation’s turn against the idiotic Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum has been utterly, entertainingly unhinged.

And while it’s been fun bathing in lefty tears, out of the carnage we’ve also started to see the outlines of an actual post-referendum analysis emerge, and the news is good for those of us who care about a politics oriented towards defending the old Australia.

As pointed out by the Sydney Morning Herald, the more “educated” (i.e credentialed), high-income or foreign-born the seat was, the more likely it was to vote Yes.

Veteran pollster and former Labor Senator John Black looks at things a slightly different way but finds much the same, and this all comports with pre-referendum polling from Labor-aligned pollster Kos Samaras which showed a substantial advantage in Yes voters amongst groups who don’t speak English at home (disproportionately recent, non-white immigrants).

What we see is a classic case of de Jouvenel’s “High-Low vs Middle”. The functionaries of the managerial machine (whether public or private sector) allied with their recently arrived foreign mercenaries, against the historical core of the nation, united much more by organic bonds of family, ethnicity and religion.

And the result? In short: the Anywheres picked a fight with the Somewheres and got their arses handed to them. Only one seat currently held by the Coalition voted Yes, but 59 of Labor’s seats out of a total of 78 went No.

The emerging majority

The opportunity is very clearly present for a large and enduring anti-globalist majority for the Liberal-National Coalition, if they can see past their previous ideological fixations.

It has been done before. The Australian Population Research Institute has previously shown the strong support for anti-globalist policies among the non-degree-holding population. Howard’s rightward emphasis in matters of identity and culture brought those previously stalwart Labor voters over to the Liberal side and provided the foundation for his four terms at the top.

Now, Howard could get away with what was, in essence, a giant dog-whistle, particularly on immigration (“Stop the boats! But let’s just not talk about the planes…”) but the demographic reality now makes this strategy unviable.

If the Liberals attempt the same old trick, they’ll be stuck in the same situation they’ve been in since Turnbull ascended to the leadership: engaged in vicious trench warfare to gain, at best, a one-to-two seat majority. Arguably in 6-8 years, once another generation of immigrants become naturalised citizens and take a few more seats in Sydney and Melbourne out of reach, a majority will be impossible.

Instead, a forward-looking leadership should chart a course towards a national conservatism: forget the Teals (noting that some of them will find their way back into the fold soon enough anyway), hammer the left hard on identity issues, polarising the electorates along those lines. In doing so, right-wing minor party voters and old Labor voters will drift to the Libs, leaving Labor without a viable electoral base. A multi-term ascendancy beckons.

Tony Abbott, perhaps sniffing a return to Parliament, seems to have understood this, if we take his recent comments to The Australian as any indication, but he only made scant mention of the most important piece of the puzzle: immigration.

As much as we need to eviscerate the aboriginal-industrial complex, it is mass immigration which has kept the left’s High-Low alliance politically viable. The gameplay is simple: shut the gate (shuffling a bunch of recent immigrants out of the country at the same time) and you cripple the left.

Niki Savva, that old left-of-the-Libs warhorse, also seeing the way the wind is blowing, has sacrificed one more cat to the darkness for enough arcane power to pre-shame Liberal politicians away from a nationalist strategy on immigration. Her bleating should only be taken as a demonstration of how frail the opposition is.

If the Liberals take this path, what will tactics might the left-wing opposition employ? Accusations of racism? Who cares? They made the exact same accusations throughout the Voice campaign and in the end, what harm did it do to the No vote? Ultimately we must be able to withstand insults from the opposition if we wish to make any meaningful change. The same is true in the case of corporate donations, we can not allow pursuit of profit to override our national interest.

The Coalition can cement an Orban-esque majority. All they need do is take the side of the people who are truly attached to Australia as it is and was.

What now?

So what can you do? If you’re involved with the Libs or Nats (and may God have mercy on you) then you must make noise wherever you can internally. Get on the phone to your officeholders and MPs. Let everyone who’ll listen know that the referendum results show the way forward for the Party and that immigration in particular is the next battle where we’ve got to take a firm stand. Australia rewarded Peter Dutton for his opposition to the Voice and it will reward the Liberal Party for opposing Australia’s transformation into grey goo for the benefit of global corporations and left-wing activists.

If you’re in a right-wing minor party? Keep pushing. We need as much pressure from the right as we can to effect this transformation. Don’t allow a diversion of the Voice win’s energy away from identity-based issues. Let’s get a 10 year immigration moratorium! Let’s abolish native title! Think big.

If you’re not a member of a political party I would counsel you strongly consider joining one. Even if you just join the Libs it allows you to help the push to the right at effectively no personal risk.

Keep fighting the good fight on social media. Most importantly, discipline those conservatives who want to avoid the identity question. We can not allow ourselves to get fixated on tax cuts, net zero, conspiracism or other peripheral concerns.

Containment

Some would say we don’t want the Liberal Party to make a realignment to a national-conservative orientation, because it would deradicalise the nationalist potential shown by the referendum result, subsuming that energy into an inherently anti-nationalist structure… A containment operation.

I am very sympathetic to this view, but I feel it’s missing the point. The point is not necessarily whether the Liberal Party will deliver on the policy requirements of a nationalist re-orientation (which would, of course, be nice), but the fact of electoral realignment itself.

We want the questions asked by the Australian right of its purported political representatives not to be about libertarian economics or conspiracism, but, of any particular policy: “is it good for Anglo-Celtic Australians” & “Is it good for European-Australians?”

Once the Liberal Party has crossed the metapolitical Rubicon of being the Anglo/White-European/old Australia party, the Australian political calculus changes forever. They will open themselves to critique on the basis of their defence of traditional Australia and the overwhelming electoral viability of that path will impel better options to arise on the right.

Conclusion

The veteran paleocons will of course recognise the above as an Australianised version of the Sailer Strategy. The nationalist realignment is happening all over the West, and the Voice campaign was the ultimate test of its potential in Australia, which it passed with flying colours.

For those of us engaged in the struggle, let’s keep pushing to make sure the political debates of the future are had on our terms, not theirs.