The Harbinger of Hope
David Leyonhjelm is Australia’s answer to Rand Paul and our last hope for a world which isn’t bogged down by the gritty fallout from the Frankfurt School touching down on our soil.
As a senator in New South Wales, Leyonhjelm espouses libertarian principles under the header of the Liberal Democratic Party. He is currently doing a tour of North America, to meet with like-minded forces of the Austrian School and of social freedom. In Australia, he holds a fairly fringe minority of the vote, given that his political positioning is, in itself, considered fringe or extreme.
After the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, and the subsequent legislation enforced by John Howard’s conservative government, any sort of pro-gun sentiment expressed by citizens or senators is considered heartless and controversial. It should be noted that this legislation did not stop Australia from being ravaged by sporadic bouts of gun violence (Monash University Shooting, 2011 Hectorville siege, Hunt family murders, Port Lincoln Wharf murder-suicide, Sydney Siege, etc.).
The heavily socialised Australian economy is upheld on behalf of the two parties (Labor and Liberal), as the left pushes for more government intervention and the right is too cowardly to stick to its principles and start cutting taxes.
The attitude towards drugs remains very much the same, with marijuana still remaining a heavy point of contention in the political sphere, and very little political backing for legalisation, or nation-wide decriminalisation. Universities are also gradually descending into the bowels of left-wing dogma (we’re looking at you, University of Melbourne).
It is fair to say that, within the current phase of Australian life, freedom is a distant and long forgotten concept.
However, like a time-travelling pioneer for self-ownership, Leyonhjelm emerges as a harbinger for freedom in a continent which finds itself devoid of it; with a pro-gun, pro-weed, pro-free speech stance, and promise for the future of the rights of Australians. He’s made his mark at the legislative level by rallying support behind the recent contention over Bill 18C, which is centred on the prohibition of discrimination and hateful speech, which further constricts the already strangled vocabulary of the Australian populous.
So, Leyonhjelm holds the beliefs of one of us, but why should you know or care about him? What shoots a libertarian in a suit to the stratosphere of superstardom? Simply put, its style.
The way in which style plays a role in politics has always been a part of building railing support. Those with more militaristic political sentiments try to adopt snazzy uniforms and symbols, to create an identity. Whereas modern identitarian movements don caps or t-shirts to show support, as Daddy Donald has proven. It is arguable that the single most important tool in getting a political following is style. Leyonhjelm separates himself from the onslaught of bureaucrats by his cavalier attitude towards Australian politics, as it rapidly devolves into a farce of a system.
Where most politicians will do their utmost to project a false sense of sincerity to their constituents, Leyonhjelm doesn’t care enough to tote petty empty platitudes. He has been seen telling leftist protesters to ‘fuck off’ as they encroach upon him, while he tries to slip into an elevator unnoticed.
Leyonhjelm spoke as the lone sheep, in a cesspool of busy-bodies and wolves wishing to control the lives of those in Australia. By speaking about his enjoyment of a cigar, he made his dissatisfaction known of the tobacco tax and encouraged those within the chamber to ‘leave them [smokers] the hell alone’ and to stop worrying about whether someone is having a good time.
He made an effort to persuade the Australian public as to how one should go about solving the ice (methamphetamine) epidemic by using the Portuguese model for substance control as a means of helping those suffering from addictions. This is a kind of empathy that not many within the government were willing to entertain the notion of.
As the government dives deeper into an ocean of absurdity, Leyonhjelm went on The Project (a socially left wing show) to argue why free speech was hindered by the 18C legislation; he took the piss out of the left-wing by arguing that calling him an ‘angry white male’ was unlawful and hypocritical, and that they’d set a racial double standard. He highlighted the insanity of the vague wording, consequently dragging the show through a series of linguistic hoops to force them to try and justify their rhetoric.
As Australia’s authoritarian underbelly, which remained dormant in the media, began to rise up, Leyonhjelm kept the tensions fierce by releasing his quaint poem to the Liberal Democrats Facebook page.
His poem blasted the shallow slacktivism of the left wing in Australia for their disavowment of Trump in Australia. In his witty ditty, David managed to shed light on his disagreements with the president, but also showing how he prefers Trump to his regressive Marxist counterparts.
Leyonhjelm finishes the poem with the aforementioned style I spoke of.
So when people try to tell me, how to think or how to live,
I am afraid I have to tell them, I have no fucks to give.
The smiling face of Leyonhjelm is, in itself, the purest form of antagonism. It says, I will not bend or break as a result of your wording, and I will not change my principles, no matter how the herd behaves on any given day.
In a world full of sheep, it takes courage to be a Leyon.