Probably every tyrant thinks they're doing God's work on some private ecentric level. Their great moral high ground, however they rationalise it, is their justification for shitting on anyone who does not conform to their ideology. This is how primitive dogs think.

My message to the left: As soon as standards don't matter, it's game over. Your society is fucked as its devolution is only a matter of time. As soon as it's ok to lie (and suppress freedom of speech, etc) then it's functionally ok for anyone to lie. And as soon as that's your standard, then it's inevitable that some sub-human piece of crap will successfully run your nation in time. A tyrant/s.

You hate Trump? Think he's going to do a bad job? Fair enough if that's what you believe. But if you're right then with the proper standards intact he will be removed at the next election, for better or worse. But as soon as you make the standard of corrupt conduct ok, then you had better pray like shit that your next leader is just gorgeous because there's every chance you will not be able to remove him - as he can hold power through corruption. And it will be YOUR fault because it will have been achieved through YOUR standards that YOU accepted!

This is how important standards are - no matter what your ideology.

ok...I feel better now

Iceland, apparently, is a hotbed of Filth:

http://pamelageller.com/2017/0...

just so barbaric and cruel. I have to hand it to Geller, the way she keeps abreast of this godawful stuff. I can't bear looking at it anymore. Fills me with horror and depression.

http://pamelageller.com/2015/0...

Stop The Filth coming in. Send The Filth already here out! Along with their ARISIS-shill enablers!

https://edwardcline.blogspot.c...

.... neither of us made it through IslamoMarxist Stuff's censors, Lady S! Given that there are only 13 comments as at 9.40 am Friday, I'd say there were many many more that were were disallowed. I'm told the IslamoMarxist Herald no longer allows feedback at all. Media = The Filth.

Here is my comment - awaiting moderation.

Well, I'm sure Susan Devoy would agree with this fascist sentiment, but if this opinion is genuinely offered, it's disgusting in its naked intent. Free Speech is a human right enshrined in our democracy. If Muslims living here are offended by it, then that is a good reason to become an "Islamophobe." It is also a good reason to not let any more into our country since it confirms that they are Westernphobic.

IslamoMarxist Stuff have still not let my post through. Since several new posts have appeared since I submitted mine, I assume that means I'm blocked. That's been the case with me and IslamoMarxist Stuff for some time, even though an op-ed they did publish some years back on the filthification of speech got them a record number of responses.

Meanwhile, I have received this from a Member of Parliament:

Couldn't agree with you more Lindsay.

I have asked him, "So how do we stop this shit, then?"

Let's see what happens. The MP, btw, is not wimpy slimy Seymour of ACT.

Some member of The Filth has written a piece called "Want equality? Curtail free speech" on IslamoMarxist Stuff:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-n...

It concludes:

Our Government should look to criminalise not only Islamophobia, but racist rhetoric and the criticism of feminism and LGBTQAA+ rights.

Free speech is all well and good, but it should not be defended at the expense of minority groups.

Nothing quells fear and hatred like making it illegal, and if we stop opposing progressive values then surely the constant fighting will stop too.

New Zealand is not a place of tolerance at the moment, but I believe if we curtail free speech, we will be on the path to a fairer future.

I've posted as follows:

Good that the real fascists are coming out of the closet. Having been shrieked down by hysterical Muslims at Auckland University last year I know just what a menace to free speech they and their fellow-travellers are. At least the writer of this piece, assuming it isn't a satire on Political Correctness, is honest.

Islam is the face of evil in the modern world. Like other forms of totalitarianism it seeks world conquest by force. It kills apostates and non-believers—"Slay ye the infidel wherever ye find him." It kills gays and mutilates women. It is an unspeakably sick, stupid savage superstition. In its name, Susan Devoy, bolstered by IslamoMarxists in the media, is preparing to do exactly as this writer demands: curtail free speech, using laws already on our books. Our government won't have the spine to resist. No politician will. We need a Geert Wilders.

Wonder if IslamoMarxist Stuff will let that through?!

Absolutely! And Tommy Robinson is better company no matter what his background than some of the fuckwits who call themselves freedom lovers, but are really no such thing.

This young man from Rebel Media is a hero. Those around him are cowards and traitors. So wonderful to see his and Tommy's authentic, decent outrage:

McMaster and Gorka enemies within, says Pam Geller:

http://pamelageller.com/2017/0...

... refuses to kowtow to Islamofilth:

Quran (4:34)—"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and as for those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Quran (38:44)—"And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..."

This is what Susan Devoy approves of!

That's a good question, Philip, and I probably should indeed formally write down my ideas on free speech, which differ a bit from the conventional Objectivist ones. The main point is that crime can only be physical -- not verbal. Only if you give a direct order to someone to commit a physical crime does the verbal stuff become effectively physical. As for the "crime" of expressing an opinion on someone, which Rand oddly supported, that's no different than giving an opinion on an event or idea. Freedom of mind and expression is the primary value here and needs to prevail over the value of suppressing or defeating false and evil ideas. Slander and defamation are immoral, but not illegal under Natural Law (i.e. liberty and justice for all). They're a kind of lie only.

And maybe incitement to riot. I if yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre is a violation of property rights, then why isn't incitement to riot?

'It's an absolute right, along with slander, defamation, obscenity, fighting words, incitement to riot, clear and present danger speech, etc.'

Could you put some meat on the bones of that particular argument, especially with respect to slander and defamation, Kyrel?

No matter who is right or wrong in this intellectual debate (the nitwit dirtbag Right vs. the nitwit dirtbag Left) it's imperative that free speech and open debate be maintained. Otherwise truth, morality, and justice are virtually doomed.

... and other segments of The Filth have closed Milo down. Speech at Berkeley cancelled after rioting and burning by The Filth. "Law-enforcement" conspicuous by its absence.

Hate speech is free speech. It's an absolute right, along with slander, defamation, obscenity, fighting words, incitement to riot, clear and present danger speech, etc.

Devile Devoy, who didn't have the guts or wit to rebut me on the evening described in the primary post, is on her fascist mission:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/busines...

https://www.hrc.co.nz/news/201...

We need to not let ourselves normalise hatred.

Where do we start when it comes to challenging hatred and racism?

I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out.

I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums, comments sections on some media outlet websites as well as their social media accounts.

I am keen to see our Police begin to gather hate crime statistics – at the present time this is not something they collate when responding to call outs.

Free speech is one thing.

Hate speech is another.

Condemning evil = "hate speech." That's where this evil bitch is trying to take us. Devile Devoy, I hereby call you out!! Again.

PS: I wonder why she doesn't consider the Koran hate speech?! It's just hate piled on hate.

Magnificent bastard!!

... but will it be foiled in New Zealand, especially with so many ARISIS shills running around?!

www.stuff.co.nz/world/australi...

Though they sounded very similar, the Screeching Filth at Ak Uni didn't go this far. How long before they do? While their enablers look away and say the speaker went over time?

Watch the body language of the assassin just prior to the deed. We all need to be on the lookout for this:

Berlin. Let 'em in, let 'em in, let 'em in.

I just had a funny Andrew thought...

Imagine having some protest marches outside mosques, holding up banners that say things like:

"Gays are people too"....or..."Do I really deserve to go to hell?"....or...."Women are equal, so why not treat them that way?"...etc.

Take the role of the Left, and protest Islam like they protest white privileged pigs like me. Play the victim card.

Who would complain? And how? Also interesting to see how the Muslims react. Probably get a lot of good YouTube material with that.

.....Call it the "White Lives Matter" movement. lol.

Now Angela Merkel, Islamappeaser/enabler extraordinaire, wants to ban the burka!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

... doing what comes naturally:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/enterta...

Abolish Dame Susan! Abolish the Human Wrongs Commissariat! Repeal the Orwellianly-misnamed Human Rights Act. And fuck its anal Auckland Obleftivist supporters right up their retentives!

... at lindsayperigo.com:

Thank you for your speech about Islam. It is awe inspiring. I have saluted you publicly at '100 days' and the Muriel Newman column. . You have inspired courage in me, and I suggest others as well. Sincerely, Paul Scott.

Contrast that common sense, decent, human response with that of ARISIS's gutless, treasonous, Islamappeasing Auckland shills!

I was just showing "wot's Boney M" and the song that Gregster blames you for installing into his mind

Seeing your appeal for classical music, I thought there could be a chance that you don't know of Boney M...in the same way that I am very willfully ignorant of hip-hop and most modern music (I despise it).

I often repair to the immortal maxim derived from Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

I'm not sure if this was even "derived" from Voltaire.

On Rasputin: http://russia-insider.com/en/p...

... as to what's going on here. I followed Andrew's link to Boney M and got an unlistenable headbanging atrocity called Rasputin, which is my new name for an unimportant but self-important Randroid leader of a sub-cult within ARISIS in Auckland, New Zealand. I played about 30 seconds of this atrocity and had to tune out. Is there anything I need to know that I might have missed? Curious minds need to know!

He didn't get his moves from Michael Jackson.

https://youtu.be/OBXRJgSd-aU

...I won't say anything.

I have noticed that many Objectivists oppose Trump. Some say that he is to the left of (cough) Killary. Neither Left nor Right is any solution to the West's problems, and only an objective legal system enforcing objective laws would ensure justice. When the choice is more of the same from a known corrupt Killary, who seems to have been coughing to steel herself for further lying, and Donald who actually wants to improve America, there is no other option other than Trump. This is probably the start of locals' recent antipathy. Muslims are stupid, as are any religionists. But Muslims differ because they are supremacists and theirs is not strictly a faith. They want to rule the world. We may laugh. But none seem to be taking any preventative action. Trump again is correct that Putin is better than Obama. Objectivists who place the rights of immigrants above the rights of citizens are ignorant and intrinsicist (?) and/or rationalist and disregarding of the principle of the right to one's life, and the right of a sovereign government to protect citizens, as opposed to an altruistic importing of stinking rapists, along with the odd decent one if you're lucky. If "Rasputin" disagrees with any of the above I hope he writes (somewhere) to assist clarification.

Wot's Boney M?

Oh, and if you saw my comment, say what I challenged you to say!!

ARISIS, including its Auckland shills, are Islamenablers. The whole point of their attack on me over my Ak Uni speech is to defend feral Muslims for their shutting down of me.

I saw your comment. I didn't take any offence from it. Smiled. But fuck you. I've had trouble getting a certain Boney M tune out of my head. Torturous.

at 22 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Whale kindly granted Lady Slapper special dispensation to post after he'd closed comments. Her post is a monument to the exact same courage that is absent universally, especially among ARISIS and its evil Auckland shills. Here it is:

You are not in a position to correct anything Cresswell, since you were not present at that debate. I was.

Lindsay stated in his account that he was a panellist speaker; there to give a sum up speech, he never said he was a debater.
He was nearly finished when the Muslim group behind me started to yell out "sit down, you're over time." They also lamented that they were insulted by Lindsay's comments, which they felt did not represent Islam - you know, a beautiful religion of peace and all that. They appealed to the moderators that he be quiet and sit down.

So, shut down because he went overtime? Absolute bollocks! He was shut down because they did not like what was said about their odious religion.

When I made a few comments down the mic that got handed around the audience, they yelled out over me "Trump Trump - you sound like Trump," as an attempt to insult me.... seems that the name 'Trump' is now the benchmark taunt to shut down dissenting views to their beautiful religion of tolerance and peace - Trump has obviously done something very right.

Dame Susan was then called upon to rebut Lindsay; she swiftly declined saying that she was "done". She was way out of her depth and the situation had suddenly turned hostile.

So enough with this "7 minute" nonsense. Lindsay was allowed 7 to 10 minutes by the rules of the moderators... and he went overtime to around 13.... but that was not the "reason" he got shut down. He was absolutely formidable in his wit, rhetoric and even humour - a world class act - it was very powerful and intense, and the Muslims got offended. That is why he was not allowed to finish. Kiwis on the whole cannot cope with that kind of courage and forceful speech, they're not used to it and it renders them woefully wobbly. They would never be able to deal with a Dawkins or a Hitchens, or even a cordial Stephen Fry in his fiery moments. Someone on the comments beneath said something about Lindsay being a 'national treasure', and that is what he is. He was magnificent, brave and utterly, utterly salient. That is also why Dame Susan waived the right of rebuttal - it would've been akin to a mouse attempting to rebut a lion, and she felt that keenly, we all did.

So quit with the trivial summary of an unusual event to which you were not even present.

Edit: at this point I had challenged "Rasputin" to come look me in the eye and spew his story here. The invitation is withdrawn (not that I imagine it would be taken up). I don't wish to spend any more time on this matter. Let us be jubilant about a great evening, and give the party-poopers no further oxygen.

Deleted. No more oxygen to the party-poopers!

Meanwhile the ARI and its mouthpieces continue to say that if only the West was truly capitalist then and only then would immigrants be persuaded to behave themselves, and we would all live in Kumbayaland. ARI and its repeaters are blind to the fact that--if the West was even more effectively free--maggots would hate the West even more.

The best thing I can say is that when I first worked for AirNZ, I was privately warned by senior staff that you have to watch every single word that comes out of your mouth. That is totally true. And in my opinion to the point of inhumanity.

Obamuslim, as part of his stated project to "fundamentally transform" America, has let in hundreds of thousands of Islamosavages. Hillary wants to quintruple the number. ARISIS are Hillary-enablers. ARISIS are evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

But according to Yawon Bwook we should give only 1/2 cheer for Brexit because it might be against the "free movement of labor," in other words the Islamifcation of the UK.

One obvious, but perhaps forgotten, point about free and unrestricted immigration is it hurt the hell out of the world's mightiest country: ancient Rome. My reading of history certainly informs me that Rome mostly self-destructed, via irrational and poor philosophy, which led to evil Christianity taking over. But one additional big element in the collapse of Rome was mass immigration by savages. It was almost like an unopposed invasion.

... if the sub-human Rasputin wishes to come here and confront me directly, he, the coward, is still most welcome to.

I just don't understand why friends turn so blatantly hostile and nasty. I do get being pissed off for a while and having strong words etc, but when it gets to utterly writing friends off publicly, one wonders what was ever there in the first place.
I guess this year has illuminated philosophical/political essentials and their opposites.

This was never a friend. You know about his back-stabbing posts about my air-conducting to Jonathan on O-Lying fifteen years ago. So there was nothing ever there in the first place. Except green eyes.

Yes, Rasputin and I are opposites in terms of philosophical essentials. He represents evil; I, good.

Whale is friends with John Key. I'd say it's highly likely that Key, wanting to protect Dane Susan, would have been alarmed at the support my speech was getting on Whale, and has put private pressure on.

Edit: Philip: as I understand it, comments have been re-opened.

'WHY HASN’T THIS BEEN REPORTED IN OUR MEDIA?' is the post's heading.

It is as of this minute still promoted at the top of the blog as a Must Read.

As I say I'm banned, so can't say if posts have been closed. If they are it is odd.

Correction: Yes, they have closed comments. Odd.

Whale Oil has closed down comments already?

Let me be as explicit as I can. Cresswell's behaviour through the Peikoff fatwa debate showed him irrefutably to be a liar, a coward and a cultist. He hasn't an independent idea in his head, nor a modicum of integrity in his bones. If he's now trying to do a hatchet job on me, I wear it as badge of honour. My mistake was to try to forget and forgive. My punishment is to be called "odiously anti-human." By someone who is exactly that!!

My new name for this thing is "Rasputin." Dopey long hair and mesmeric hold over his groupies. All two of them.

Let Rasputin and ARISIS perpetrate their evil. Good people can identify them as the enemy, along with Progressives, Al Qaeda, headbanging caterwaulers, rappers, etc. And who knows, good people may yet prevail via Trump: evil's biggest nightmare right now!

I too tried to post on Whaleoil but he has closed comments there, which is, I think, unusual. Damn it.

people who ought to be friends, and have indeed been friends, backstab and then do public hatchet jobs, instead of sending a private email of concern or something akin to that.... now PC has a post up titled "Don't Lose Friends over Politics"!

I just don't understand why friends turn so blatantly hostile and nasty. I do get being pissed off for a while and having strong words etc, but when it gets to utterly writing friends off publicly, one wonders what was ever there in the first place.
I guess this year has illuminated philosophical/political essentials and their opposites.

Cresswell’s comment on Whaleoil appears to have stopped feedback on the post in its tracks. So, I guess he got the desired result. (If I could have said something on Whaleoil, I would have. But my first attempt at posting on another matter resulted in a permanent ban.)

What sickens me is that on his PC post Cresswell spells out the need for honesty, yet promotes falsehoods (which have been pointed out to him) in the very same post.

He talks of Lindsay being ‘odiously anti-human,’ yet cannot even acknowledge the bravery in giving such a speech. (Whether you agree with the content or not, can you deny it was brave?)

He talks of Lindsay’s and SOLO's lack of ‘sense of life,’ yet hasn’t even the courtesy to post his attack on SOLO.

He professes to be some sort of man of ideas, yet would rather talk about the length of the speech over its content.

Cresswell says that the speech wasn’t the main point of his PC post. And indeed it was not, but why would I be interested in further discussion when he shows such bad faith?

I don’t know Cresswell, (although I do often find the links he provides on his blog most useful) so this isn’t really just about him. More it’s about crappy people in general who paint themselves as ‘moral,’ but fall well short when they want to score points.

People mostly do suck when it really counts. Fuck 'em.

It is cultism we're dealing with here. And cowardice and lying in the service thereof.

And you're right. I have not read, and will not read, this thing's attempt at a hatchet piece. All I know of it is the snippets people have quoted. Enough to tell me what I already knew: nothing to see here except Islamappeasing, sub-human evil.

And this thing claims to be an arbiter of who is and who is not an Objectivist, a true upholder of reason?! Real life is truly stranger than fiction many times.

After not even attending the event to get a first hand account, why Cresswell foolishly decided to make this so public I'll never know, but for the record, here is what I posted on his website after he did so:

Olivia Pierson31 Aug 2016, 18:59:00

I was at that event and I can tell you Lindsay recorded it accurately. Anyone who says otherwise is shitting you. You were not there.

I can't believe you would do such a hatchet job on him Pete - and behind his back too. I can only think that you've been offended personally by his criticisms of your taste in music. Not very big of you... and for the record Wagner is crap and Brahms is a god.

The breeding stuff with "cages and spoons" has always been in humour and largely an angry/frustrated response to the fact that Welfare in this country results in people murdering their own offspring, who would've been better off if they had not been born.
Subhuman behaviour does in fact exist, outside of ISIS.

As for the Muslim stuff, you're an ignorant prick if you cannot see how that has become the greatest threat to civilization as we know it. Truly ignorant - or stupidly clinging to blind optimism. The fact that Lindsay takes that head on and is prepared to physically go and debate it, knowing how murderous these people can be, should be applauded, not igonored - I'd sure as hell think twice.

You know he won't even read this btw... he never goes to other blogs, so I can't understand why you didn't have the balls to put this up on SOLO considering the whole thing is about him and he inspired you to write in the first place. Hard to find manly traits in men these days.

Response number two:

Olivia Pierson1 Sep 2016, 17:16:00

Cresswell.

PC says: "The students were the main event, the ones he calls moronnials (or whatever this week's neologism is), not him. It's my guess that making himsself the main event by going nearly three times over time while calling these intelligent young students morons was probably a calculated way to *be* shut down, and then to proclaim his martyrdom. Because that's become a pattern, hasn't it."

He was not shut down because he went overtime, that was the excuse given by the people who shut him down. They shut him down because a group of Muslims sitting behind me started calling out over him – how do I know they were Muslims? They said so and said they were insulted.

The whole truth and context of that debate was that these "intelligent" students were terrible debaters. They gabbled, one idea and thought garrulously running into another without pause or respect for delivery, let alone attention to oratory. Given how accessible high quality debates by the very best in the world are on Youtube I honestly expected a much higher level of speaking and rhetoric than what they delivered. I remember better quality debates from my years in high school than what went down here (I could only put it down to Gramscification). Lindsay, as a panellist speaker, brought a very high level of professionalism to that evening - including humour, wit and forceful rhetoric - frankly they were lucky to have him there as an example, despite the fact that he upstaged them all. That's Linz for you. Every student who spoke took great pains to not go anywhere near any problems with Islam (universities aren’t allowed to do that anymore you know), even though the only reason the moot was even relevant was because the burka and burkini etc were being discussed heavily in Europe during that month. It was the elephant in the room which Linz addressed. It was very salient, believe me... but I guess not if you're in denial about world events.

PC says: "But it is of a piece with his rank conspiracy theories about ARI shills, boycotts and backstabbing."

Conspiracy theories huh? You just absolutely proved his point about backstabbing - obviously someone just backstabbed him to you, hence your "highly flawed" remark about his account of that evening. And you do promote the ARI party line on everything, from open immigration to denial about the Islamic menace to the West. You've also backstabbed him by posting this piece *about* SOLO "and its ringmaster" NOT on SOLO, the very place where we all first got to know each other and where you have been a member for over a decade. That's very remiss of you, and if you really gave a shit about the state of SOLO, you wouldn't be that remiss.

PC says:"And the whole truth you're ignoring, or at least not addressing, is that the post on which you're commenting here is not even primarily about one evening, as you well know, but about the state of SOLO and its ringmaster. Which you must know is no longer either 'sense-of-life' or Objectivist."

You brought that one up Pete by throwing it in as part of your hatchet job, so take it. I have never valued the cult side of Objectivism in any organised form - Rand is immensely valuable as an independent thinker and writer of great insight and influence, but as for institutions and dogmas dedicated to her, I have no affinity for them and never will. On that basis, I don't care what Lindsay calls his website, but I do know that his original inspiration came from Rand and Objectivism. You're talking like a cultist. Having been raised in one, I can spot that language a mile away, and organised Objectivism is full of it. It has always made me uncomfortable.

On the basis of intellectual hygiene, or whatever, calling for SOLO to change its name because it's not Objectivist enough for your liking smacks of a cult like mentality, which is almost funny. Judean People's Front? Faaaark off! I'm the People's Front of Judea!

I'm very curious to learn when Air New Zealand became so PC. Seven years ago they expressed interest in having me train their flight attendants to speak well (which, traditionally, they always had: being a "steward" or "stewardess" was a glamour job, involving being well-spoken and good-looking). I spent three hours with some top brass out at Mangere one Friday, at their invitation, explaining how I'd teach their crew to speak and not quack. They promised to mull the matter and get back to me. Someone who knew of this meeting spoke to them some weeks later, and encountered extreme hostility. "What other Kiwi icons does Lindsay wish to destroy?" So quacking, in their view, was a Kiwi icon? Why then did they bother talking to me in the first place?

I have a hard time persuading people that the ascendancy of quacking in lieu of speech has coincided with the demise of free speech, but the tread-on-eggshells PC culture of which you were a casualty is the same one that has given us quacking flight attendants (who also look like dogs, for the most part). The common denominator is hostility to the mind. Did this start with Rob Fyfe?

Incidentally, the university debaters were all quackers. An utter travesty. Debating used to be an art form.

Yeah, what I took from this particular incident is that you have to be very careful what you say, in particular when dealing with people who are less than attentive and brilliant. They tend to hear buzzwords only - not context and content. A bit like the MSM when they're trying to make a story.

Andrew -- Sorry to hear about your experience with Air New Zealand. But I don't think it was overly an act of cowardice. Philosophy rules the world. Today it's mostly false and evil philosophy. That person probably semi-honestly thought you were a bigot -- an "Islamophobe" and "racist". She sincerely doesn't know what real bigotry is.

Most Objectivists don't either. Ayn Rand only briefly and weakly dealt with this issue. And Objectivists today don't have enough real reason and individualism (not zombie reason and individualism) in their philosophy to adequately identify and comprehend it on their own.

I not technically, though effectively, lost my job with Air New Zealand for talking plainly about Islamic extremists, and what they get up to and how they think, with a fragile (as it later seemed) flight attendant.

Maybe this is why people are 'cowardly'. Say the wrong buzzwords to the wrong person and ka-pow!...You're in the boss's office wondering what on earth happened, fighting for your job.

People are so, so afraid of saying the wrong thing or even being interpreted the wrong way. And in part understandably?

Whale is wonderful! More than can be said for PC PC!

Susan Devoy is a disgrace. Auckland University is a disgrace. So many, except dear Lady Slapper, have been gutless. I have had some amazing private e-mails, but these people are not prepared to go public, so I discount them as cowards.

Death to Islam! Death to all evil! And don't just replace Dame Susan, abolish her. As I said in her presence. All too much for Cresswell's simpering sycophants.

Then added:

As you can see the Religion of Peace…and Intolerance was once again intolerant even though a life long libertarian was explaining that he wouldn’t ban the burqa.

SJWs say we must be tolerant…and it turns out we must be tolerant of intolerance.

I say no. We should be intolerant of intolerance. There is little to fault Lindsay Perigo in this debate. It is shameful that he was howled down, it is shameful this happened at the university, and it is shameful that this plague of shouty sooks has now infested NZ.

Where was Susan Devoy? Where was her press release condemning the abrogation of our human rights by shouty scarf wearers? She is a disgrace, for this silence alone she should be dismissed.

Instead two days ago she lectured us all to be tolerant but praised herself and her office for shouting down neo-nazi idiots, fools who like dressing up in black..kind of like these neo-nazi idiots who also like dressing up in black.

Where was her open letter to the Muslim community decrying the shutting down of freedom of speech? She is a disgrace, Auckland University is a disgrace.

Is Cresswell really more concerned with what he sees as the impoliteness of going over time, than with the actual issue?

No.

He's been known to go over once or twice himself. And even to be impolite occasionally.

But he must fixate on "the impoliteness of going over time" in order to conceal his real agenda here, the exoneration of the Muslims in shutting me down. ARISIS supporters believe we face a far bigger threat from Christianity than Islam, you see, and that a Republican-led Christian theocracy is imminent. So open the floodgates to Muslims and let them pursue "freedom of speech go to Hell," but watch out for Killer Christians!

Having thus to fixate, he must state the minimum time I was allowed—7 minutes—as the maximum (I've just double-checked the running sheet, and Dame Susan and I were both allocated 7-10 minutes) and grossly exaggerate the extent to which I went over (all of this without his being present at the event, having staged a churlish one-man boycott) so that it would seem the enormity of my impoliteness would indeed trump what I actually said and conceal the reality that the Muslims stopped me saying a small but crucial part of it.

Had I really been so earth-shatteringly impolite I'm sure my invitation to the post-match dinner would have been revoked, which it wasn't, and Oliver would not have made a point the next morning, which he did, of inviting me to the final the following week (I didn't go for fear of frightening the horses inordinately. Twice in a week might have been a bit much, even for me).

In any event, whatever time was lost by my going over was more than saved by Dame Susan's huffy refusal to rebut me! That little drama in itself was worth the price of admission! In the good old days before Not PC became PC he would have revelled in such "magnificent pandemonium." Realise that the ARI in ARISIS stands as much for Anal Retentive Institute as Ayn Rand Institute!

Here is what I wrote today to the person on whose account of proceedings Cresswell seized for his "impoliteness" narrative:

It just boggles my mind that in the light of what I was able to say in that context, anyone, most of all someone supposedly in my corner, would fixate on the fact that I went overtime, and then rush off to report negatively to someone who obviously is hostile to me again, someone who was not there, someone who then used your account as part of an attempted public hatchet job on me. I have to be honest: that churns my stomach.

I doubt any speech at any NZI debate ever electrified an audience as much as that one, or ever will again, and it was all stuff that urgently needs to be said and re-said. That is what matters. As I've said on SOLO, there are probably those who would fault Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech as being too long. To which all I can say is, "Sheesh!"

As best I can tell, I went overtime (and I was told "seven to ten minutes" not "seven minutes") because I deliberately slowed right down in the hope that the debaters would absorb the point that they had all gabbled. And I was so close to finishing, what the hell difference would it have made?!

As to whose shouting in particular shut me down—Muslim or non—it's really immaterial. The Muslims were certainly part of it, and Muslims are hostile to free speech at any time if they're being consistent with what their ugly superstition teaches.

Feel free to quote this on Whale Oil or wherever. Did they put my whole speech up there?

That reached a few people over at Whale Oil.

johcar • 2 days ago
I have just become Lindsay Perigo's biggest fan.

It was a longish read but boy, it didn't pull any punches. He said it like it is (or should be).
−

Alan Beresford B'Stard • 2 days ago
I've always enjoyed Lindsay its a shame he's not on tv anymore. That was an excellent speech, he's rapidly becoming a national treasure.
_

Odd Ball • 2 days ago
It's good to see Lindsay is still as sharp & uncompromising as ever.
_
Usaywot • 2 days ago
Knighthood for that man!
_

From here.

I'm stunned that Peter Cresswell continues to focus on the issue of Lindsay's speech going over time, rather than on the content (which he ignores) of the speech itself.

'So why was he "shut down" then? He was asked to finish because he'd gone well over his 7 minutes. Simple as that. Storm in a teacup, with no need for outrage, horror, talk of "intolerance" or cowardice, nor for any reportage from the mainstream media -- and no need at all to talk about the "awful precendents" this sets, unless the quite basic lesson be learned that when you're asked to talk for 7 minutes then you should plan a 7-minute speech. Not one going near twenty!

~Peter Cresswell comment on 'Whaleoil'

Is Cresswell really more concerned with what he sees as the impoliteness of going over time, than with the actual issue?

Fair enough Lindsay,

Small practical suggestion. This recorder is what I use - it cost me about $150 (very over-priced for what it is).

Stick it in your top pocket, and it will do a pretty good job. Certainly give you an intelligible recording, and with zero fuss.

http://www.sony-asia.com/local...

I don't believe the event was filmed, being just a semi-final and all. As for doing it again, I don't think anyone's in a hurry to invite me to do that. Besides, no repeat could capture the electricity of the original. Being in the heart of evil, a PC university, with one of evil's embodiments, the Race Relations Commissar ... I tell you, no one was bored when I went overtime! I felt like Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate saying "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Of course, there were those who told him that speech was too long! The same people who'd urged him to take that line out. Prissy anal-retentive hand-wringers and ARISIS types bereft of a moral compass!

Any luck with a video?

If not possible, I suggest you give the speech again for the sake of making a downloadable audio version. It really is a classic, and a lot of people prefer to listen than read...especially if they're plugged into their phone

http://1law4all.kiwi.nz/2016/0...

and

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspo...

Thanks for that video. It ends well.

Paul Joseph Watson is one of the more sane (ie libertarian) voices in the alt-right. If I had to label him I would use a label I like for myself: right wing libertarian. Watson is very anti-left and anti-Islam (In Europe being anti-left means opposing ANTIFA or "anti-fascism" which is the Euro equivalent of the SJWs). He has been interview by Molyneux a number of times.

I am seeing some very good alt-right people who are not explicit nationalists like Watson, Moly, Mike Cernovich, etc. All of them have fire in the belly, loads of empirical data and a benevolent but developed racial and cultural awareness; ie they posses everything the Objectivist movement does not possess.

With YouTube it is becoming apparent that OrgOism just puts out a crappy intellectual product. The Austrians put out a far better product when it comes to economic science. Their anarchism is still a problem though, but they are offering excellent economic commentary. The ARI is offering nothing.

He is very good. I think I've seen him once before. I can't see anything wrong in what he said. Wouldn't it be great if he discovered objectivism, for him I mean. He mentioned "objective" at the end. That's good. You're on to it Linz! Now I'm going out for a housewarming, and muzzie killers of humanity or their apologists won't be there.

This guy, Paul Joseph Watson, is magnificent. Take note, evil ARISIS and your Auckland Obleftivist sycophants:

The chlorination of mains water is less risky than captaining a Greek ship. You can buy a carbon filter for under your sink to remove it.

If we want to make a difference in our imperfect world we have to work/trade/influence socialists, fascists, and backsliders etc. The alternative is to cower behind a vision of perfection blaming others for everything that goes badly.

"Work/trade/influence" does not mean "capitulate to," or "allow socialists, fascists, Muslims et al to be the only ones with fire in their bellies."

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to become obsessed with not offending it and not calling it what it is.

Echoing Olivia, to whom in particular are your comments addressed?

Aye aye Captain

Fair comment Olivia. I hope my edit is an improvement.

I can't name names. You are right to call me out there. It's not that I am afraid to do that I'm just not familiar enough with the various threads here on SOLO. The thought came not from here at all but from my observation of Libertarianz in action. So much potential so little traction.

You exaggerate when you call my literary failings more dangerous than stoic purism. What I call stoic purism can be compared with the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Resistance to chlorination of public water supplies in Hawke Bay as a public health measure is an example. Yes, it is mass medication but given the current crisis, little progress can be made without it. The realistic compromise is to chlorinate while the purist stand would be to accept personal responsibility for your own drinking water.

If we want to make a difference in our imperfect world we have to work/trade/influence socialists, fascists, and backsliders etc. The alternative is to cower behind a vision of perfection blaming others for everything that goes badly.

I don't understand your Jefferson reference. Didn't he keep his real views on sex and religion pretty much to himself for very practical reasons?

That's incorrect Neil. What is it with Neils? They each kneel quickly. At least you're up for a brief argument. And an interminably futile one you will find elsewhere. I can see the obvious counter to your point here in that some of us will give Trump a chance to right the sinking ship USA. That's hardly what could be called purism. Add some depth to your thoughts. I'll give you credit for jumping aboard but you've taken a short route back to the gangplank. Up your game.

A more dangerous trait is the stoic purists. Too smart to dirty their hands with realities' mess they wallow in self-pity because their ideas have not been universally accepted. Never giving a mm they bang on and on wondering piteously why the world does not 'devote itself to them'.

Still even more dangerous are those who cannot spell or use proper syntax, denoting minds incapable of coherent thoughts.

Purism is a waste of intellectual potential...

I'm glad Thomas Jefferson didn't hold such a pedestrian view.

...and there are quite a few on this blog.

Of whom do you speak?

Unbelievably twagic to pwohibit Islamofilth fwom entewing Amewica??!!

Dear Galt! Last night I called them ARISIS. That's what they are. The Ayn Rand Institute is headed by someone who is evil through and through. Let the word go forth unequivocally: Yawon Bwook is not just speech-impeded, he is EVIL. Who the hell is paying him? Is it indeed Soros?

A Death Cult of a Fascist Ideology

This is their new book. 2 mentions of Islamic immigration.

I will review it on Amazon.com. Does anyone have a a reason to think they don't support open immigration of Muslims into Europe and Israel?

https://www.amazon.com/Failing...

Let 'em in by Paul McCartney

https://video.search.yahoo.com...

I noticed that as well. There are 1.5 billion muzzies on earth. Yaron says nothing has changed their ideas. Even giving them copies of The Virtue of Selfishness won't change things.

But we should let them all in.

Let 'em in, yeah let 'em in.

Thanks for the link to Yawon's latest bowel movement. It's official, ARI supports the barbarian invasion and destruction of the West.* He makes an interesting admission that ARI's efforts have had no affect on the culture. But, he adds, that ARI has influenced individuals. Now, shut up and open your wallets.

* Except for Israel, which gets to have borders and religious/ethnic screening for immigrants.

Hi Linz,
We all feel the fear when speaking out is called for. Some do it anyway ... bravo! ... some back down. That is what 'defines' any group of real people not just ACT.
A more dangerous trait is stoic purism. Too smart to dirty their hands with realities' mess they wallow in self-pity because their ideas have not been universally accepted. Never giving a mm they bang on and on wondering piteously why the world does not 'devote itself to them'. Purism is a waste of intellectual potential and there are quite a few on this blog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

At the end:

http://www.peikoff.com/2016/08...

Most people don't need Islamofilth murderers to make them afraid of speaking their minds. They're cowards already, and they have no minds to speak in any event. The ACT party, as I know from direct experience, is defined by the likes of them!