Who's Online
There are currently 0 users and 38 guests online.
Who's New
Linz's Mario Book—Updated!PollCan Trump Redeem Himself Following His Disgusting Capitulation to the Swamp on the Budget?
No (please elaborate)
0%
Yes (please elaborate)
56%
Maybe (please elaborate)
44%
Who cares? (My blood doesn't boil and I'm a waste of space)
0%
Total votes: 9
|
NaZiland's Evil Woke-Fascist Labour Regime: Bringing '1984' to 2021![]() Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2021-03-07 07:15
[Image from Dieuwe de Boer's Right Minds site, https://www.rightminds.nz/ [Submission to Parliamentary Select Committee, Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, March 8, 2021] "Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason I would not prohibit it, even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to 'respect' their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon." —Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great It would be a tragedy and travesty of historic enormity if the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill were to transpire to be a ruse by which the Religious Woke snuff out what little of our freedom of speech remains. Alas, that appears to be their exact intent. The Religion of Woke was an ominously growing spectre in Mr Hitchens' time, but could still be easily batted off with a modicum of richly deserved mockery and humour, especially of the kind Hitch was so skilled at. But its devotees now behave in exactly the manner Christopher ascribes to Christians, Muslims et al to whom "live and let live" is wholly alien; they seek to ban mockery and humour, and have already succeeded in doing so to a scary degree by sheer intimidation without any need for laws—their "Cancel Culture" is the modern equivalent of the Inquisition. Dissidents, apostates and non-conformists generally are not burned at the stake; rather, their books are burned; they are "crushed" and "destroyed" on social media and "unpersonned" in society-at-large in the manner of George Orwell's 1984—which the Zealous Woke are treating as an instruction manual rather than the dire cautionary tale of totalitarianism it was. Internationally, even fictional characters such as the Muppets and some of Dr Seuss's cast have been cancelled by Woke-Fascism just in the last few weeks; here in New Zealand commentators John Banks, Sean Plunket and Michael Bassett have been shoved down the Memory Hole in short order. Heaven help us when laws such as that proposed here add legal legitimacy to this moral depravity. The proposed Bill supposedly brings the Films, Videos and Publications Act 1993 into the digital age, extending the entirely laudable protections it affords against the sexual abuse and exploitation of children to Cyberspace. Nothing wrong and everything right with that. But it behoves us to remember that the 1993 Act also proscribes any publication that:
There is no "violent extremism" in New Zealand, unless you count the Woke-Fascist Blackshirts who forcibly close down any debate involving Don Brash (screeching uninvited at someone else's event through deafening megaphones is force, in my book). The perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque massacre, cited by the Minister in justifying this Bill, is the only example of "violent extremism" we have ever seen. But he was not a New Zealander; he was an Australian visitor, who, thanks to lax implementation of existing and already-adequate protocols by authorities, managed to obtain the weaponry in New Zealand with which to carry out his dreadful slaughter: an act of barbarism wholly atypical of life in New Zealand. Disgustingly, however, true to form, this regime just couldn't wait to use his murderous rampage as a pretext to confiscate the guns of law-abiding, peaceful New Zealanders; to politicise the police, who then morphed literally into Orwell's Thought Police and went knocking on doors to interrogate citizens about their political views; and to launch an assault on our freedom of speech generally—which assault is already well advanced and which is the true purpose of this Bill, awaiting only the addition of "Hate Speech" laws to kill free speech off altogether. Simpson and Grierson highlight:
Our police officers, Inspectors of Publications? Thought Police indeed! With the Ministry of Internal Affairs playing Orwell's Ministry of Truth! Note, by the way, there is not just one Inspector of Publications. There can be as many of these unelected, unknown, unaccountable censors policing our published opinions as the Ministry of Internal Affairs chooses to appoint. And I don't say "unaccountable" lightly. See for yourself, from the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill:
So no matter whose livelihoods are destroyed by the Thought Police, they can't be sued or held to account in any way! "Objectionable," "injurious to the public good," and "online harm," of course, in today's context, actually mean: any point of view, however peaceably held, to the right of Joseph Stalin's; any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party; any criticism of Islam; any criticism of the current Woke regime; anything that offends anyone who isn't white, male and unambiguously heterosexual. (I am old enough to remember the time I could have been jailed for acting on my sexual orientation; thankfully, that was all put right eventually, but we now confront the opposite travesty: straightness is treated as a defect for which one should be pilloried and cancelled.) Gay males are not off the hook if they are white; all whites are deemed to be an intrinsically racist stain on humanity because they are white; they ought to be turned down for jobs even if they're the best-qualified, and generally treated as second-class citizens—"white" is deemed to be inherently defective exactly in the manner proscribed in the aforementioned 1993 legislation! Among those leading the racist charge is the New Zealand School of Music, which boasts of its intention to "de-centre whiteness" (it's not looking good for Bach, Beethoven and Brahms!). Whatever happened to judging people by the content of their character (or their actual musical prowess) and not the colour of their skin, or their gender, or sexual orientation or anything else they have no control over?! Legislation such as is proposed here will only encourage the armies of snowflakes Woke brainwashing has engendered to find something to be offended by and poutingly seek to turn their infantile umbrage into a cancellation. I first read 1984 in secondary school—it was on the required reading list. Now, under this very Bill, it could easily be deemed "objectionable" by an Inspector of Publications and banned. How long, after all, can the Woke-Fascists in Big Government, Big Tech, Big Business, Academia and the lickspittle media tolerate the ready availability of a work that foretold them with such devastating accuracy over 70 years ago:
That possibility is being realised before our very eyes. We are on the verge of 1984. Pass legislation like this and we'll be all the way there. What to do instead? Repair to Section 14 of our Bill of Rights:
By all means legislate exceptions for child pornography, incitement to violence, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre, the open advocacy of any kind of initiation of force, and ensure that such prohibitions apply to the Internet. But that's it! Stop there! Most, if not all of this is already covered. These things aside, untrammelled freedom of speech should be sacrosanct. Instead of killing it off altogether, let's declare a Free Speech Emergency for the express purpose of restoring it! Let's have Hyde Park-type Speakers' Corners in every public square in the country! Let their arches sport such unassailable truths and precepts as, "There is no such thing as a right not to be offended" (Salman Rushdie); "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all" (Noam Chomsky); "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" (mis-attributed to Voltaire, though it distills his position accurately); and, "A gun is not an argument" (Ayn Rand).
|
User loginNavigationMore SOLO StoreThe Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
NaZiland's Thought Police in Action Again
Firearm-owning pastor's house in Christchurch, New Zealand—formerly a free country, now effectively a one-party state—raided on New Year's Eve, in his absence, for Thought Crime. You won't hear a thing about this from ACT or the Free Speech Union (except perhaps Seymour or Franks, who will say he brought it all on himself), who are in on it as maggots devouring a corpse. Soros's Soldiers.
This is 1984. Part of the problem is, the world is populated by illiterates who have never heard of Orwell, don't know what 1984 is and would not be able to concentrate for long enough to understand a paragraph of it.
Thought Police in Action
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/12/1...
Critical analysis
I enjoyed your article very much and the imaginative employment of your analogy.
I have just one observation to make: the definition of "objectionable" in the Act has not been amended by the Bill. So I would be interested to understand why you think the Bill has somehow increased the scope and extent of the powers of government to decide what is objectionable (and include free speech).
Isn't the Bill simply to enlarge the existing censorship model to set up an office to censor the internet on the basis the internet now makes publication available to every person who owns a computer or telephone and has access to an internet provider? Thus more people are required now than before to supervise the existing law. I.e., The Bill provides additional bureaucratic manpower to remove objectionable material online but it doesn’t extend the type of material that is objectionable (as defined at least!) in any way.
The definition of objectionable in the 1993 Act (unchanged by the Bill) reads as follows:
Do you have a problem with the meaning of objectionable and the law prior to the Bill? If not, why is it a problem to have some extra people employed to administer the law regarding publications online?
Or do you believe there should be one law for the magazines/newspapers who formerly had 100% control over publications and another for the private citizen? That, I think, is the issue for discussion.
Your article suggests that internet publications/posts/blogs/websites should not be considered a publication if written by an individual private citizen but "free speech" and should therefore be treated differently under the law from a corporation or other entity in the business of publication.
I would be interested to hear how (and why) you distinguish why a publication on the internet should be treated differently depending on which entity published it and also why there is a problem given the definition of "objectionable" (which has not changed since 1993).
Lingerie joke incident
Hi Linz
I read the following story this evening and thought you might appreciate it since it combines a few of your favourite topics: wokeism, humourless feminists/wimmen, and professors from universities - all in five short paragraphs!
It, including the title, is taken directly from the Wikipedia page of Professor Simon Sharoni, one of wokeism's feminist religious leaders.
Lingerie joke incident
New Zealand Becomes Naziland
Don't speak to your neighbours. Rather, snitch on them!
Where are the Free Speech Union, the National Party, ACT and all the rest of the controlled opposition on this??!!
A Product of that very brainwashing
Sadly for us, jackass is the epitome of the very brainwashing that began in the '60's and has culminated in the manifestation of bad ideas rattling around the space where a brain should have developed. Yes, 'moron' is appropo: 'a person who is intellectually stagnant at around the age of 13' or 'has an intelligence quotient of around 50-69.' And this is what people voted for - possibly because it is a familiar face, espousing familiar bromides (albeit with a lot of arm-waving and facial gesticulations for psychological effect to distract from the vacuous content) - having all graduated the same government alignment centers.
The anti-dote of course is for each individual who has a clue, to work harder at his/her own self-preservation and value-achievement, until it's possible to once again breathe freely.
While it's still possible to exercise some choice: I choose a good book to read, to listen to great music, watch an old-time musical, contemplate the great works of art, or better yet: create something worthy of my soul. And I don't grant the morons a second more of my precious time than what they've earned . . .
jackass intimidation and scary reminder of being back in school
I couldn't believe my ears when I heard jackass admonish everyone publicly: "You don't want to have your name on this list. We'll read the names out for everyone to hear!" - (so do what you're told you stupid 5-year-olds, or else!)
?Really.
I'm happy to say, Lindsay, we are not all as dumb as the rocks that jackass evidently projects us to be. It is a sad indictment on the population, though, that compliance with insanity is so compelling, versus fidelity to reality, truth and self-confidence.
I have been known to reject the idea of the 'kiwi' as a representation, for obvious reasons, of the nation's aspirations: small brain, big bottom, flightless bird, comes out at night, easily scared back into it's hole. However, of late, it seems more than appropriate.
Voice from the Gulag
As people, abandoned by Borderless Beijing Biden the Bastard, cling to the sides of aeroplanes, attempting to flee Islamo-Fascism; as Taiwan, abandoned by Borderless Beijing Biden the Bastard, is about to fall to the Chinese Communist Party (facilitators of the Wuhan Virus) just as Hong Kong has fallen; as fry-quacking Woke-Fascist Comrade Jihadi Jacinda Podesta, applauded by Borderless Beijing Biden the Bastard, commands Kiwis not to speak to their neighbours [but by all means snitch on them]—and Kiwis meekly comply—here's a salient reminder of what enabled Joseph Stalin to proceed with his tyranny unperturbed:
—Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 'The Gulag Archipelago'
Take back the Shire
Seeing the tyrannical news coming out of NZ; makes me sick! But...also well as the protests there and Australia...here's hoping that you Hobbits there take back the metaphorical Shire.
Jihadi Jacinda's Jackboots: World Famous!
Jackboot Jihadi Jacinda: "Don't speak to your neighbours." But by all means snitch on them! Nazi Germany of the 1930s, Communist East Germany of the 1950s. The world is watching! Iran, North Korea, Communist China and the Islamic Emirate of Aghanistan applaud!
"New Zealand is now a police state":
Note, the following opening ten minutes from Tucker's show today has NOT been released by Fox (controlled opposition) while other less contentious parts have. This bootleg reproduction, oddly, has thus far been allowed to stay up on Woke-Fascist YouTube, but has been altered so that the images of Marie Antoinette Pelosi and her maskless Woke-Fascist rich white donors being served in luxury by masked slaves have been replaced by a still photo of Donald Trump!
Edit: boom!!
Another Excellent Piece on Big Sister Apartheid Ardern
This one in the Australian Spectator by the indefatigable Amy Brooke, who has fought the good fight for decades to protect and preserve our sacred liberties, now under unprecedented assault by this evil Woke-Fascist regime and its lickspittles in the media and Academia:
https://spectator.com.au/autho...
https://spectator.com.au/autho...
Excellent Piece on Apartheid Ardern and Her Zombies
It's symptomatic of what Karl du Fresne writes about that you'll never see this in a New Zealand publication. Note the part about the media bribery slush fund. To say journalism is dead is to insult death:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2...
Orange Man Bad Is Back!
The landslide winner of the 2020 election rips in to election fraud and Woke-Fascist Critical Race Theory around the two hour mark. More fearless than ever! Watch before Woke-Fascist YouTube take it down!
Imprisonable According to Jihadi Jacinda Podesta
Sign this Petition!
Seymour is a loathsome, cynical Globalist reptile, but at the moment, in Parliament, he's all we've got:
https://freespeech.act.org.nz/
Woke-Fascists: One Step Back and a Giant Leap Forward
From Tim Wikiriwhi:
But then, alas, we learned the Woke-Fascists are proceeding with their disgusting hate speech laws, under which opinions will be criminalised: the offended sensibilities of lobotomised snowflakes will, unless this Woke-Fascism is defeated, become law, and outspoken humans will be sent to jail for causing offence. To invoke Salman Rushdie again, "There is no such thing as a right not to be offended."
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Free Speech Union
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 13:40
Subject: Hate Speech laws will not make New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society
To:
MEDIA RELEASE: Hate speech laws will not make New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society
25 JUNE 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Free Speech Union is reacting with concern to the Government's plan to make speech criminal and says the proposals will go no way towards making New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society.
The law would change so that a person who intentionally incites, stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred against any protected group of people, would be liable for up to three years in prison if they did so by being threatening, abusive or even insulting.
Spokesperson for Union, David Cumin says, “The government claims these changes to hate speech laws will promote social cohesion. The opposite is true — legislating hatred out of existence is a hopeless expectation. What's more, the government is yet to provide examples of the speech they intend these provisions to capture.”
“The ambiguity of certain words in the legislation such as ‘insulting’ imports a real risk that speech may fall within the ambit for prosecution that was never intended to be criminalised by those envisioning the proposals.”
“Free speech has to mean the ability to insult. Democracy can’t work if the powers at be can deem certain arguments or speech as illegal.”
“Alarmingly, being found guilty of hate speech would carry a higher penalty than some violent offences. In any event, a lengthy prison sentence is unlikely to be the best mechanism to make an intolerant person rethink their views, if anything, it will push them into dark corners that would make violence a more tangible possibility.”
“New Zealanders should prepare for the very real possibility that those who take offence to tweets, crass statements or unsavoury protests will run to law-enforcement to have their offence indulged. The Union has already been contacted by members of Police concerned about having to enforce these proposals. While the ambit for successful prosecution may be high, overseas experience has shown that the introduction of such laws has resulted in law enforcement consistently missing the mark, and has created a structure allowing for legal harassment of the state against citizens, even if they are ultimately found not guilty.”
“The Free Speech Union will be fighting these proposals and invite all Kiwis who value this human right to join us.”
ENDS
Media contact:
Dane Giraud
027 419 9641
Copyright © 2021 Free Speech Coalition, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you have donated to or shown interest in the Free Speech Coalition.
Our mailing address is:
Free Speech Coalition
90 The Terrace, Wellington
Wellington Central, Wellington 6011
New Zealand
This Is How You Fight Back!!!
This Pastor in Calgary, Canada wasn't taking any nonsense from the Police over Easter; ejected the Gestapo from his Church. They slunk away in disgrace and shame. This is how you fight back against the filth, folks! (hint: by standing up for yourself, not cowering away as you've been doing). Video is 2 mins 20 seconds and well worth watching if you are genuinely concerned about your freedoms being lost.
Not surprised
Everyone was dismissing the influence of Cage and Shoenberg, because most people really didn't enjoy atonalism, or take it seriously as a threat, etc, but here we are, with musical notation itself being called "racist". But I knew this was coming, as far back as when I was talking with lefty-university types back in 98-99, who were telling me that classical music was "colonial", imperialism, etc, because it mirrored political structures of oppression, invoking Adorno idea's of "total freedom" in music (re: noise), etc. So it's no surprise. Hell, they're attacking objectivity itself...
Well, you know what they say, "you can't reason with the unreasonable." And once they throw objectivity out the window, all bets are off...
Sheet Music = White Supremacism!
When reporting the embrace last year of Only Black Lives Matter by the New Zealand School of Music and its enactment of a programme to "de-center [American spelling!] Whiteness," I observed that things weren't looking good for Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Little did I realise what an understatement this was. We now hear that Oxford University, no less, wants to shove musical notation itself down the Memory Hole of 1984:
https://www.breitbart.com/euro...
https://www.breitbart.com/euro...
The moronry of this is unimaginable—but no lover of freedom and civilisation should content himself with faulting its utter brainlessness: it must be called out as the unspeakable evil that it is, with the only caveat being that this is being unkind to evil!
Milo vs Woke-Fascists
This is cosmos-shattering:
Nigel vs Woke-Fascists
Nigel is taking on the "child-molesters of the mind," as I've always called them, the harbingers of 1984. The vicious legislation of which I speak in the primary post, not to mention the nauseating Woke-Fascism of the puke-making Meghyn Markle whom Nigel discusses here, is the culmination of decades of indoctrination by the child-molesters of the mind:
Outstanding essay...
The ground you cover with this is both sweeping and detailed.
Free Speech emergency indeed!
And in all nations.
Marvelous
Lindsay! so, are you appearing before the committee in person? an oral submission?