Skip to main content

From Wellington to Washington: how Ani O'Brien's commentary tracks the global far-right culture war into Aotearoa

 


From Wellington to Washington: how Ani O'Brien's commentary tracks the global far-right culture war into Aotearoa

A critical analysis of media platforming, partisan proximity, and transnational disinformation networks in New Zealand's polarising public sphere.

The far right ecosystem in Aotearoa Exhibit 1


In a healthy democracy, it should be possible to ask a simple question of any commentator who is regularly given column inches in mainstream outlets: who pays them, who trains them, and whose narratives do they amplify? In Aotearoa New Zealand, that question is overdue for Ani O'Brien — a commentator whose career trajectory traces a near-textbook map of the transnational right's infrastructure for waging culture war.

O'Brien is described in her Newsroom author bio as "a women's rights advocate and political commentator" who "has worked previously for the Leader of the Opposition (National) and is a council member of the Free Speech Union." That carefully sanitised line obscures more than it reveals. O'Brien is a former Press Secretary and Director of Digital for the National Party during the Judith Collins era. She is a founding council member of the Free Speech Union. She is a regular contributor to The Platform, Reality Check Radio, and The Good Oil — outlets that media researchers have repeatedly flagged for hosting anti-vaccine and far-right voices. And she is published in the New Zealand Herald and Newsroom as if she were a neutral observer of the very political ecosystem she helped build.

This is not a question of whether O'Brien is entitled to her views. She is. The question is what happens to a public sphere when the boundary between political operative and independent commentator becomes structurally invisible, and when the commentator in question functions as a node in a much larger transnational architecture of culture-war production.

The infrastructure behind the by-line

Exhibit 2


To understand O'Brien's significance, it helps to understand the political-communication ecology she inhabits. The Free Speech Union, on whose council she sits, is the first sister organisation of the UK Free Speech Union, with offices next door to the Taxpayers' Union in Wellington. Its CEO until 2025 was Jonathan Ayling, a former adviser to National Party MPs David Bennett and Simeon Brown. Investigative reporting by Newsroom has documented that the FSU has received funding from the Atlas Network — the Washington-based global infrastructure of nearly 500 right-wing think tanks, historically supported by Koch Brothers networks and fossil-fuel interests, that exists to translate libertarian and culture-war policy into the political mainstream of countries far from where the money was raised.

As I have argued previously, the FSU's selective deployment of "free speech" rhetoric does not reflect a principled defence of dissent. It is structurally aligned with the global Alt-right's strategic deployment of free speech to attack social-justice scholarship, destabilise public institutions, and protect majoritarian power. The Spinoff has documented the FSU's escalating campaign against regulatory bodies — the architects board, the Medical Council, the Nursing Council, the Veterinary Council — for the supposed sin of asking professionals to engage with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, colonisation, and indigenous knowledge. The argument is dressed in liberal language. The targets are exclusively the institutional sites where decolonial commitments are being operationalised.

O'Brien's National Party past also matters because of who else passed through that ecosystem. The digital strategy that delivered National's 2023 election victory was run by Topham Guerin, the campaign agency founded by former Young Nats president Sean Topham and Ben Guerin. The Spinoff has documented Topham Guerin's record running meme campaigns for Scott Morrison's Liberals and Boris Johnson's Brexit Conservatives — including the notorious rebranding of a Conservative Twitter account as "factcheckUK" during a leaders' debate, which attacked Jeremy Corbyn under a fake fact-checking guise. The Guardian has reported the agency was a sub-contractor on Lynton Crosby's CTF Partners network, which built a "professional disinformation network" across Facebook for clients including major polluters and the Saudi government. Ben Guerin's own account of the firm's strategy is unambiguous: "Unlock and arouse emotion in people. The particular emotions we've got to unlock are arousal emotions. We're talking: anger, excitement, pride, fear."

This is the digital playbook — emotion-first, outrage-driven, post-truth — that has now been embedded in National's communication strategy. O'Brien is not an outsider commenting on this world. She is a graduate of it.

The accounts she amplifies

What makes the diagnosis sharper is the company O'Brien keeps online. The screenshots that have circulated of her X timeline are not isolated outbursts. They are a pattern.

She retweets and engages approvingly with @TRobinsonNewEra — Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, the former English Defence League leader who has served multiple prison sentences, most recently for contempt of court over false allegations against a Syrian refugee. Robinson is described by Al Jazeera as a "household name in the UK, notorious for his anti-Muslim rhetoric." Hope Not Hate's State of Hate 2026 report describes his X operation as a "high-frequency and confrontational disinformation machine" that has professionalised over the past year, with a "tightly connected inner circle" of about twenty accounts driving more than a third of all retweet activity in his ecosystem. O'Brien's July 2025 post praising a Robinson interview — "what he said was happening has been proven true. He is clearly under immense pressure" — is not a casual share. It is a vote of confidence in a figure who is the central node of contemporary British far-right organising.

Exhibit 3


She amplifies Visegrád 24 — an opaquely funded Polish account that Visegrad Insight, a regional democracy-monitoring publication, has documented as one of "the largest Central Eastern European information operations in English." Media Bias/Fact Check rates Visegrád 24 as "Far Right" with "Low" factual reporting, citing "propaganda, conspiracy theories, unreliable sources, a lack of transparency, and over a dozen failed fact checks." Investigative work by the Centre for Information Integrity in Africa has traced the account's funding to a Polish state-owned development fund, with operational ties to former Polish nationalist government figures and the Israeli information war on Gaza. The Jewish Chronicle profile of founder Stefan Tompson notes the account's history of false claims and admits Tompson's own concession that he has "made mistakes." When O'Brien quote-tweeted a Visegrád 24 post about Indian and Pakistani protesters in London with the despairing comment "the world is in a bad way," she was not merely venting. She was uplifting a known disinformation vector to her New Zealand audience as if it were ordinary news.

Exhibit 4


The pattern is consistent. Whether she is calling Judith Butler "utter scum" for academic commentary on October 7, mocking a "rainbow-washed" Pride bus in regional Aotearoa, attacking endometriosis health communication for using inclusive language as "woke shit," or attacking the head of RNZ for moving away from X, the rhetorical structure is identical to the international far-right repertoire: a vulnerable population (trans people, Muslims, Palestinians, indigenous peoples) is reframed as the aggressor; institutions that include or affirm them are reframed as ideologically captured; and the speaker positions herself as the brave dissenter against an imaginary monolithic establishment. This is the Trumpian script — what Russel Norman has called the local government's own "MAGA dogma" — translated into an Aotearoa register.

The mainstreaming problem

The most important question is not what O'Brien thinks. It is why she is in the New Zealand Herald and Newsroom at all, presented to readers as a political commentator rather than as what she demonstrably is: a former senior National Party staffer, a council member of an Atlas-funded advocacy group, a regular voice on a media outlet that RNZ Mediawatch has criticised by name for platforming extremists, and a public booster of accounts run by Tommy Robinson and Visegrád 24.

Mainstream platforming is the engine of mainstreaming. Every time a major masthead publishes O'Brien's argument that MMP is "broken" or that women's health communication has been captured by "HR jargon," it does two things. It launders the argument into respectability — separating it from the disinformation networks that incubated it. And it provides O'Brien with the by-line capital that lets her be invited back, cited as a "balanced" voice, and built into the next political-media cycle. The Newsroom investigation into the Free Speech Union's rise quotes academic researcher Joshua Wilson on the central question: "We should instead be asking: who funds these speakers? Who brings them to campus? And why?"

The same question applies to commentary. Editorial decisions are political decisions. When the Herald runs an O'Brien column on transgender athletes alongside a token "alternative view," it implicitly tells readers that there are two equally weighted positions, both worth their consideration. It does not tell them that one of those positions is being produced inside an international advocacy infrastructure aligned with Atlas Network policy goals, Topham Guerin campaign methodology, and the digital ecosystem of Tommy Robinson and Visegrád 24. It does not tell them that the "free speech" frame O'Brien deploys was, in this country, funded by the same network that funded the gang-patch-ban opposition campaign.

Polarisation is not a side-effect — it is the product

There is a tendency among New Zealand commentators to treat polarisation as a misfortune that has befallen our politics. It would be more accurate to call it a product. Topham Guerin's explicit business model is the manufacture of arousal emotions: anger, fear, pride. Atlas-network advocacy depends on the ongoing existence of culture-war flashpoints to justify policy demands. Tommy Robinson's network depends on Muslim communities being permanently constructed as a threat. Visegrád 24's reach depends on a supply of foreign protests and atrocities to be re-framed for English-speaking audiences. These are not accidental by-products of free expression. They are the intended output of the infrastructure.

When that infrastructure finds a domestic spokesperson who is articulate, by-lined, and embedded in mainstream outlets, the work of polarisation gets done locally — but on imported terms. The Christchurch terrorist attack should have foreclosed any possibility of casual flirtation with anti-Muslim disinformation networks in this country. It has not. The Royal Commission's findings on online radicalisation should have produced a settled editorial consensus that platforming the digital ecosystem of Tommy Robinson is incompatible with public-interest journalism in Aotearoa. They have not.

What we have instead is a public sphere in which a commentator can sit on the council of an Atlas-funded advocacy group, retweet a contempt-of-court convict and a documented disinformation account, and still be platformed in the country's largest masthead — with no material disclosure of any of the above. That is not balance. That is editorial capture by the very networks the editors believe they are merely reporting on.

What honest disclosure would look like

There is a way out of this, and it is not censorship. It is disclosure. Commentators have rights. Editors have responsibilities. At minimum, every column by O'Brien — and by every commentator with comparable affiliations — should carry a substantive disclosure: prior political employment, current institutional affiliations, funding linkages of those institutions, and the editorial track record of the platforms where the commentator regularly appears. Readers can then weigh the argument on its merits with full information about its origin. As George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison have argued, companies and oligarchs "insert their demands into the political conversation through their well-funded proxies" precisely because disclosure is so weak that the proxies can pass as independent voices.

Aotearoa is not separate from the global culture war. The Luxon government's own climate U-turn, the Free Speech Union's regulatory campaigns, and the digital strategies imported from Brexit and ScoMo and now operating in our own election cycles all confirm that the same architecture is at work here. Recognising the architecture is the first step. Naming it — including the role of articulate, mainstream-platformed culture-war actors who function as its domestic interface — is the second.

The third step is up to the editors who continue to commission these voices without disclosure. Their readers, and the communities most directly harmed by the rhetoric, are entitled to ask why.

Mohan J Dutta is Dean's Chair Professor of Communication and Director of the Center for Culture-Centered Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE) at Massey University. The views expressed are his own.

Sources and further reading

Popular posts from this blog

The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe

  The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe An Indian in Aotearoa reflects on resistance, complicity, and the solidarities we have yet to build Mohan Jyoti Dutta I watched the haka. I watched it several times, in fact. Each time, I tried to sit with what I was feeling before reaching for what I was supposed to think. Let me be honest about who I am in this conversation, because that matters. I am an upper caste, upwardly mobile Indian man. I am a professor at a university in Aotearoa. I carry the accumulated privileges of Brahminical socialisation, of English-medium education, of institutional access that was never designed for the communities I now write about and alongside. I say this not as confession but as orientation — because where you stand shapes what you see, and I have learned, through years of working with communities at the margins, that the refusal to name your own location is itself a colonial habit. The haka directed at Parmjeet Parmar did not offend me. It ...
Read more

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems with w...
Read more

The difficult conversation we need now: Anti-Māori racism in the upper-caste, upwardly mobile Indian community

  The difficult conversation we need now: Anti-Māori racism in the upper-caste, upwardly mobile Indian community The same Indian community organisations that mobilised quickly around a haka performed at the Tainui regional kapa haka competition have been almost entirely silent on the sustained anti-Māori political project advanced by ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar. Mohan Dutta argues that this asymmetry is not accidental — it is what the model minority script trains us to perform, and it is time for our community to have a much harder conversation. There is a particular asymmetry in how anti-racism is being performed in Aotearoa right now, and the haka–apology cycle around Che Wilson and Parmjeet Parmar throws it into sharp relief. The same Indian community organisations, lobby groups, and outlets that have mobilised quickly and articulately around the haka performed at the Tainui regional kapa haka competition — securing an emailed apology from Wilson, a follow-up apology from Te Pae K...
Read more