‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’, modern ‘democracy’ and modern ‘capitalism’

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy and the individual with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control.  Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth is alive and well. The following articles provide evidence.

Links to more articles follow the four below

The Great Forces within the Individual

The Great Forces within the Individual  By Jon Rappoport, 21 July 2021

From my notes for The Underground: “Whatever the core problem of The Individual might be, DATA is not the answer. A system is not the answer. Neutral sanitized language is not the answer. These modern affectations eat away at the electric forces of the soul…”

THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BEYOND ANY MODERN DESCRIPTION…

This is not a power that never existed before. This is not new for the individual. This is what has been sidelined and lost and forgotten and buried miles below the surface.

I’m talking about towering creative power, not “doily power” or “Easter egg decorating power.”

In Jonathan Swift’s novel, Gulliver’s Travels, Gulliver is captured by a tiny race of Lilliputians. In modern society, Gulliver voluntarily shrinks himself down to the size of a Lilliputian.

Contrary to the weak flaccid and madhouse principles of modern psychology, ACTUAL psychology would deal with two towering impulses within the individual:

Creation and destruction. The impulse to create and the impulse to destroy.

Modern civilization has the hidden goal of wiping out both of these impulses; instead, substituting top-down control. CONTROL.

The individual today is viewed by The Manipulators as a social construct, to be profiled, grouped, poked, tested, subjected to stimuli like a dog in a lab, re-engineered.

Indeed, many abject individuals see themselves as cogs in a social apparatus, and approve of the arrangement.

The preeminently successful hundred-year-plus program for embedding control is medical. I have exposed the details of the program for the past 40 years. You could sum it up as toxification and pacification and technological chaining of the body and brain.

CONTROL is the elite solution to the twin impulses of creating and destroying. Wipe them both out. Bury them. “They resist organization. They’re wild cards. They cut through all the rules and regulations of society.”

If you want pictures of creation and destruction in action, above the level of ordinary civilization, look to the stories co-opted by religions; the battles among the ancient Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Norse gods, and so on. This is creative and destructive power unleashed, on a grand scale, and at some point it became unacceptable. Instead…

Modern civilization developed. Modern society. Modern culture. Modern behavior. Modern organization.

Submission. Freedom granted by governments as “liberty,” meaning limited freedom within the context and constraints enacted by “the people’s representatives.” A whole host of fictions arose. “Worship the god we tell you to worship.” “Believe only in power that exists ELSEWHERE.”

Consciousness is a placid lake, some theorists claim. Lie on your back, float in the collective infinite. As if THIS would erase the twin towers of creation and destruction in the individual psyche. Pathetic.

Two things are now happening across the whole world. The expansion of top-down brutal control, and the emergence of the destructive impulse coming to the fore like a common currency.

The creative impulse is buried so deep in most individuals, they wouldn’t recognize it if you put it on a plate and served it for supper. They wouldn’t know what you were talking about. They certainly wouldn’t understand that a creative renaissance was absolutely necessary to offset what is happening in the world now.

If you referred them to giants like Michelangelo or Da Vinci or Beethoven or Mahler or Melville or Whitman or Goya or Stravinsky or Charlie Parker, they would think you were reciting the names of creatures from another planet. They might suspect you were trying to tear down God from his throne (the very God organized religions tell you is the True One).

Here is a clue. The most successful entertainment organization in the world, Disney/Marvel, has been producing one epic after another featuring mythological characters come to life as super-heroes and villains engaging in planetary and galactic battles of creation-and-destruction; millions of people watch these special-effect tales on screens, mesmerized and energized by the scale of the conflicts (very much like the Olympic gods at war with one another).

It’s no accident that humans crave these movies. They reflect (however cartoonishly) what is going on in the human psyche; the impulses of creation and destruction. The movies unearth what has been buried.

Under hundreds of layers of conditioning, the real psychology of the individual has everything to do with how these two towering impulses are dealt with BY the individual himself.

“Oh no, I’m not involved with those…impulses. I’m a card-carrying member of society. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m small, I’m trying to fit in, unless I’m against fitting in, in which case I’m dedicated to rejecting the proposal to install a traffic light at the corner of Main and Broadway…”

SMALLNESS is the overriding proposition. Every problem and solution has to be defined and worked out within a shrunken strangulating context.

Therefore, you can see all sorts of grotesquely played-out melodramas that unconsciously give vent to creative-destructive- impulse leaks from the individual.

The bloviating businessman who peddles cheap crap for a living parades around as if he were a living pillar of charity in his community, while he turns the screws on his employees by paying them a bare living wage and, privately, delights in their misfortune. Small stage play of creation and destruction.

Ditto for the grifter-politician who swears dedication to the groups he’s creating for the betterment of his people, knowing these causes will lead to further impoverishment and crime and, ultimately, submission and surrender. Create and destroy.

I could name and describe hundreds of small accommodations and expressions which attempt to mediate between the creating and destroying impulses within the individual.

Their smallness is just a cover for the Niagara-forces these impulses actually embody.

“If I shrink myself down, my impulses will shrink, too.”

It doesn’t work that way.

The impulses never shrink.

This is the problem. The titanic trying to become tiny.

Creation and destruction make up an existential situation within the individual and his psyche. How will he approach the situation? Not with easy answers, I can assure you. Not with a quick 10-minute fix—the favorite remedy-style of the modern age. Not with a pill. Not with grass-fed beef. Not with a medical mask. Not with a fear of germs. Not with meditation. Not with a group. Not with algorithms. Not with computers. Not with a brain-machine interface or nanoparticles or organized human anthills of the 21st century. Not with churches.

With CONTROL taking center stage in new forms, and on the march, the first great undertaking is the recognition that CREATIVE POWER has always existed within the individual. And that power needs expression. On a scale that reflects its magnitude.

Impossible?

Fortunately, in the work of artists I mentioned above, and in the work of many others of the same size, there are worlds to explore. These artists are not dead. Their work isn’t dead…

You want to know the beginning?

You’re sitting on top of a grassy mountain

And you know you could build a city in the valley

You could destroy a city in the valley

You could do both

You know it…like a boiling pepper in the mind, like an ice cube in the liver, like a steamroller, a traitor on trial, a saint in a cave, a god with his sword, a tiger pacing in his cage

You’re going to approach these two forces inside you

You’re going to walk around them and through them and sniff titanic waves and sink to the bottom of lost ships and come up out of the foam

You’re not going to run away into a little box and read the law for the next thousand years and join the society of obedient babbling idiots wearing thin lips

You’re going to burn away the strangulating false fronts

You’re going to know you can invent a city or destroy one

You’re going to come to grips with that

You’re not going to automatically jump ahead and say you’re a citizen of the realm

You’re not going to say there is nothing you want to destroy

You’re not going to remain two-dimensional for the next thousand years

Coming to grips with, and seeing the impulse to destroy within yourself is completely different from giving vent to, and enacting that impulse. The people who go around destroying are not coming to grips with anything.

On the other hand, imagine an innovative architect who is designing buildings no one has ever seen before. In his sketches, in his plans, he creates and destroys. He looks at his work in progress, and he decisively obliterates whole sections that don’t fit his vision and his instincts. He creates new wings of a building in his drawings and wipes some of them out. By the alive process of creating and destroying he arrives at what he wants to make real in the world.

I’ve known many aspiring artists who stall at the gate and never get off the ground, because they’re afraid that, if they put words on the page or shapes on the canvas, those words and shapes will have to remain there forever. To put it another way, they can’t conceive of destroying what they create. They believe “destruction is bad.” So they never create anything.

I’ve known painters who look at what they’ve put on the canvas for days and months; they keep looking; they’re not satisfied; but they’re afraid to wipe out a whole section. They’re afraid because they don’t realize they can create endlessly. They don’t realize that destroying half of a painting will lead to a new painting.

Civilization and society have always tried to define the limits of the creative process, as in: REDUCTION. Boil it down. Make it less. Make it smaller. Hem it in. Summarize it. Claim the individual creator should, first and foremost, be a citizen. A creature inside the system. This is a sick joke. And every artist of reality has rejected the joke with a mere dismissive glance.

The prescribed default position of the modern individual is: “I neither create nor destroy; I’m neutral; I adjust; whatever real power is, it resides outside myself; there is no larger context in which I can conceive of ACTION; if I feel deficient, I join a group.”

And people wonder why they have problems they can’t quite put their finger on. They wonder why their energies seem to be diminishing.

Consider the case of Nikola Tesla. The popularized story has it that he could see, in his imagination, all the complex moving parts of the energy devices he was inventing before he even made a preliminary sketch, much less a working prototype. It was all there in his mind. Magic. Genius.

I guarantee that was the not the whole story. Whether in his mind, on paper, or in prototype, he created and destroyed many models, before he arrived at one he believed would work to unleash and harness awesome amounts of force and energy.

He didn’t have an iota of worry about destroying what was unworkable. He wasn’t looking for a compromise or a shoddy but sellable piece of goods. He was focused on the far shore. Nothing less than the redirecting and transforming of Nature’s Flow.

And with each progressive step, there were spontaneous unexplainable insights that allowed him to move forward. His vision was Promethean. He wasn’t “neutral” or “objectively scientific” like some mechanical-minded little lab researcher trying to squeeze out a tiny extension of what was already known in order to publish a paper and secure a job.

The irony is, if Tesla had produced a working prototype that tapped into the Earth’s power and brought energy to every person on the planet, how many people would have said, “I want to operate and EXPRESS the great forces I have, as Tesla did,” versus…

“Thank you, Nikola, for the free energy. Now I can receive these gifts and sit back and enjoy them…I don’t have to look inside myself and see what is there…”

“I’m a Gulliver who is opting to be a Lilliputian.”

“Does anybody have a drug I can use to forget what I really am? A drug like Alice took to shrink down, outside the little door to Wonderland?”

Yes. It’s called modern civilization. You can go through the Clockwork Orange door. The DARPA mind control door. The medical-drug and vaccine door. The street drug door. The education system door. The media door. The good behavior gold star on the blackboard door…

(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)

=======================

A slow-moving coup in New Zealand towards apartheid

A slow-moving coup in New Zealand towards apartheid  By Muriel Newman, nzcpr.com, 26 June 2021

A slow-moving coup is underway in New Zealand. Unlike most coups, the transfer of power through non-democratic means that’s taking place is being orchestrated by the Prime Minister.

Under the guise of implementing the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, Jacinda Ardern is planning to replace democracy with Maori tribal rule by 2040.

This objective is clearly set out in He Puapua, the report that the PM commissioned in 2019 and then deliberately kept hidden from her then coalition partner New Zealand First.

The former Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters confirmed this in a speech he gave last Sunday: “This Government is enabling a wave of rights-based activism in-and-outside of government. Everything in 2021 is now rights-based, or indigenous rights demanding co-governance. In 2019 a report called ‘He Puapua‘ came to Government but was never shown to one NZ First Cabinet Minister. This report was deliberately suppressed. In short, this report is a recipe for Maori separatism, they knew it and that’s why they suppressed it till after the election in the full knowledge that NZ First is for one flag, one country, one law. It was a gesture of ingratitude and bad faith.”

It’s not just NZ First that would have opposed the plan. Had the Labour Party revealed its intentions before the election, it may not have gained an absolute majority, and NZ First may have retained its place in Parliament.

The reality is that a majority of New Zealanders do not want to be divided by race. Their opposition to separatism is evident in the polls over the years that have rejected Maori seats on councils.

Widespread opposition to separatism is why He Puapua is being rolled out in secret.

Labour’s ‘official’ justification for the introduction of tribal rule is that a ‘partnership’ exists between ‘Maori’ and the Crown. While democratic power in a representative democracy like New Zealand is proportional – based on one person one vote – separatists claim the existence of a Treaty ‘partnership’ entitles the 15 percent of New Zealanders who declare ‘Maori’ heritage, to 50 percent of the right to govern.

Canterbury University law lecturer David Round has outlined the danger: “The Treaty is now regularly interpreted to mean a partnership of equals. Maori are not to be subject to the Crown, but are to be its partner. This partnership is a fundamental subversion of democracy. Special reserved Maori seats on local bodies, and even in parliament itself, are just the start. Maori are claiming their involvement in decision making should not be on the basis of one person one vote, but instead on 50:50 representation.  Some are already clamouring for a separate Maori house of parliament whose consent would be required for any laws. They seem to be united in expecting representation well in excess of what their proportion of the population would entitle them to. That is what they are demanding in proposals for ‘co-governance’ ~ equal numbers to all other interests combined. That is what they will be seeking everywhere; and once they have this 50:50 representation, then they will form an unassailable voting bloc. Then we will be forever at their mercy.”

As David says, the claim of a Treaty partnership is a fundamental subversion of democracy, since it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects. By definition, the Crown is supreme, and the people are subject to her laws.

Furthermore, if 15 percent of the population are given the right to wield 50 percent of government power – including the right of veto, they would gain a disproportionately greater representation than all other New Zealanders. Since this would result in a significant dilution of the democratic representation of the 85 percent majority, the partnership concept is fundamentally discriminatory and in breach of New Zealand’s Bill of Rights.

To ensure the public don’t find out that the Treaty partnership concept is a fraud, Jacinda Ardern is now using taxpayer funding to ‘buy’ media cooperation. The recently announced $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund requires participants to not only accept the partnership lie, but to ‘actively’ promote it.

To qualify for the Fund three objectives must be met by recipients, the third of which requires them to: “Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti partner.”

Using public money to require New Zealand’s so-called independent Fourth Estate to support a radical political agenda to replace New Zealand democracy with tribal rule – is a scandal.

Attempts to undermine the authority of the Crown can be described as sedition – is this what the media are now being paid to engage in?

To achieve Maori sovereignty by 2040, He Puapua not only requires the recognition of Treaty partnerships, but two other major constitutional changes are needed: the first is to introduce ‘tikanga’, or Maori customary practice, into our law, and the second is to include the Treaty of Waitangi in a new written constitution.

The tikanga question is especially relevant since a High Court Judge has just ruled that tikanga trumps the Common Law in a claim lodged under the Marine and Coastal Area Act. The Edwards judgment is expected to not only set a precedent for the 200 other claims lodged in the High Court, and 350 claims lodged with the Crown for direct negotiation, but it has far wider implication for New Zealand law.

By prioritising tikanga values over the common law test of ‘exclusive’ use and occupation set out in the Act, Justice Churchman has opened the door for tribal control of virtually the entire coastline.

This is not what Parliament intended when the Marine and Coastal Area Act was introduced 2011. At that time New Zealanders were assured that if customary title existed at all, it would only be in remote areas of the coast.

That’s why the Churchman decision has now been referred to the Court of Appeal – in the hope that the stringent common law tests set out in the Act will, as intended, become requirements that must be satisfied if customary title is to be awarded. If you would like to support our Court of Appeal fundraiser, please click HERE.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Dr John Robinson, a research scientist and historian, who has written extensively about the danger of incorporating tikanga into our legal system, has examined the judgement of Peter Churchman in the Edwards case, and is deeply concerned:

“This is just one of many recent examples of the increasing division of New Zealand society, governance, law, and much more based on ‘tikanga’ and ‘matauranga Maori’ (Maori culture, ‘Maori concepts, knowledge, values and perspectives’), where features of pre-contact Maori society have been written into law.

“What is this ‘tikanga’?  The meaning today is deliberately confused, with no clarity as to whether traditional Maori ways are implied (which would include inter-tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery and other primitive customs) or whether it is a modern version, transformed around 1840 by the widespread shift to Christianity and further cultural development since. Further confusion comes from the recent rewriting of history and the invention of new meanings to words. The resulting confusion allows Maori authorities to claim that they alone can interpret and explain New Zealand common law; we are required to sit silently on the side-line and accept whatever they pronounce: the meaning of the law belongs to this minority alone.”

Dr Robinson points out the danger of introducing into our legal system a concept that can mean whatever those promoting it want it to mean, and he outlines five core values identified in the Churchman judgment as underpinning tikanga: whanaungatanga – the obligations of kinship; kaitiakitanga – the obligation to care for one’s own; mana – the obligations of leadership; tapu – social control; and utu – reciprocity.

He then warns of the danger of incorporating tikanga into our law: “The coupled whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga permit, indeed instruct, priority to members of an extended family. This, the granting of favours to friends, is corruption, henceforth to be sanctioned in central government, local government and in the civil service. The insistence that tikanga is a guide to behaviour in the public sphere is an open invitation to nepotism, practically a directive.

“Remember, this is law for the governing of society. The centrality of family, whanau, both present and previous, opens the way to inherited position and rights determined by ancestry. We cannot be equal when those in power base their judgements in part on extended family links. Yet this is intended to be a core feature of New Zealand law.”

This raises questions about our expectations of elected representatives – should Members of Parliament and local body councillors, for example, recuse themselves when dealing with laws that would enrich their extended family. Such conflict-of-interest concerns are a key reason local communities oppose the appointment of tribal representatives onto council committees with full voting rights. Not only do they totally undermine the democratic representation of local councils, but unless these nominees recuse themselves from decisions relating to their tribal interests, they will be able to influence the vote in their own favour.

Preventing the “corruption” Dr Robinson warns about is a critical issue that needs to be addressed when considering the control of New Zealand’s fresh water supplies, given that iwi groups are already claiming ‘partnership’ rights to co-govern decision-making in Labour’s planned reforms.

In his judgment, Justice Churchman makes the distinction between the traditional approach to the law, which sets the rules of law on the one hand, and the underlying values on the other – and tikanga: “In tikanga Maori, the real challenge is to understand the values because it is these values which provide the primary guide to behaviour and not necessarily any ‘rules’ which may be derived from them.”

But as Dr Robinson warns, “The values of traditional Maori society led to widespread killing and a complete collapse before the British were called upon to provide law. The values of the tikanga of today are totally unclear and conflict with those of civilised society. Only a fool would accept these prescriptions.”

If the He Puapua goal of embedding tikanga into the legal system is achieved, the implications – as the Churchman judgement shows – are so destabilising that it is difficult to see how the Common Law can survive.

Finally, when it comes to the question of whether New Zealand needs a new constitution, the Churchman decision highlights the danger.

Under our present ‘unwritten’ constitution Parliament is supreme – if the government get things wrong, they can be held accountable and voted out. But if New Zealand were to introduce a new ‘written’ constitution – as proposed in He Puapua – the judiciary, not Parliament, would be supreme. And if Judges got things wrong, there would be nothing anyone could do.

In 2013, a $4 million attempt by the Maori Party to introduce a Treaty of Waitangi constitution – which would have delivered a perpetual supply of wealth and power to the tribal elite – failed. The NZCPR led the opposition through our Independent Constitutional Review Panel – you can read our final report A House Divided HERE.

I will leave the last word to David Round, who was the Chairman: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Treaty industry is now the self-perpetuating vehicle by which a small greedy and power-hungry clique practises a gigantic con-job on the people of New Zealand. It is time ~ it is long past time ~ that we shake ourselves free from the baleful spell the Treaty industry has cast upon our nation, and calmly and clearly assess the good and ill it has actually done. Our country stands now at a crossroads. To introduce the Treaty into our constitution, with all its inevitable consequences, would be to commit ourselves irrevocably to the path of racial discrimination and hatred, social disruption, poverty and civil strife.”

========================

NEW ZEALAND PM GIVES A MASTERCLASS IN PROPAGANDA

NEW ZEALAND PM GIVES A MASTERCLASS IN PROPAGANDA  By Dr Muriel Newman, 11 June 2021

“It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
– President Abraham Lincoln

When Jacinda Ardern took office in 2017, she promised her government would be the most open and transparent New Zealand had seen.

In her first formal speech to Parliament she pledged: “This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information.”

Since that time, the Government’s “iron grip” on the control of information has tightened and it is harder now than ever to get information.

This is the view of one of New Zealand’s most experienced political journalists, Stuff’s Andrea Vance, who last weekend explained, “In my 20-year plus time as a journalist, this Government is one of the most thin-skinned and secretive I have experienced. Many of my colleagues say the same… It’s now very difficult for journalists to get to the heart and the truth of a story. We are up against an army of well-paid spin doctors. At every level, the Government manipulates the flow of information… Even squeezing basic facts out of an agency is a frustrating, torturous and often futile exercise.”

She explains that since “the current Government took office, the number of communications specialists have ballooned. Each minister has at least two press secretaries. Ardern has four.”

The team assisting the Prime Minister to shape her public image is headed by her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, with former Stuff business editor Ellen Read as his deputy. Essentially, they handle incoming questions for the prime minister, help with speech writing, set up interviews and press conferences, and accompany the PM through media engagements.

In addition, the prime minister’s office not only controls what other members of the Cabinet are saying, but they go to great lengths to “make sure their audience is captured, starting the week and cementing the agenda with a conference call with political editors”.

It is not just politicians that have press secretaries – so too do government departments, and under our PR-savvy Prime Minister, the number is skyrocketing.

In the year Labour took office, the Ministry for the Environment had 10 PR staff – they now have 18. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade more than doubled their staff – up to 25. MBIE blew out from 48 staff to 64, with the New Zealand Transport Agency, which had 26 communications staff five years ago, now employing a staggering 72!

With this PR army promoting an image of government benevolence and attempting to block unwanted scrutiny, even basic requests for information are now being denied.

Andrea Vance describes how attempts by two senior journalists to interview Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, at a time of intense interest in the China-Australia-New-Zealand relationship, were refused – not because of geo-political sensitivities, nor a diary clash, but because “the paranoid and hyper-sensitive minister objected to taking questions from two journalists at once.”

That same Minister, with her local government hat on, had released radical proposals for ‘three waters’ reforms that would essentially centralise the management of drinking water, wastewater, and storm water operations from local councils to mega-agencies, with 50 percent control allocated to private sector tribal corporations. Yet, she “refused to answer detailed questions about the proposed changes”, agreeing to only one interview – with a ‘friendly’ state broadcaster. The whole debacle represented “a serious blow to accountability”.

It turns out that journalists who ask hard questions and challenge the Government’s spin are increasingly being side lined – refused interviews, excluded from press conferences, and ignored at media stand-ups.

Government departments are also being obstructive, refusing to answer Official Information Requests unless ordered to do so by the Ombudsman. As a result, queries that should have been responded to within 20 working days are taking months to answer with much of the information, when it is eventually released, heavily redacted.

These are not the actions of the open and transparent government promised by Jacinda Ardern, but of an increasingly totalitarian regime.

In her article Andrea Vance asks why the difficulties faced by journalists should matter to the public: “Why should you care?”

She then explains, “Because the public’s impression of this government is the very opposite. They see a prime minister that has captivated the world with her ‘authentic’ communication style, intimate social media postings, daily Covid briefings and proactive releases of Cabinet papers. It is an artfully-crafted mirage, because the reality is very different. This is a Government that is only generous with the information that it chooses to share.”

Jacinda Ardern is, of course, a public relations graduate, with a Bachelor of Communication Studies in Public Relations and Political Science from Waikato University.

As a result, when faced with a pandemic and an election in 2020, Prime Minister Ardern’s confidence in the power of PR led her to employ an army of communications experts to help her win the Covid-PR war and the election.

As George Orwell said, if you control the language, you can control the mind, and that is certainly how it all played out. Using carefully crafted lines like “the team of 5 million”, Jacinda Ardern was able to persuade the nation that she was saving lives – and deserved to be re-elected.

Official information revealed that by the end of May 2020, the cost of the PM’s public relations campaign – which had built a formidable propaganda machine involving 28 advertising, marketing and communications contractors – was a staggering $16 million dollars: “The majority was to two firms who are listed as communications directors by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Clemenger BBDO was paid $3m for its role, which involved the clear and concise messaging such as ‘stay home, save lives’. But the biggest earner OMD, a multinational advertising firm… was paid $12m for its role in the response.”

It turns out that everything from “go hard, go early” to the “be kind to each other” messaging was carefully planned, tested, and executed by experts.

At the time, Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking was scathing that so much money was being spent on ‘spin’: “Extraordinary, isn’t it? It shows just how much we got played by a government that was as desperate to score points as it was to actually address a health crisis. Is communication important? Of course. But do you need to pay $16 million for it? No. This wasn’t simple instruction that any government can come up with, this was clearly a highly planned, seriously worked over piece of strategy designed for maximum political impact.

“And the irony is, from the advertising agencies point of view, it worked. We got sucked in, followed orders and came out hailing the Prime Minister with a 59 percent share in a poll. Value for money then? Or a master piece of fantastically expensive spin? Again, we were played like a fiddle.”

Stuff’s Political Editor Luke Malpass agreed: “The Ardern Government has been delivering a masterclass in propaganda since Covid began. It has presented the plan that it formulated as the only feasible option, set up rules and language to prosecute that agenda and rhetorically crushed all opposition. That was buttressed over the months by the fact that the Government’s plan was sound, effectively carried out and delivered comparatively very good results. Labour won a crushing election victory off the back of it.”

Indeed, the $16 million of taxpayers’ money bought Labour a masterly election campaign – by keeping the country’s focus on the virus, and constantly repeating the mantra that it was our team of 5 million that defeated it, they communicated a powerful party line: by sticking together we won the Covid battle and by staying with Labour we will win the battle to rebuild our nation.

Labour’s regular election year focus group polling would have told them that to win over ‘soft’ National voters they needed to shift into the political centre ground and temper their socialist ambitions. As a result, Labour based their election manifesto on their 2017 agenda, and used conservative slogans such as a ‘strong and stable’ government and a ‘steady pair of hands’.

Their PR machine was evident on the campaign trail as political commentator Richard Harman explained at the time: “On the road with Ardern, they had a much more experienced and substantial team. They had two press secretaries with the Prime Minister; National had one. Labour had a professional video crew for social media; National had a staffer with an iPhone. Labour had its former party president and Minister, Ruth Dyson, as its advance person carefully setting up events that Ardern was going to and checking them out to avoid pitfalls. There was little evidence of any advance work [by National].”

After the election, Jacinda Ardern acknowledged that her support had come from across the political spectrum, “To those amongst you who may not have supported Labour before… I say thank you. We will not take your support for granted. And I can promise you, we will be a party that governs for every New Zealander.”

In a media conference the next day, she specifically reassured New Zealanders about the agenda she intended to roll out, saying, “None of it will be new, because we laid the foundations for these next three years in the previous three years.”

But the truth is that much of what Jacinda Ardern has done since the election is new to the public. Not only was her He Puapua report – which provides a blueprint for Maori sovereignty over New Zealand by 2040 – not disclosed to the voters during the campaign, but it’s public release was deliberately delayed until after the election.

It is in this politically-charged environment, that this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, journalist Graham Adams outlines the difficulties in holding a Prime Minister to account, who is PR-driven and, it seems, is prepared to ‘bend the truth beyond breaking point’:

“Jacinda Ardern has offered herself as a hostage to fortune by repeatedly denying that the doctrine of ‘white privilege’ is being taught in schools, or that the teaching curriculum mentions it anywhere, or that it is part of her ‘government’s agenda’.

“She has conceded that white privilege… might have been taught by a teacher somewhere at some time in some school but insists it isn’t official policy.

“In denying that discussing white privilege is an approved part of teaching in schools, evidence shows she may have been bending the truth beyond breaking point. The official education document Te Hurihanganui mentions ‘white privilege’ in its opening paragraphs. The government has funded the programme to the tune of $42 million. Launched in October 2020, it has now been established in numerous schools in Nelson, Te Puke, Porirua and Southland, with more to come.”

Graham points out “For someone who prides herself on mastering the details of her government’s policies, it’s impossible to believe Ardern is simply ill informed or forgetful about Te Hurihanganui’s existence or what it recommends.”

He wonders whether the motivation for the PM’s repeated denials – that leave her open to charges of lying – could be that Labour’s polling is showing a high degree of public disquiet over anti-racism programmes in schools and the imposition of the He Puapua plan for tribal rule.

Perhaps this means the Ardern Government’s “artfully-crafted mirage” that Andrea Vance so eloquently describes, is finally starting to fracture.

Certainly, the fact that the Government is rolling out the radical He Puapua in secret, instead of openly, indicates that even Labour supporters are becoming concerned. If they really understood the truth – the serious threat to democracy that the PM’s separatist agenda represents and the deeply divided society it would create – their opposition and sense of betrayal would intensify.

On this issue, we the majority have the mandate – Jacinda Ardern does not.

=====================

Capitalism Is A Misanthropic, Dystopian Religion

Capitalism Is A Misanthropic, Dystopian Religion  By Caitlin Johnstone, 11 May 2021

Capitalism is a misanthropic, dystopian religion. By “capitalism” I mean this or any other possible system wherein mass-scale human behaviour is driven by the pursuit of capital. By “religion” I mean organized collective faith-based belief system.

In times past the dominant religions had names like “Christianity” or “Islam”, which were used to promote doctrines that shaped societies, dominated civilizations, and built entire empires. Theocratic institutions laboured on behalf of the powerful to bend entire continents to their will, using narratives about beneficent invisible deities as cover. Nowadays the dominant religion is called capitalism, and the theocratic institutions are called governments, and the beneficent deity is called the invisible hand of the market.

In the old religions, people would gather once a week in a building to be indoctrinated by clergymen. In the new religion the clergymen come to indoctrinate you right in the comfort of your own home on screens showing news, TV shows, and Hollywood movies.

And capitalism, like most other religions, has a very bleak view of humanity. Its most vocal zealots talk a lot about “human nature”, which they insist is greedy, self-centred, and competitive.

This belief, like other religious beliefs, is based entirely on blind faith, and it is false. The belief that humans are inherently greedy, self-centred and competitive only feels true to someone who is greedy, self-centred and competitive. As EW Howe said, a thief believes everybody steals.

They claim to be describing “human nature”, but in reality they are only describing their own nature.

The Problem Isn’t Human Nature, The Problem Is A Few Manipulative Sociopaths

“This is an important distinction, because it means we’re not up against some intrinsic aspect of our being here.”

Human nature is not inherently greedy, self-centred and competitive. I look within myself and find an abundance of kindness, caring, and an eagerness to collaborate, and the same is true for many of us. The problem is that some people are greedy, self-centred and competitive, and the very worst of them have succeeded in indoctrinating the rest of us into a religion which upholds these things as virtues instead of severe character flaws. You’re not an exploitative predator, you’re an industrious job creator. You’re not a manipulative sociopath, you’re a senior fellow at an esteemed Washington think tank.

So this religious belief about “human nature” is false. But it’s also a self-fulfilling prophecy which creates the world it describes.

Because capitalist doctrine insists that humans are inherently greedy, self-centred and competitive, its believers cannot imagine any solution to our problems that isn’t driven by greed, selfishness and competition. The idea that we can transcend our propagandized conditioning, our cultural mind viruses and our egoic thought patterns enough to move from our competition-based system into a collaboration-based one looks ridiculous to them, because they believe our nature can only ever be at war. At war with each other, and at war with our ecosystem.

To a thoroughly capitalism-indoctrinated mind, the idea that we can transcend our self-destructive, exploitative, ecocidal patterning and move into collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem to create a healthy, harmonious world looks like childish nonsense. So instead they promote the far more mature and realistic idea that our world will be saved by greedy, union-busting tech oligarchs like Elon Musk.

The Unspoken Premise Of Modern Capitalism Is That The World Will Be Saved By Greedy Tech Oligarchs

“The plutocratic class are not good custodians of our world. They are not good people. They are not wise. They are not even particularly intelligent.”

So now here we are, with the dominant narratives of our age driving us toward nuclear war and climate collapse via the self-fulfilling prophecy that to do otherwise is impossible. The paranoid, misanthropic, eat-or-be-eaten worldview that the capitalist religion has indoctrinated us into espousing has us scrambling over each other for table scraps, stepping on our neighbour’s head to keep our own head above water, saying “If I don’t steal it, someone else will,” and killing the ecosystem we depend on for survival just to make a few bucks, instead of escaping this dystopian death cult and moving toward health.

They are lying to us when they tell us it needs to be this way. The economists are lying. The pundits are lying. The TV shows are lying. The Hollywood movies are lying. Lord of the Flies was lying.

Lord of the Flies came out in 1954, smack-dab in the middle of probably the most culturally dead decade in living memory, a work of fiction which insisted that even innocent children would terrorize and murder each other if left uncommanded by civilizing adult discipline. In 1965 a group of British schoolboys were marooned for 15 months on an island considered uninhabitable, and by the time they were discovered “the boys had set up a small commune with food garden, hollowed-out tree trunks to store rainwater, a gymnasium with curious weights, a badminton court, chicken pens and a permanent fire, all from handiwork, an old knife blade and much determination.” The fiction could not have been more different from the reality.

It does not need to be this way. We do not need to remain locked in this vicious, competition-driven model until we kill ourselves off praying that Daddy Elon will save us and send us to Mars. The rules are all made up, and we can change them whenever we want if enough of us decide that a better world is possible. Money is a conceptual construct. Governments only exist to the extent that we all collectively agree they do. Our entire society is made of narrative. Our world is the product of human imagination.

And we are free to re-imagine it if we want to.

==========================

Port Arthur, Australia – correcting the official narrative of lies

Port Arthur, Australia – correcting the official narrative of lies  By Gil May, posted by CairnsNews.com, 28 April 2021

This letter to the editor was sent to The Courier Mail, News Corp, but not known if it was published: In response to the article by Ellen Whinnett, Courier Mail, on Port Arthur 17 April 2021 “Port Arthur Facts Released By Deeply Concerned Members Of The Tasmanian Bureaucracy”

I always enjoy your articles written by Ellen Whinnett but must comment on Pt Arthur, there is so much more to this story.

I had a chance meeting with a lady in a café years ago. Her name was (the late) Wendy Scurr, she was a tour guide at Pt Arthur on the day of the shooting, she was having refreshment in the kitchen of the Broad Arrow café when the shooting started.

She looked over the counter to see what was happening, she did not recognise the shooter who was shooting from the hip pointing the gun and shooting and not with the gun at his shoulder where you look along the barrel to sight it.  She knows Martin Bryant and said it was not him, she was not allowed to give evidence, the police told her she was not needed that they had more than enough evidence already?

She and the others working in the kitchen hid behind the counters.  At that time there was a local resident and retired police detective with his wife and another couple who were their guests seated at a table in the corner, they put two tables up as a barricade and hid behind them — the detective knew Martin very well and said unequivocally that it was not him as the shooter had a deeply pock marked face, he also noted the gun being fired from the hip and killing people without sighting it.  The Police refused to let him give evidence?

We all commented at the time that PM Howard and the press were in breach of law stating Bryant was definitely guilty, guilt can only be determined by a court — those words led to the condemnation of him in everyone’s eyes.  There should have been charges laid over that issue, but it was ignored as many issues are to protect others.  Bryant was guilty and may he rot in Hell was universally accepted, long before any Court or Inquest procedure.

At all times understand he is intellectually disabled with a mind of about a 11-year-old. The law requires that he must have a guardian with him at all times, that never occurred and other serious breaches occurred, but as he was already declared guilty, application of law, procedures and requirements did not matter.

Whether Martin Bryant is guilty or not he should have been afforded due legal process as mandated by the Constitution and a full coronial inquiry should have been held, which on the finding of the limited inquiry held in Tasmania may well have uncovered a great deal more evidence of frightening consequence to the people — so was blocked.

Two Victorian politicians who were family friends of long standing told me their inquiry identified the serial number of AR15 used in the shooting was traced back to the 1987 Melbourne gun amnesty , the firearm originally owned by (Bill Drysdale from Yae, VictoriaEd ) was acquired by the Victoria S.O.G’s which is not unusual, they get to keep certain firearms and use them for police work, the part that is not okay is the firearm ending up in Port Arthur nine years later. They said it was common knowledge governments were involved — they (politicians) were told they would face police and ATO investigation into every aspect of their lives and lose their seat in Parliament if they spoke out?

The question we all must ask is how did an 11-year-old organise and carry out the incidents — what incidents you ask. So, I identify just a few hereunder that I found of extreme concern with all pointing to a very, very, well planned, and organised incident.   After reading them, check them out for authenticity, satisfy your own analytical thinking to make sure that I am not misleading you.

Maybe I should tell you what aroused my interest: In the press reports at the time were too many giving widely conflicting information and facts — logic is they should have all been very similar as they all reported the same incident, but there were many factual variances — in such cases as still occurs in reporting I take the view of ‘watch this space and be very observant’ for more information will eventually arise — as it always does and the press try to hide the original stuff-ups and false writings.

The commonwealth bank employee that was in the cafe recognized the gunman and stood up and yelled “not in here” before the gunman shot and killed him (he was also an ex ASIO agent)

22 body refrigerated mortuary truck parked near Port Arthur prior to the incident

Investigations that do not answer all base questions on how an issue originated cannot get a correct answer.  Highly suspicious individual sections must be examined in minute detail and those involved tested under oath. Indelible evidentiary material fully identifies prior planning for the delivery of an Embalming Box and equipment to be on sight: and for the purchase and special construction of a Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with 22-body refrigerated Mortuary – the only one in Australia. The orders for these items the ‘Embalming Box and equipment’ and the ‘22-body refrigerated Mortuary  Truck’ would have had to be placed months before the event for them to have been on-site waiting for the Port Arthur massacre to occur.  Read more on this truck [HERE]

FACT 1. Those who placed the orders knew of the planned event.

  • Why have AFP, Government and Press NOT demanded a Royal Commission and STEPHEN SHANE PARRY put under oath to explain his apparent prior knowledge to order and have on site an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident?
  • Stephen Parry former President of the Senate wrote within: –

AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report appears on pages 104 to 119 of said book. On the top of page 104, the name Stephen Parry as Team Leader wrote on Page 112. “I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment. The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well. I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.”

He says that the funeral services company Nelson Brothers had: “organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident.” There is no uncertainty in his words. Said equipment was large, possessed significant design specifications, and was made prior to and for the incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania. He knew this in 1997. He possibly knew these facts in 1996 at the time he worked as the leader of a team responsible for embalming bodies (c.25) of the victims of the Port Arthur shooting incident.

Q.2. Why did the Tasmanian Government order in June 1995 and have specially built a 22-body refrigerated Mortuary Truck the only one in Australia, ten months before the Port Arthur massacre; and was placed on sale in September 1999? Why has no one been put under oath to explain why this was ordered and delivered prior to the event, who ordered and paid for it?

Mortuary truck for sale

The actual advertisement and photograph:

22-BODY VEHICLE FOR SALE

Genuine Enquiries Only

Vehicle for Sale. Genuine Enquiries only.  Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with refrigerated body, holds 22, this vehicle was primarily used as the disaster vehicle in the Port Arthur Massacre. This vehicle is currently for sale and all reasonable offers will be considered. The vehicle has value as not only a refrigerated unit for body removal, it is the only one of its kind in the entire country. The memorabilia value of it for anyone making a movie/series or writing a book on Port Arthur is limitless. Not only would the purchaser be getting the disaster vehicle, but the whole Port Arthur Story would be given as well.

This vehicle is currently for sale and all REASONABLE OFFERS will be considered.

FACT.2.

The Mortuary Truck was ordered ten months beforehand — who placed the order and who paid for it, and who got the money from the sale of it?

Ellen, now some heavy thinking for you — How did an intellectually handicapped boy with a low IQ organise the following.

  1.      Nelson Brothers in Victoria had special big-job embalming equipment “manufactured ready for the incident.” Why did the government specially order such beforehand?
  2.      Martin Bryant organised for senior Port Arthur staff to go away on a Work Seminar so they wouldn’t get hurt.
  3.      He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in place two days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.
  4.      He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch up all the wounded quickly.
  5.      He arranged for helicopter pilots – usually unavailable – to be available that Sunday.
  6.      He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was at a service station 57 kilometres away.
  7.      He decoyed the local police to be at the opposite end of the peninsula at the exact moment the shooting began.
  8.      He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there at 12.45pm.
  9.      He managed not to look like himself – as if wearing a woman’s wig – when being filmed in the car park by tourists.
  10.  He wore a face mask making his face look pockmarked when shooting in the cafe.
  11.  He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards so people wouldn’t think it was him who did it.
  12.  He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that afternoon and make it appear she had been killed that morning.
  13.  He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was downstairs talking to police on the phone.
  14.  He had infrared night vision eyes.
  15.  He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the siege.
  16.  He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling at police and get severe burns only on his back.
  17.  He managed to have the world press to have a convention in Hobart on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get better than usual media coverage.
  18.  He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.
  19.  He managed to make it appear Tasmania Police had fabricated and tampered with evidence.
  20.  He managed to get the Tasmanian DPP to lie to the Court about his activities.
  21.  He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him and get Channel Nine To fabricate a video – all while in custody.
  22.  He fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege by police at Seascape.
  23.  If you believe the official version, his marksmanship was fantastic – twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds!  A movement of 3 degrees would have missed at 3 -4 meters.
  24.  There are only about 100 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the world.
  25.  US news TV published a film of Bryant running between the buildings — in the background was a large blue boat: That blue boat had left two days beforehand.
  26. All done by an intellectually handicapped young man with an IQ of 66 and the mental age of an eleven-year-old boy.

Everyone knows Bryant was guilty including you, but all you know is what the media printed, as they did not have access to the full files that were kept hidden they could NOT have printed all the facts.

The overwhelming disgust of people within the Tasmanian bureaucracy to the deliberate cover-up withholding crucial evidence from the Court to pervert the course of justice, was so great they progressively released files to Dr Keith Noble who compiled the facts for us to read. As YOU DO NOT KNOW the facts as they were hidden, and the Tasmanian government went in to panic mode of what would happen if the public ever knew hurriedly placed a 30-year secrecy ban.

Researcher Dr Keith Noble On Why Martin Bryant Could Not Have Carried Out 1996 Port Arthur Massacre!   Verrrrrry Interesting indeed.

A Royal Commission is obviously required to get these answers – only when these questions are answered and included can the investigation reach a correct verdict of honesty to the victims’ families and the Australian people.

Sincerely

Gil May

Forestdale

EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

Royal Commissions are government controlled kangaroo courts where the outcome is defined first, then the appointment of a controlled government commissioner. The terms of reference exclude any embarrassing exposure or harmful evidenced being submitted and finally prepare guidelines for the commissioner’s findings and report. This formula has been applied to all Royal Commission but in any case governments are not obligated to act on the findings which make the whole exercise futile.

A Coronial Inquiry should be started immediately.

===================

THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM IN NZ


THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM IN NZ  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 22 April 2021

“Totalitarianism: form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica

Under Jacinda Ardern’s stewardship, New Zealand is becoming a totalitarian state.

Another giant leap down that path was announced last week in the form of a Cabinet paper outlining plans to criminalise free speech. But before we examine the detail, let’s remind ourselves of two other significant expansions of State authority that are already underway.

The first involves State control of the entire economy under the guise of ‘climate change’.

As a result of the Prime Minister imposing the harshest carbon restrictions in the world onto New Zealand, the Climate Commission is foreshadowing the need for nation-wide central planning, if the country is to meet our obligations under the United Nations Paris Agreement.

But the question is, why is our Prime Minister sacrificing our economy and living standards, when most other countries are doing nothing? Surely it can’t just be to look good when standing before the United Nations – or can it?

Shouldn’t the PM be held accountable, not to the UN, but to New Zealanders, for the economic damage she is inflicting onto our country?

The second area of totalitarian control involves the undermining of democracy itself. The Ardern Government has already abolished our democratic right to prevent local councils from introducing Maori wards. Now they are replacing democracy with separatist rule.

According to their He Puapua report, the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be enacted by 2040. To achieve that goal, our constitution will be replaced with one that elevates the Treaty of Waitangi into supreme law, Maori tikanga will replace the common law, and the country will be governed through a 50:50 Crown-Maori ‘partnership’. Under what will, in effect, become a tribal dictatorship, democracy will cease to exist.

It’s time to say “No”! To defend democracy and equal rights we have launched a “Declaration of Equality” – to find out more, please click
HERE.

The Prime Minister is now embarking on an even more threatening assault on our freedom – this time on our freedom of speech.

New Zealanders’ right to free speech is enshrined in section 14 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

That freedom is limited by the 1993 Human Rights Act. Section 61 makes it a civil offence to express “threatening, abusive, or insulting” opinions that are likely “to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons… on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.”

Under Section 131 intentionally inciting hostility is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to $7,000. However, as a public safeguard, such prosecutions need the approval of the Attorney-General.

According to the Human Rights Commission New Zealanders’ right to make controversial or offensive remarks is not undermined by these laws – they only restrict those who are inciting serious ethnic tension or unrest: “Only where there is the potential for significant detriment to society can the right to freedom of expression be limited.”

While prosecutions have been rare, many other constraints on free speech also exist.

The regulators dealing with complaints about published material are the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the New Zealand Press Council.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act covers complaints about texts, emails, social media, and website content, with offenders facing up to two years in prison or fines of up to $50,000.

Threats of physical violence or harm are covered by the Crimes Act. Section 307A stipulates that threats made against people or property that cause “significant disruption of the activities of the civilian population” are an offence with a penalty of up to seven years in prison.

In 2019, following the Christchurch tragedy, then Minister of Justice Andrew Little announced a review “to examine whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech. The process should not be rushed, and I expect a report for public comment towards the end of the year… Protecting our crucially important right to freedom of speech, while testing whether the balance is right regarding ‘hate speech’, needs a robust public discussion from all quarters. This way we will ensure that all of our citizens’ rights are protected, and every person can express their humanity without fear.”

The promised public consultation never eventuated. Instead of an open and transparent process,  secret discussions were held with groups campaigning for harsher laws.

The Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite claimed hate speech was a “tricky thing” to navigate. They wanted to keep discussions “away from the political fray”, to prevent them being “derailed” and to “avoid protests”.

In the end, New Zealand First refused to support any restrictions of New Zealanders’ right to free speech. As a result, Labour promised a law change in their 2020 election manifesto: “Labour will extend legal protections for groups that experience hate speech, including for reasons of religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation, by ensuring that we prohibit speech that is likely to incite others to feel hostility or contempt towards these groups under the Human Rights Act.”

Their plan was to use the Human Rights Act to provide statutory protection to groups based not only on ‘race’, but on religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation as well.

Just after the election, the Royal Commission into the Christchurch shootings released its report including proposals to strengthen hate speech laws.

They recommended criminalising anyone deliberately inciting hostility by inserting section 131 of the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act, increasing the penalties from three months in jail to at least two years, including ‘religion’ as a protected characteristic alongside ‘race’, and broadening the scope of ‘hate speech’ from an intent to ‘incite’ hostility to an intent to ‘stir’ it up.

But this week’s NZCPR Guest Contributor political commentator Chris Trotter is questioning the Government’s plan to enact Royal Commission recommendations to restrict our freedom, when nothing could have stopped the ‘lone wolf’ attack:

“Though bitterly contested by those firmly convinced that the Christchurch Mosque Shootings represent something more than the crime of a Lone Wolf terrorist, the Royal Commission’s finding that no state agency could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly intent – except by chance – is correct. He understood that, for his ‘mission’ to succeed, he must do nothing to draw the attention of the authorities – and, God help us all, he didn’t.

“Against such careful and pitiless premeditation, all the laws on our statute books are powerless. The state can punish Lone Wolves, but it cannot stop them. In attempting to minimise the terrorist threat, however, the state can eliminate our freedoms.”

Chris warns: “When Governments extend the state’s power to monitor their citizens’ ideas and activities, we should all be on our guard. Even when such extensions are introduced in response to a terrorist atrocity, we need to ask ourselves: would these new powers have prevented it?”

And that’s precisely what should be in our mind as we examine the proposed restrictions on free speech outlined by the new Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi in his Cabinet paper.

First of all, he wants all free speech breaches criminalised – not just the deliberate calls to incite hostility recommended by the Royal Commission, but the unintentional ones as well.

Second, he wants to adopt the Royal Commission’s proposal for the law to be widened to include an intent to “stir up” hatred.

Third, he wants the penalties strengthened from three months in jail to three years – even though the Royal Commission recommended two years – with fines increased from $7,000 to $50,000.

Fourth, while the Royal Commission recommended increasing the legal protection from groups based on ‘race’ to include ‘religion’ as well, the Minister wants it expanded to include “all groups listed under the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21 of the Human Rights Act”.

That means that under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government, you will not only have to mind your Ps and Qs when it comes to discussing race and religion, but also sex, marital status, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation as well.

In fact, it seems the only group that will not be protected by Minister Faafoi’s new law will be white able-bodied working age males!

But it gets worse.

It appears the Ardern Government is planning on using these law changes to massively expand the concept of ‘incitement to discriminate’. The Minister explained his intention as follows: “Examples of inciting discrimination of a group include encouraging their exclusion or unfavourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, rental housing, or employment. In my view, as it is unlawful to discriminate against population groups, it should also be unlawful to incite others to discriminate against these groups.”

Landlords and employers should beware – if someone alleges unfavourable treatment it appears the Police may well come knocking!

Many other changes are proposed by Minister Faafoi, including some that are being withheld from the public. One in particular deals with the complaints process – paragraph 51 of the Cabinet paper ends with, “Groups spoken with also expressed their desire to address discrimination and hate speech in society more broadly than just through the incitement process”; but how that is to be put into effect in paragraph 52, is fully redacted.

With the chilling effect these proposed changes would have on society plain to see, and George Orwell’s warning, “If you control the language, you control the mind” ringing out loud and clear, is paragraph 52 proposing a new department of Thought Police?

In Jacinda Ardern’s totalitarian State, few New Zealanders will speak their mind for fear of a criminal prosecution. It will be a very ominous day for New Zealand when the Police are given the power to become the enforcement unit of politicians and activists against those expressing contrary opinions.

Through the imposition of State authority over the economy using carbon regulations, over democracy through separatist rule, and over free speech using hate speech laws, New Zealand is becoming a shadow of the vibrant and free society it used to be.

Let’s be absolutely clear – these changes herald the most dramatic expansion of the influence of government in New Zealand’s history, and it’s happening at an extraordinary pace while Jacinda Ardern’s socialist government has a three year window of unbridled control. It is also happening with very limited scrutiny given the lack of independence in the media and a lack of transparency from the government itself.

While all of these changes are seismic, the threat to the freedom of expression is the most ominous. Free speech is essence of a free society. It is the very oxygen of a democracy and individuality. Free speech is how knowledge is developed and shared, and it remains the most effective bulwark against tyranny.

As the former Minister of Justice Andrew Little explained, “Protecting freedom of speech is vital to hold those in authority to account, challenge the socially and culturally dominant, and enable society to progress. Freedom of speech can give force to new ideas, but also cause discomfort and offence. It is usually the first right to be lost under oppressive regimes, and among the first to be restored, at least in name, after revolutionary change.”

With these proposals having been approved by Cabinet, it is clear that under Jacinda Ardern’s controlling regime, she is planning to not only take away our right to criticise others, but also our right to criticise her and her Party. Including ‘political opinion’ as a protected characteristic in hate speech laws puts New Zealand on a course to become the North Korea of Oceania.

 

====================

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism  By Robert Bridge, The Strategic Culture Foundation, via Zerohedge 2 Dec 2020

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism Sporting A Smiley Shirt And Armed With A Syringe

The globalists responsible for engineering a medical tyranny across much of the Western world have something valuable to teach right-wing nationalists and would-be fascists, and that is you don’t sell your damaged product out of the barrel of a machine gun, but rather dripping from the end of a syringe that promises to end all pain and misery.

 

Patrick Henry, one of America’s more outspoken Founding Fathers, famously remarked “give me liberty or give me death” when the life of his nation was on the line.

Today, America’s famous battle cry has been replaced by a masked and muffled gasp that advises, without hope of a second opinion, “give me lockdowns and keep me safe.”

So terrified is the American public of catching a virus that comes with a 99 percent survival rate that they are willing to forego Thanksgiving, the great national holiday commemorating – with no loss of irony – their Pilgrim ancestors’ collective courage to overcome the wild, hostile conditions of their new land.

It must be said that no fascist party has ever been so adept when it came to sealing the collective fate of their people to a common enemy. That’s because the threat facing mankind today, or so we are told, is not some nefarious ideology, like communism, or even a terrorist organization that the masses can be rallied to fight. Rather, the threat is a microscopic contagion that is capable of invading every nook and cranny of our lives. Already the age of manly handshakes is over, replaced by an emasculated majority, while an entire generation of youth now looks at their fellow human beings as infernal germ factories.

And unlike a traditional enemy that can be seen, attacked and eventually defeated, the coronavirus – we have been oddly forewarned – will make landfall again and again, while regularly morphing with comic book abilities into an increasingly deadlier villain. In this landless battle, only the medical authorities are decorated as heroes, while the people, lacking the professional credentials, are forced to be passive and helpless onlookers, their freedom of movement severely constrained. More importantly, the forces of nationalism have become irrelevant; only a globalist, one-world-order response can defeat this pandemic.

There is very good reason to suspect, however, that either the science on all of this is half-baked, or we the people are being intentionally duped on a grand scale. In fact, it’s probably a little bit of both. First, relying on nothing more than empirical evidence, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that there is no existential emergency confronting mankind. If there were, we would expect to see decomposing bodies piling up in the streets, like in the medieval times during the Black Plague. This would be especially the case among the homeless population, which is certainly not practicing social distancing etiquette as they pass around open containers on street corners.

Nor does there seem to be any massive queuing up at hospitals for emergency treatment. In fact, as early as April, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told President Trump that the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort deployed to New York City by the federal government to help fight the coronavirus outbreak was “no longer needed”. Cuomo said the need for the support vessel “didn’t reach the levels that had been projected.” And I am certainly not the only one who has noticed that Covid cases seem to fluctuate curiously with the political climate.

Let’s not forget that the overwhelming majority of Covid ‘victims’ recover nicely at home, according to no less of an authority than Anthony Fauci. At the same time, many people who acquire the disease are asymptomatic and never even knew they were infected. Children, meanwhile, seem amazingly impervious to the virus. That is not to say that there has been no sign of a virus this winter season. Of course there has been, just like every year. But while Covid cases may be on the rise in some places, and invisible in others, the death rate from this illness remains low and tumbling, predominantly hitting elderly people already suffering from comorbidities.

There are other reasons to be suspicious that what we are dealing with is not a first-class medical emergency, but rather something much more sinister. Like maybe an excuse for rolling out a Western-made vaccine that carries a microchip implant with tracking technology? Such a claim will sound less fantastic when it is realized that it has already been developed.

It is no secret that just one month before Covid-19 made its dramatic landfall in the United States, purportedly from Wuhan, China, MIT researchers announced a new method for recording a patient’s vaccination history: storing the smartphone-readable data under the skin at the same time a vaccine is administered.

“By selectively loading microparticles into microneedles, the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed,” MIT News reported.

“The patch can be customized to imprint different patterns that correspond to the type of vaccine delivered.”

Would it surprise anyone to know that the research was funded largely by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the same family venture that now provides the bulk of funding to the World Health Organization?

Then, in September 2019, ID2020, a San Francisco-based biometric company that counts Microsoft as one of its founding members, announced a new project that involves the “exploration of multiple biometric identification technologies for infants” that is based on “infant immunization.”

We could continue here with a long list of other disturbing technologies that would effectively turn people into walking antennae for the rest of their lives, but the point is hopefully clear: although many people might be willing to accept a vaccine against Covid-19, they probably do not want the extra technological add-ons that people like Bill Gates, a man with zero medical qualifications, seem extremely anxious to include.

Bottom of Form

So what can Americans expect next? How about ‘Freedom Passes’ that Britons may need before they are able to return to some semblance of normalcy?

According to the Daily Mail, “Britons are set to be given Covid ‘freedom passes’ as long as they test negative for the virus twice in a week, it has been suggested…To earn the freedom pass, people will need to be tested regularly and, provided the results come back negative, they will then be given a letter, card or document they can show to people as they move around.”

And this is what they call a “return to normalcy.”

Personally, I call those plans the approach of fascism. And for those who doubt that it could not happen in America should heed the words of the late sagacious comedian George Carlin, who once quipped that “when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts.” Had Carlin been alive today to see the tremendous mess we’ve inherited, he would most likely have included a syringe in the neo-fascist’s toolkit.

=====================

A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom

A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 7 November 2020

A victory for Joe Biden would embolden the regressive woke elites across the Western world.

Make America Boring Again. Remarkably, this has become the rallying cry of many in the Joe Biden camp. ‘Vote Biden and make the presidency boring again’, instructs the New York Daily News. ‘The delightful boringness of Joe Biden’, as Vox puts it. ‘Joe Biden is a boring candidate. That’s why he is doing well’, says a writer for the Guardian. After the fire and the fury and the lies and the bluster of the first Trump term, what America needs right now is a big ol’ ‘dose of monotony’, says one observer.

This all captures what is motoring the extraordinarily uniform pro-Biden outlook across the old political establishment, the media class and the celebrity set. Every now and then these people will use words like ‘renewal’ to describe a Biden presidency. They even occasionally claim he is riding on a similar wave of ‘HOPE’ to the one that swept Obama to power in 2008.

But in truth, at root, what the cultural elites love about Biden is that he would render politics dull again. He would help to restore calm and normalcy and, most importantly, order. More specifically, he will restore the order, the old order, the pre-Trump order in which politics was a fundamentally boring, technical, managerial affair, the business of educated elites rather than of loudmouth populists and the swarms of excitable people who come to hear them and cheer them. Make no mistake: the celebration of Biden’s tedium speaks to an elitist longing to drain the popular democratic spark from political life and return politics to the aloof, bureaucratic clerisy who had been running things before Trump came along.

The most important thing about Joe Biden is not the man himself – it is what has been invested in him by the establishment. This is why those who go on about Biden’s age and his bouts of mental confusion and the stark possibility that he wouldn’t survive a four-year presidency are kind of missing the point. Biden, for the purposes of this election, this election that the elites tell us is the most important of everyone’s lifetime, is not a politician; he’s a mascot. He’s a flag. He’s a largely symbolic figure, primarily symbolising Not Trump and Not Populism, whose presence in the White House will, the old establishment hopes, help to embolden their efforts to rebalance politics away from the frankness and populism of the last four years and return it to what a writer for the Los Angeles Times refers to as the ‘expertise’ of the pre-Trump era, which is apparently preferable to ‘the authenticity’ of a political figure like Trump.

So what will happen today is not really a normal election. Rather, it is an attempted restoration. A restoration not of monarchy but of technocracy; not of a king but of the status quo ante and its conduct of politics in a removed, disconnected way. Not only in the US but across Europe and elsewhere in the world, the political and moral clerisy see the restoration of their preferred order in the US as an essential first step in their longed-for rollback of the populist rebellions of the past few years. This is why spiked thinks a victory for Joe Biden will be a disaster for the world – because it would further embolden the most regressive, anti-democratic, woke strains in Western political life. If Biden wins, we all lose.

One of the most revealing justifications for voting for Biden is that he would relieve people of the burden of thinking about politics. As one writer says, the main horror of the Trump era is that it made ‘politics and government’ into ‘the omnipresent centre of gravity in our daily lives’. With a monster like Trump in the White House, many people, apparently, could think about little else other than politics and what a shitshow it had become courtesy of the ‘deplorables’ who elevated Trump to power. And the great thing about Biden’s rule is that it ‘promises to return the outsized stature of politics to its rightfully diminutive place’ (my italics). Diminutive: extremely or unusually small. That is the presence politics should have in most people’s lives, apparently: an infinitesimally small one. Don’t think about politics – just let other people get on with it. And that is what Biden promises – ‘a government you simply don’t have to think about all that often’.

This has become a common cry in the vast pro-Biden lobby. It is a central component of the Make Politics Boring Again worldview. They want a world where most people – ordinary people – don’t have to worry themselves about issues of governance. They can just leave that stuff, the business of the national destiny, to the competent classes (‘competence’, alongside ‘boring’, is another buzzword of the Biden lobby). As the Los Angeles Times says, this election is really a reckoning between ‘experts’ and the ‘authentics’. The experts are the likes of Hillary Clinton and, latterly, Joe Biden (eight years in the Obama administration ‘boosted his expert credentials’, says the LA Times), and the ‘authentics’ are people like Trump. And what we need to restore is ‘the expertise’ and ‘reliance on science’ of that pre-Trump class, against ‘the feral frankness’ of the Trump era, the LA Times says.

So the wave of pro-Biden sentiment among vast swathes of the establishment is not merely about changing policy in the White House, as most elections are. (Indeed, it is striking how much of the pro-Biden commentary says Biden’s policies don’t actually matter. ‘It’s not the policies that count’, as the Guardian says.) Rather, it is about negating the ‘feral’ populism of recent years and restoring the rightful rule of the smart set, of those who can be trusted to govern while the rest of us just get on with our lives and never think about politics. A Biden presidency is a ‘protest against protest’, in the words of the Guardian. That is, it would be a protest against the protest votes cast by vast numbers of ordinary people in 2016 for a different, more democratic way of doing politics. There’s a word for ‘protest against protest’, of course: counter-protest, or counterrevolution. That is what the elite Biden wave represents: a counterrevolution against the populist cries and democratic demands of the 2016 era.

‘Feral’ means having escaped from domestication and become wild. That is how much of the cultural and media elites view the masses in the post-2016 era: we disobediently broke free of the domesticating force of managerial politics and became beast-like, ignorantly voting for Trump or Brexit. The Biden reaction, the Biden counterrevolution, is fundamentally a project of redomestication, of returning the masses to the tamed state in which they do not concern themselves with politics and instead leave it to ‘America’s system of checks and balances’, as The Economist says in its pro-Biden leader.

If successful, this ‘protest against protest’, this elitist reaction against the feral demands of the people for change, would be bad not only for America but for other parts of the world, too. It would be particularly bad for the Brexit spirit. We know that Biden is hostile to Brexit, viewing it as a Trump-like phenomenon. We know that he is keen to reward the European Union for its steadfastness in the face of the Brexit revolt and of the various challenges to its authority from the East, especially from Poland and Hungary. The masses’ democratic impulse would suffer both in the US and in Europe if the self-consciously domesticating force of technocracy is restored to power in Washington, DC.

The desire to make politics diminutive again, to return decision-making to ‘the experts’, speaks to the overarching aim of the technocratic impulse – to insulate political life from the pressure of the masses. The elite meltdown of the past four years, in both the US and the UK, has been motored by a great fear that the votes for Trump and Brexit tore away the insulation of politics from popular pressure. This project of insulation had been taking shape for decades, in the form of the European Union, of the increased juridification of political decision-making, of quangos and checks and balances. In questioning the authority of the EU and the expertise of the Clinton-style establishment, British and American voters started to pull apart this insulation and make the case for more direct forms of democracy and decision-making. The ‘delightful boringness’ of Biden, his promise to make politics ‘diminutive’ again, his implicit invitation to ‘the experts’ to take authority back from ‘the authentics’, is fundamentally a project of restoring the insulation between politics and the masses. This will be a deeply concerning backward step for democracy.

The restoration of the pre-2016 order would not only insulate public life from people’s feral political demands but also from our cultural and moral values. It would redomesticate the masses morally as well as politically. A Biden victory would embolden the woke mobs of the new elite and their tyranny of cancel culture. Under the imperfect instrument of Trump’s often crude, narcissistic presidency, ordinary people have had a mechanism through which they could express their disdain for the eccentric, divisive, identitarian crusades of the new elites, on everything from transgenderism to the nonsense of ‘white privilege’. The defeat of Trump, the removal of one of the few anti-woke leaders in the West, would green-light the intensification of those crusades. We should expect to see an even keener assault on the apparently outdated family values and community concerns of the ‘deplorable’ sections of society by a newly emboldened elite.

Trump’s victory fundamentally represented a rude intrusion by ordinary people into the democratic life of America. It was an assertion of their democratic, moral concerns against an establishment that wasn’t only not listening to them but which was treating them with open contempt and hostility. The elite Biden wave is about reversing this rude intrusion and returning the people to their apparently natural state: one in which their role is merely to be governed, not to think about government. You might not want Trump to win, and that’s fine. But you should want Biden to lose. A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

=============================

“Capitalism” Is No Longer Attractive To Capitalists

 

Capitalism Is No Longer Attractive To Capitalists  By Charles Hugh Smith, vai OfTwoMinds blog, Zerohedge, 31 October 2020

This “capitalism” is only attractive to parasites, predators, kleptocrats, legalized looters, embezzlers, fraudsters and all those insiders whose palms get greased along the way.

Back of the envelope definition of classical capitalism:

  1. Transparency in markets, including pricing, information on quality and reliability of products, sellers and buyers, and of rules of conduct and rights governing all participants;
  2. Risk is tightly bound to reward, i.e. everyone has skin in the game, those who lose are forced to absorb the entire loss.
  3. Open competition, i.e. no monopolies or cartels limiting supply or setting prices;
  4. Free flow of capital and labor;
  5. Everyone pays the same rates of taxes, duties and fees on every transaction.

Needless to say, what is presented as “capitalism” in America today is not actually capitalism; it is monopoly-state-socialism for the wealthy, a kleptocracy incompetently cloaked by a rigged simulacrum market in which risk and losses are transferred to the debt-serfs and tax donkeys and the “socialism for the rich and powerful” is enforced by a pay-to-play simulacrum democracy and kleptocratic, totalitarian central bank, the Federal Reserve.

In this winner take most, anything goes if you’re rich casino, the weaker players are ruthlessly stripmined and exploited and those enterprises without political protection are cannibalized by rapacious, predatory monopolies and cartels.

Parasitic elites take a skim from every table: student loans over here, state junk fees over there; everyone gets clipped by self-serving insiders and entrenched interests.

Transparency is an illusion. Complexity thickets protect monopolies and cartels, and the fine print… try getting a set price for healthcare services. (You must be joking.) Sign the form for the $30 oil change and come back to an $800 bill for “work you authorized.” (You didn’t read the fine print? Too bad.)

Quality has gone downhill across the board but there’s no recourse or competition. All the items regardless of brand come from the same factory in China. So what if your new oven turns on by itself randomly (true story, happened to me); the once-proud American brand’s warranty is only one year, so tough luck, bucko, the repair bill for the defective $5 sensor will cost you as much as a new range.

In American “capitalism,” the name of the game is scale up with cheap debt supplied by the Federal Reserve, use the “Fed free money” to buy up any potential competitors and then start buying back your own shares, jacking your share price even as sales and profits stagnate. (Charts of Apple below).

Once you’re too big to fail or jail, then you can gamble to your heart’s content because all the winnings will be yours to keep and if you lose big, the Fed or the Treasury will step in and transfer the losses to the debt-serfs and tax donkeys.

In America, as Warren Buffett jacks up the price of Sees candy, etc. to maximize his profits and add more billions to his net worth, and Amazon uses its quasi-monopoly power to relentlessly jack up the price of Prime membership, nobody asks Warren or Jeff “don’t you have enough already?”

The answer is “no”. It’s never enough, because as long as the Fed and federal government enforce, enable or allow your monopoly, quasi-monopoly or cartel to kill transparency and competition, and offer you limitless “Fed free money” while students pay 8% on their loans, then why not add another $10 billion to your personal wealth?

Go ahead and lie, cheat, embezzle, rig markets, commit fraud, collude–everything is allowed if you’re a powerful corporation because all your execs have get out of jail free cards from the Department of Justice. Nobody in Corporate America ever goes to prison no matter how egregious the fraud or theft. And you get to keep all the loot, other than a wrist-slap fine if you’re caught. But that’s just a modest cost of doing business in American “capitalism.”

If this “capitalism” was actually attractive to capitalists, why would everyone pile into the same six Big Tech monopolies? Is that really the only opportunity left to “create shareholder value,” to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in “Fed free money” into a handful of Big Tech monopolies?

Paraphrasing the late Immanuel Wallerstein, “Capitalism” is no longer attractive to capitalists. This “capitalism” is only attractive to parasites, predators, kleptocrats, legalized looters, embezzlers, fraudsters and all those insiders whose palms get greased along the way.

If you think this “capitalism” is sustainable, the future holds a big surprise.

=======================

Previous articles

    • the-snobbish-nastiness-and-division-perpetuated-by-gender-studies-experts  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 16 November 2016
    • at-last-the-pontificating-media-elites-are-trumped  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 15 November 2016
    • trigger-warning-freedom-of-speech-not-welcome  Editorial, The Australian, 8 October
    • lies-and-propaganda-of-the-supranational-elites  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 31 October 2016
    • taxpayer-funded-activism-undermining-the-nation  The Australian editorial, 24 October 2016
    • the-war-on-free-speech-has-just-begun  By Mark Steyn, The Australian, 19 October
    • cultural-totalitarianism-of-the-postmodern-era-did-the-impossible-it-changed-the-very-nature-of-man-and-woman  By Alexander Maistrovoy, 17  October 2016
    • offended-left-claims-exclusive-right-to-freedom-of-expression  By Gerard Henderson, The Australian, 15 October 2016
    • road-to-tyranny-is-paved-with-leftie-assumptions  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 27 September 2016
    • protecting-americas-children-from-police-state-goons-bureaucratic-idiots-mercenary-creeps  By John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute, 22 September 2016
    • free-speech-inimical-to-lefts-stifling-orthodoxies  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 21 September 2016
    • swamped-by-outdated-multicultural-model  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 20 September 2016
    • egressive-left-puts-bigotry-and-militant-islam-on-a-pedestal  By Peter Baldwin, previously a minister in the Hawke and Keating Labor governments.  The Australian, 17 September 2016
    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • Parents allowed tough love  By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 1 September 2016
    • George Soros evil influence on Western politics  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 22 August 2016
    • What Became of the Left  Paul Craig Roberts, Institute for Political Economy, 20 August 2016
    • 21st-century Left waging new war on free speech  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 15 August 2015
    • Denial of speech is one step towards totalitarianism  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 25 July 2016
    • Generation Snowflake  By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 21 July 2016
    • A march against democracy  By Tom Slater, Spikes Online, 10 July 2016
    • Australia’s unprotected rebel against the political elites  By Grace Collier, The Australian, 9 July 2016
    • Australia’s politics in disarray  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 7 July 2016
    • Censorship is not education  By Julian Tomlinson – the Cairns Post, 30 June 2016
    • Brexit, this is what democracy feels like  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 25 June
    • No offence – but harden up!  By Julian Tomlinson – the Cairns Post, 23 June 2016
    • The Brazen Left’s Bid to Kill Quadrant By Jeremy Sammut, Quadrant Online, 1 June
    • How to raise boys and avoid PC nonsense  By Julian Tomlinson – the Cairns Post, 26 May 2016
    • The Greens, sirens of socialism  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 3 May 2016
    • Leftists for the EU, the radical wing of the oligarchy  By Brendon O”Neill, Spiked Online, 23 April 2016
    • A new authoritarianism has descended  By Neil Brown, The Spectator, 11 April 2016
    • Don’t fear the freedom police By Julian Tomlinson, Deputy Editor, Cairns Post, 7 April
    • Australia’s Marxist-LGBTI engineers  By Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online, 2 March 2016
    • Authenticity, the answer to PC pundits  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 17 February 2016
    • Progressivism’s clash with reality – by Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online 8 February 2016
    • gloriously-unhinged-by-president-trump  By Daryl McCann, Quadrant Online, 20 November 2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016
    • The Truth Behind Revolutions  By Alexander Light, HumansAreFree.com; 27 August 2016
    • The counter-revolution against the Deep State  From Inner Circle, 26 August 2016
    • The welfare state fails Aboriginals yet again  By Gary Johns, The Australian, 25 August 2016
  • I quit, the bureaucrats had beaten me By Charles Hugh-Smith, 13 August 2015