The Uncuckables Ep. 21: Epstein El Paso Abortion

Topics discussed:

  • Mass shootings in the US, the lying media narrative and the convenient distraction from stories about Epstein and Assange.
  • The so-called “conspiracy theory crackdown” and the truth that feminism and postcolonialism are themselves conspiracy theories.
  • Ben Simmons gets BTFO’d by non-white security in Melbourne.
  • The decriminalisation of child murder in Australian states and New Zealand.
  • Everything goes crazy in China.

Plus, do you think Area 52 is inside a hollow Ayers Rock?

The Uncuckables streams every Thursday evening between 8:30 and 10:00 PM AEST. Find us on YouTube.

Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Four: Political Journies

In this episode Mark Moncrieff from Melbourne Traditionalists interviewed me on my political journey from Liberal Party supporter to the ultra reactionary rascal I am today.

When XYZ was first founded I was a strong advocate of the Liberal Party, but as I have been red pilled on race I have come to see the Liberal Party as just as bad a traitor to the Australian people as the Labor Party.  We discussed this in the context of last week’s Senate vote in which a One Nation bill to give Australians a say on immigration numbers was defeated 54-2; all Liberal Party Senators voted against it.

My research into how Islam became the dominant religion and culture in multiple countries over the course of centuries of conquest opened my mind to the concept of demographic replacement more broadly. I make the case that although Islamisation is a threat, real Australians faces a much more immediate demographic challenge from immigration from the Asian giants India and China.

I have had several discussions like this now, and each time I am asked about my political journey I am a little further along. Strangely, I did not even get on to the JQ but its time will come.

Next week we will focus on Mark Moncrieff’s political journey.

XYZ Live #78 – Ohio, Texas, Pauline Hanson and the Great Inconvenient Facts

Over the last week the US has been rocked by 3 mass shootings. 2 were committed by radical leftists and one by a man claiming to have nationalist intent. Naturally, the media have focused on the latter.

On last night’s livestream we started by discussing reasons why the latter may be a false flag, before dissecting the media’s false narrative on the events.

We also discussed Pauline Hanson’s motion last week to give the Australian people a say on immigration numbers. It was voted down with only 2 votes for, but at least this one made it to a vote.

The XYZ Livestream airs at 9:15 AEST every Monday evening. You will find us at Matty Rse Live.

US mass shootings an escalation of political and ethnic conflict

It is curious that after a period of several days when an extremist leftist and an anti-white terrorist committed seperate mass murders and a man claiming to be a nationalist committed another, that the media has focused its attention on the latter

The dominant narrative is currently that white supremacy and gun ownership are the biggest threats to the security of US citizens, despite the fact that the vast majority of murders with guns and gun crime in the US are committed by non-whites in districts that heavily restrict access to guns.

Kind of reminds one of the time that both Germany and the Soviet Union, carrying out their arrangements according to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact invaded Poland, but Western democracies only declared war on Germany.

Here in Australia an ABC “journalist” on ABC News Radio went so far as to ask a so-called terrorism “expert” the following question (the wording is as close to the question as I remember):

“What threat is posed by terrorism from the white nationalist movement to a multi-ethnic country like Australia?”

This is a loaded question for two reasons:

      • It follows the pattern of amplifying white violence while minimising non-white and anti-white terrorism.
      • It ignores the fact that Australia (and the USA) were established to be homelands for the descendants of the native (white) British citizens who settled them, thus the current status of Australia (and the USA) as “multi-ethnic” is a betrayal of our forefathers and their progeny, ie, us.

I take no joy in pointing out that this escalating cycle of political and ethnic violence in the US and other European lands is exactly what The XYZ has predicted if the globalists continue to push their anti-white mass immigration agenda and deny natives of European countries the ability or the right to oppose it. As we said several months ago, the one thing that has prevented the slide into all out civil war in the West has been the restraint shown by white men in the face of an unprecedented wave of attacks committed against our people by the foreigners our governments have imported to replace us.

There is frankly very little we can do to stop any of this. If Western governments genuinely wanted to avoid civil war they would acknowledge that expressions of white grievance are justified and worthy of redress rather than characterising them as incitement of violence. Leaving aside the very real possibility that many of these incidents are false flags, the Christchurch Incident has potentially lifted the lid on the restraint of frustrated white men, a frustration which we here at The XYZ have worked so hard to channel into peaceful political action.

Thus it is important to revisit our analysis of what a Western civil war, particularly a US civil war, would look like:

The key political reason America did not fight the Vietnam War or the War on Terror like it did in World War Two is because it wasn’t fighting nazis. You can do anything you want to a nazi. (WW2 was also fought essentially in aid of the communist Soviet Union…)

In an American civil war, the left would be convinced that the ordinary patriotic people they were fighting against were nazis, thus it would be as savage as any war that has ever been fought. There would be no media sabotage, no war fatigue. The media would celebrate the carpet bombing of “racists” and it would be an army of “new Americans”, not purple haired land whales, that did it.

It is the third stage of genocide to dehumanise one’s enemy, and the left’s use of the label “nazi” against all who oppose their globalist agenda is used to dehumanise us. A civil war against the left would be a fight to extinction, either for white European people, or for the people who were convinced that they must exterminate white European people to avoid another holocaust.

If civil war were to break out in America or even Australia, don’t expect it to look like Vietnam. Expect it to look like Dresden. Thus, we would have to be prepared to fight accordingly.

Many predictions made here on The XYZ have proven to be correct. It appears Europe is heading toward restoration; the United States toward civil war which would result in the division into one or more ethnically based states; and a complacent Australia wll be divided up between India and China, with the possibility that communities of native British heritage people will still be allowed to congregate after the dust has settled.

I am getting pretty sick of being right.

The Uncuckables Ep. 20: RatWorld

Our attention is being drawn back to the US as it gears up for another Presidential election:

  • Donald Trump’s comments on rat infested Baltimore.
  • Proud Boys charged for defending themselves against Antifa
  • Democrat debates.
  • Will Ilhan Omar get back with her brother?

There is still plenty to focus on here in Australia:

  • The Senate votes down a watered down One Nation immigration bill.
  • Leigh Sales gets yoghurted.
  • Should we not just increase Newstart but expand it to a UBI, in order to crash the economy to give this country the reset it so desperately needs?

And of course, good new from Great Britain:

  • Prince Harry and Meghan Markle say they may only have two children because kids are bad for the environment. We can honestly say we wish them all the best in their endevours. Perhaps they should just stick to one.


Paranoia over “antisemitism” rocks Australian parliament


It’s 2019 in Australia, and the Overton Window is lying scattered on the floor of the Australia parliament.

From the Australian:

A senior government front­bencher has accused failed ­independent candidate Oliver Yates and Greens-aligned lawyer Julian Burnside of being “pathetic extremists”, labelling the campaign against Josh Frydenberg’s eligibility to sit in parliament as anti-Semitic.

You find yourself running against a female politician in the current year, you’re gonna get accused of sexism. So it stands to reason..

Housing Minister Michael Sukkar also rounded on Kooyong resident and climate ­activist ­Michael Staindl who has mounted a High Court challenge to the Treasurer’s re-election on the claim that Mr Frydenberg was ­entitled to Hungarian citizenship through his mother, a Holocaust survivor.

Vlad the Impaler, meet Anne Frank.

Mr Staindl has revealed he is filing his challenge because Mr Frydenberg had “constantly ­betrayed him” on the issue of ­climate change.

The IT specialist and activist has a longstanding vendetta against the Treasurer and has been pictured in multiple social media posts protesting outside the Treasurer’s office in Kooyong.

In a 2018 letter, published in The Age, Mr Staindl wrote: “I have never felt so betrayed by a political representative as by Mr Frydenberg over the existential crisis in the Liberal Party. He would be well advised to pay close attention to the new eXtinction Rebellion (XR) movement and meme, as it may mean his own political extinction.”

This guy is bonkers.

In May of this year Mr Staindl also shared a Facebook memory in which his elderly mother was pictured dressed as a “climate change angel” outside Mr Frydenberg’s office.

Mr Staindl told The Australian to “f..k off’ when he was ­approached outside his Hawthorn home yesterday.

Batshit crazy. It is curious that the Oz editor chose this as the first chunk of information to feed to his readers. Moving on:

Trevor Poulton — a lawyer who has written a book called The Holocaust Denier — had previously told The Australian he was working with Mr Yates’s “Kooyong Independents Group” to test the Treasurer’s citizenship status.


In an extraordinary attack under parliamentary privilege, Mr Sukkar, the member for the Melbourne-based seat of Deakin said the campaign against Mr Frydenberg was driven by “a small number of disgruntled, debauched political activists”.

He described it as “so ­offensive, so disgusting and so ­abhorrent”.

“Staindl, and his fellow travellers like Yates, have stooped to the lowest of the low, trying to get Frydenberg thrown out of the parliament just weeks after the people of Kooyong emphatically endorsed him for a fourth time,” Mr Sukkar told parliament.

So you’re saying Mr Sukkar gave them oxygen?

“You see, Yates’s father, William Yates, who also served in this place, has been reported as calling ‘international Zionism’ a ‘terrorist military organisation’.

“People could legitimately ask, ‘Has the apple fallen far from the tree?’


Wow, just wow.

Why would Sukkar even say this? Big tech is doing a fine job quarantining nationalist ideas on the internet, and Antifa has a licence to bash anybody who opposes globohomo in public. Just let the court case quietly run its course and nobody would even hear about it. Now everybody knows.


That’s the problem, isn’t it?

“True to form, the citizenship challenge has also been supported by the other failed candidate in Kooyong, the Greens’ Julian Burnside.

“Burnside is on the record as supporting the BDS, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, movement against Israel, which is of its nature anti-Semitic.

I love this bit. Burnside is a flog whom, like many leftists who support the BDS movement, has been able to go under the radar in recent times. But as globalist paranoia ramps up in a direct causal relationship with goy knowing, it was only a matter of time before he was lumped in the “extremist” basket.

I often wonder, especially when reading a hack job as bizarre and disjointed as this one, where it is all leading:

“Burnside has also trivialised the Holocaust by equating Peter Dutton on social media to a Nazi officer — something which Holocaust survivors have said publicly is deeply offensive to them…..

Mr Burnside said last night he had nothing to do with the High Court challenge and dismissed suggestions Oliver Yates was anti-Semitic.

“One thing is for sure, it’s not anti-Semitism. And, frankly, I think Michael Sukkar’s claims are outrageous,” Mr Burnside said.

He said he did think the section 44 challenge had merit and didn’t believe it was insensitive considering Mr Frydenberg’s relatives were fleeing the Holocaust.

And here we are.

The holocaust is the primary weapon used to guilt white people into accepting millions of immigrants into the West in order to subvert formerly homogenous European nations. If we don’t let them in, we will be allowing another holocaust to happen. Racism started World War 2 and it is racist not to let in millions of immigrants. The Germans were white, we are white, ergo, we must let in millions of immigrants so we can stop being white.

It’s why a bill to give Australians a say on mass immigration was rejected by the Australian parliament this week for the third time in less than a year.

The irony is that in comparing Peter Dutton, Australia’s former Minister for Immigration, to a national socialist officer, Burnside is reinforcing this fake narrative. However, as AOC recently discovered, only Jews are allowed to make this link, otherwise you are threatening the holocaust’s sacred status as the worst thing that ever happened.

Despite this:

Anyway, these people are functionally retarded. If they had kept quiet, none of this would have entered the wider public consciousness. But globalist paranoia that their existence is always endangered means they can never shut up about it, they always have attempt to frame the narrative.


Melbourne Traditionalists Episode Three: The Left used Free Speech to spread Degeneracy

The 1977 Australian film Don’s Party chronicals a dinner party on the night of the 1969 Australian election. Australian socialists were sure Labor would win but their hopes were scuttled by DLP preferences to the Liberal Party.

All but two of the attendees of the fictional dinner party are socialists. Over the course of the evening the party degenerates into debauchery as the male attendees attempt to seduce their friend’s wives, and it becomes apparent that they are all miserable narcissists who hate each other and themselves.

The film paints a vivid picture of the boomers who burnt our country to the ground and the boomers who failed to defend it.

In our discussion, we tie this into how the left used the canard of “free speech” to push sexual and cultural degeneracy to undermine the pillars of European civilisation. This is important to remember during the current political battle over free speech. Free speech is useful for getting our message to the masses, but we should not hold onto it as a God-given right.

At the end of the day it is a liberal value. The left would do well to keep this in mind.

Australian Parliament Votes AGAINST Immigration Plebiscite AGAIN!

Pauline Hanson. From Twitter.

The Australian parliament in Canberra has voted against a bill calling for a plebiscite on immigration numbers. To put this more bluntly, this is the third time in less than a year that the people elected to represent the interests of Real Australians have denied us a say over our own replacement.

From the New Daily:

Pauline Hanson’s push to have a national vote on immigration levels has been crushed in the Senate.

The One Nation leader on Monday asked the upper house to support a plebiscite, arguing the country’s roads and health system were buckling under the weight of new migrants.

But Senator Hanson and her partyroom colleague Malcolm Roberts were the only votes in favour of the bill, which was thrashed 54 votes to two.

As stated, that makes three now. We cannot ignore the fact that the first two calls for a vote on immigration levels, brought forward by King Anning the Uncuckable, were voted against by Pauline Hanson. The fact that the supposedly nationalist or patriotic Pauline Hanson could not work with Fraser Anning while they both held seats in parliament was a terrible waste.

The glass half full however is that at least this motion actually made it to a vote. The previous two did not. As yours truly said at the time:

“But they can’t keep us out of Canberra forever. The shenanigans this week in the Australian parliament are just the beginning. They represent an historic moment, when white Australia reminded its rulers that we still live and we demand that our voice be heard.

“Canberra has barely had a glimpse of the Overton Window. To the patriots still left in Canberra I say double down, escalate, increase the volume, and reintroduce this Bill every week until they relent.”

One has to wonder though, what made Anning’s bill “racist” but Pauline’s bill not “racist”?  Back to the New Daily:

Senator Hanson launched a pre-emptive strike on claims her proposal was racist before the major parties shot down the plebiscite.

“Raising an issue like immigration – in particular the idea of an immigration slowdown – seems to attract those who want to drag the racism tag into the discussions,” she told parliament.

She said population growth stemming from immigration was contributing to stagnant wage growth and a fall in living standards.

“It just makes common sense that more people means more demands for services,” the One Nation leader said.

This is spot on. Matty’s Modern Life has made an excellent presentation demonstrating how mass immigration leads to wage stagnation. The HILDA Survey which has received recent publicity in the mainstream media also confirms that living standards have stagnated in Australia. However, Hanson’s strategy is insufficient for two reasons:

  1. “Racism” is an anti-white racial slur invented by Jewish communists designed to undermine homogenous white nations. Thus we should not only completely dismiss the concept of so-called “racism”, we should relearn and reapply the behaviours we have been brainwashed into believing are “racist”.
  2. Focusing on unsatisfactory infrastructure, low wage growth and living standard stagnation skirts around the number one reason we must oppose mass immigration: We are being replaced.

This line needs challenging:

The Morrison government has reduced Australia’s immigration cap from 190,000 to 160,000 per year for the next four years.

Pigs fly, men can get pregnant, and climate change is the great moral challenge of our time. Net immigration numbers for the last year actually spiked to nearly double this:

Australia’s immigration levels have soared to a new record high – months after Prime Minister Scott Morrison promised to slow down the rate of population growth.

In 2018, a record 832,560 permanent and long-term migrants decided to call Australia home, marking a 7.1 per cent increase compared with 2017.

With the number of people leaving Australia for good taken into account, the nation’s annual net immigration rate stood at 291,250, the highest in four-and-a-half years.

Basically, we’ll believe it when we see it.

As is so often the case, two silly globalist pawns have accidentally said too much. Exhibit A:

Liberal senator Amanda Stoker said One Nation was trying to push its anti-immigration agenda based on weak arguments.

“There’s nothing noble about this bill. It’s long on alarmism and short on realism,” she told parliament.

“This bill endorses a solution that would have a catastrophic consequence for our economy, for a problem that is already being addressed by this government in a sensible, measured and long-sighted way.”

As Adam Piggott has pointed out, Australia’s economy is dangerously distorted by mass immigration. Australian politicians both Liberal and Labor have for nearly three decades used the artificial stimulus provided to the construction industry by mass immigration to avoid recession. Ordinary Australians are now paying for this with unaffordable house prices, clogged cities and being replaced.

Apparently, our binary choice is between economic growth and white genocide. Choose wisely, white man.

Exhibit B:

Senator Hanson wanted to have a national plebiscite at the next general election, with the question: “Do you think the current rate of immigration to Australia is too high?”

Labor senator Raff Ciccone said Australia would not be the nation it is today without the contribution of migrants.

“There is simply no place in our inclusive and proudly diverse nation for an expensive opinion poll on questions that don’t need to be asked,” he told the upper house.

“Ciccone”, huh?

From Wikipedia:

“Ciccone is the son of Italian immigrant parents who arrived in Australia in the 1960s.”

Who likely has the option of returning to a Salvini-salvaged Italy once he has helped turn Australia into a third world shithole. You absolute selfish prick, Raff Ciccone. Real, Anglo-Celtic Australians were never asked if we wanted to let in millions of immigrants from every point on the globe. Now that the globalists have flooded our nation with foreigners and created convenient facts on the ground, they have declared the immigration question verboten.

Australians will eventually make a decision on the question of immigration, regardless of whether or not Canberra elites let us.