I type this paragraph with much trepidation, but there is mild relief knowing that the written word cannot be taken out of context so easily as the spoken. I have to hedge this piece with melodramatic poofter prose because it pains me to say this outright like a white man always should. I can’t put it off any longer, so here it goes: the Greens get something right with their policies.
Before you start shouting about a rule .303 and the time of purification being at hand, I am not writing about their namby-pamby tree hugging nonsense. Just so we’re clear, I’m not backing Sarah Hanson-Young in the race between Bolshevik agitators and international finance turning Australia into a racially Asian, religiously Muslim country.
No, I just really think that when you brush back the cobwebs of obsolescence and outright ideological thought from the Greens’ media policy, there are glimmers of truth. I’m being fair dinkum, honest.
Like a principled autiste they begin the page by laying it all out there, but with unprincipled guillemets and not greater-than signs. Media diversity a right, fund community media, and #openinternet are the overarching concerns of their policy. I was being very charitable in comparing them to a hyperborean autiste, as these are not first principles but assertions. Nonetheless, as old mate Meatloaf would say two out of three ain’t bad. Now you may reach for your weapon of choice after being triggered by “community media”.
It really is a mixed bag, seemingly cobbled together by a room of classical liberals and conservatives, professional ethnics and the perpetually offended, and even libertarians. Many a celebratory cone has been punched at their high-speed internet and copyright reform points, I’m sure of it.
It’s the seemingly classical liberal and conservative points that I find myself agreeing with. Uncharacteristically prudent their first principle, and their first goal are protecting the freedom of the press, as well as diversity of media opinion and ownership.
Of course, they can’t help themselves and couch it in rights-speak. Every serious political thinker, such as Carl Schmitt, will tell you that rights are positive and that the state giveth, and taketh away, but I esoterically shitpost. Moving past their failure to be serious and not unrealistically idealistic, there is much to agree with here.
The Greens are right to assert that the stranglehold big media has on the opinion making apparatus—for as Oswald Spengler makes clear, the media doesn’t disseminate opinion, but creates it—needs to be broken. Perhaps one shouldn’t be able to own a newspaper and a radio station.
I don’t know about you, but finding out that Rupert Murdoch is one of the principle share holders for Sydney’s 2WS/WSFM did stop me (now), and no, I am no longer having a good time. The next time I feel the urge to whip out the air guitar when a classic Acca Dacca song comes on, it’ll quickly pass. Rock ‘n’ roll ain’t noise pollution, but Murdoch ain’t rock ‘n’ roll (perhaps he ain’t gonna die either…). If that isn’t an argument in favour of diversity of media ownership, I don’t know what is.
The Greens backing anti-Australian and more broadly anti-white public broadcasting is to be expected. When the Greens speak about publicly funded media reflecting demographics, or how they phrase it, cultural diversity, they do not mean the majority of Anglo-European Australians. Our public broadcasters have been doing a good job of blackwashing Australia regardless of the Greens’ endorsement.
I sympathise with basic bitch conservatives and libertarians who want to privatise public broadcasting. After all, John Howard wasn’t able to reform it, nor was he overly concerned with that end. Tony Abbott made it an impossibility by leaving Malcolm Turnbull with the Communications portfolio and therefore in charge of the charters governing the ABC and SBS. Privatisation is the only solution left.
The one question we must ask in assessing this solution is: are the privately owned commercial stations any better? (((Charlie Pickering))) moved to the ABC leaving the male presenter spot on Channel 10’s The Project to Waleed Aly. No, they’re not any better.
The Greens believe diversity of ownership and opinion to be linked, but this is just not true.
Independent. Always. What exactly is the SMH independent of? Better yet, in what ways are the young SWPL media sites “indie media”?
Over the past few years aided by the internet big media has been challenged by the likes of New Matilda, Mama Mia, Crikey, and more recently Junkee. Big media has laughably struck back with Fairfax cobbling together Daily Life, which attempts to corner the cat lady market.
All these smaller outfits are united in their claims to the mantle of being “independent”. The only noticeable difference between them and older media is the snarky way their authors write, where every second sentence is an attempt at a joke but is more rightly a sneer against actual dissident thinkers.
Media in Australia, old and new, serves the leftist Narrative that is hegemonic in the Occident. It doesn’t matter who owns any of these publications or sites, they will inevitably function as mouthpieces for the forces arrayed against us as a people.
Even without going into Hate Facts regarding declining Fairfax circulation, the very fact that audiences can be found for new media is indicative of the lack of trust in established media. Just as quickly as this audience come across these new ventures, so too will the more discerning lose interest. Novelty and narcissism may be the impetus in founding these new sites, but they are not why they get traffic from certain Millennials.
The wait for a news source that is counter-Narrative is over with the founding of the Dingoes. No longer will young Australians have to wade through a sea of false prophets, charlatans and rent seekers to get to the truth. Now there is a virtual and real community that exists for our people’s sake alone.
We are what you’re looking for.
Subscribe to The Dingoes
Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox