By Olivia Pierson

This is the script of Darryl Cooper's (@Martyrmade) analysis which was picked up and read aloud by Tucker Carlson below.
For an extended read on this issue from Darryl about his thinking without the truncation necessary to summarise on Twitter, go here. 

"I think I've had discussions w/enough Boomer-tier Trump supporters who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent to extract a general theory about their perspective. It is also the perspective of most of the people at the Capitol on 1/6, and probably even Trump himself. 

Most believe some or all of the theories involving midnight ballots, voting machines, etc, but what you find when you talk to them is that, while they'll defend those positions w/info they got from Hannity or Breitbart or whatever, they're not particularly attached to them. 

Here are the facts - actual, confirmed facts - that shape their perspective: 1) The FBI/etc spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using evidence manufactured by the Clinton campaign. We now know that all involved knew it was fake from Day 1 (see: Brennan's July 2016 memo, etc). 

These are Tea Party people. The types who give their kids a pocket Constitution for their birthday and have Founding Fathers memes in their bios. The intel community spying on a presidential campaign using fake evidence (incl forged documents) is a big deal to them. 

Everyone involved lied about their involvement as long as they could. We only learned the DNC paid for the manufactured evidence because of a court order. Comey denied on TV knowing the DNC paid for it, when we have emails from a year earlier proving that he knew. 

This was true with everyone, from CIA Dir Brennan & Adam Schiff - who were on TV saying they'd seen clear evidence of collusion w/Russia, while admitting under oath behind closed doors that they hadn't - all the way down the line. In the end we learned that it was ALL fake. 

At first, many Trump ppl were worried there must be some collusion, because every media & intel agency wouldn't make it up out of nothing. When it was clear that they had made it up, people expected a reckoning, and shed many illusions about their gov't when it didn't happen. 

We know as fact:
a) The Steele dossier was the sole evidence used to justify spying on the Trump campaign,
b) The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC op,
c) Steele's source told the FBI the info was unserious,
d) they did not inform the court of any of this and kept spying. 

Trump supporters know the collusion case front and back. They went from worrying the collusion must be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to realizing it was a scam, then watched as every institution - agencies, the press, Congress, academia - gaslit them for another year. 

Worse, collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration. They knew their entire lives would be investigated. Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees. The DoJ, press, & gov't destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected admin. 

This is where people whose political identity was largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in Civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed all institutional boundaries. Because it had stepped out of the shadows to unite against an interloper. 

GOP propaganda still has many of them thinking in terms of partisan binaries, but A LOT of Trump supporters see that the Regime is not partisan. They all know that the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard vs Jeb Bush election. 

It's hard to describe to people on the left (who are used to thinking of gov't as a conspiracy... Watergate, COINTELPRO, WMD, etc) how shocking & disillusioning this was for people who encourage their sons to enlist in the Army, and hate ppl who don't stand for the Anthem. 

They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the corporate press is really what radicalized them. They hate journalists more than they hate any politician or gov't official, because they feel most betrayed by them. 

The idea that the press is driven by ratings/sensationalism became untenable. If that were true, they'd be all over the Epstein story. The corporate press is the propaganda arm of the Regime they now see in outline. Nothing anyone says will ever make them unsee that, period. 

This is profoundly disorienting. Many of them don't know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know for absolute certain that the press, the FBI, etc would lie to them if there was. They have every reason to believe that, and it's probably true. 

They watched the press behave like animals for four years. Tens of millions of people will always see Kavanaugh as a gang rapist, based on nothing, because of CNN. And CNN seems proud of that. They led a lynch mob against a high school kid. They cheered on a summer of riots. 

They always claimed the media had liberal bias, fine, whatever. They still thought the press would admit truth if they were cornered. Now they don't. It's a different thing to watch them invent stories whole cloth in order to destroy regular lives and spark mass violence.
 
Time Mag told us that during the 2020 riots, there were weekly conference calls involving, among others, leaders of the protests, the local officials who refused to stop them, and media people who framed them for political effect. In Ukraine we call that a color revolution. 

Throughout the summer, Democrat governors took advantage of COVID to change voting procedures. It wasn't just the mail-ins (they lowered signature matching standards, etc). After the collusion scam, the fake impeachment, Trump ppl expected shenanigans by now. 

Re: "fake impeachment", we now know that Trump's request for Ukraine to cooperate w/the DOJ regarding Biden's $ activities in Ukraine was in support of an active investigation being pursued by the FBI and Ukraine AG at the time, and so a completely legitimate request. 

Then you get the Hunter laptop scandal. Big Tech ran a full-on censorship campaign against a major newspaper to protect a political candidate. Period. Everyone knows it, all of the Tech companies now admit it was a "mistake" - but, ya know, the election's over, so who cares?

Goes w/o saying, but: If the NY Times had Don Jr's laptop, full of pics of him smoking crack and engaging in group sex, lots of lurid family drama, emails describing direct corruption and backed up by the CEO of the company they were using, the NYT wouldn't have been banned. 

Think back: Stories about Trump being pissed on by Russian prostitutes and blackmailed by Putin were promoted as fact, and the only evidence was a document paid for by his opposition and disavowed by its source. The NY Post was banned for reporting on true information. 

The reaction of Trump ppl to all this was not, "no fair!" That's how they felt about Romney's "binders of women" in 2012. This is different. Now they see, correctly, that every institution is captured by ppl who will use any means to exclude them from the political process. 

And yet they showed up in record numbers to vote. He got 13m more votes than in 2016, 10m more than Clinton got! As election night dragged on, they allowed themselves some hope. But when the four critical swing states (and only those states) went dark at midnight, they knew. 

Over the ensuing weeks, they got shuffled around by grifters and media scam artists selling them conspiracy theories.*
They latched onto one, then another increasingly absurd theory as they tried to put a concrete name on something very real. 

Media & Tech did everything to make things worse. Everything about the election was strange - the changes to procedure, unprecedented mail-in voting, the delays, etc - but rather than admit that and make everything transparent, they banned discussion of it (even in DMs!). 

Everyone knows that, just as Don Jr's laptop would've been the story of the century, if everything about the election dispute was the same, except the parties were reversed, suspicions about the outcome would've been Taken Very Seriously. See 2016 for proof. 

Even the courts' refusal of the case gets nowhere w/them, because of how the opposition embraced mass political violence. They'll say, w/good reason: What judge will stick his neck out for Trump knowing he'll be destroyed in the media as a violent mob burns down his house? 

It's a fact, according to Time Magazine, that mass riots were planned in cities across the country if Trump won. Sure, they were "protests", but they were planned by the same people as during the summer, and everyone knows what it would have meant. Judges have families, too. 

Forget the ballot conspiracies. It's a fact that governors used COVID to unconstitutionally alter election procedures (the Constitution states that only legislatures can do so) to help Biden to make up for a massive enthusiasm gap by gaming the mail-in ballot system. 

They knew it was unconstitutional, it's right there in plain English. But they knew the cases wouldn't see court until after the election. And what judge will toss millions of ballots because a governor broke the rules? The threat of mass riots wasn't implied, it was direct. 

a) The entrenched bureaucracy & security state subverted Trump from Day 1,
b) The press is part of the operation,
c) Election rules were changed,
d) Big Tech censors opposition,
e) Political violence is legitimized & encouraged,
f) Trump is banned from social media. 

They were led down some rabbit holes, but they are absolutely right that their gov't is monopolized by a Regime that believes they are beneath representation, and will observe no limits to keep them getting it. Trump fans should be happy he lost; it might've kept him alive."
 
MartyrMade Fever dreams from the human storyhttps://martyrmade.com/
​• • •


* Olivia’s edit:
The so-called “conspiracy theories" put out by heroine Sidney Powell, Patrick Byrne, Jovan Pulitzer and General Michael Flynn etc are not “theories," there was an actual conspiracy to oust Trump also through voting machine fraud - and in time the truth of this will out.  Keep your eye on the Arizona audit!

Tucker Carlson picks up Darryl Cooper’s analysis:
​

By Lindsay Perigo
​Republished with permission from SOLO.


Judith Collins has joined the Free Speech Union.

Oddly, she doesn't mention the fact in her Collins Comments of July 2, but she does say this:

The National Party believes that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. We will fight any attempts Jacinda Ardern’s Government makes to criminalise speech beyond the threshold of ‘inciting violence’, which is already provided for in New Zealand law.

While the National Party condemns vile speech that is intended to insult, it is a big leap from condemning it to criminalising it.

The Prime Minister needs to be clear about the intent of this law reform. At the moment it seems only approved opinions about some subjects will be allowed and questioning those opinions will be a criminal offence.
 
The government has not said who will decide what opinions are acceptable.  The Minister of Justice is not clear on what “hatred” is and there is no clear threshold for punishment stated. 

I invite every New Zealander to have their say on these changes on this government website, please click 

https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/  

Judith's link includes another link to where you, dear reader, can state your own opinions on the proposed abolition of free speech. Be prepared to navigate some Woke-Fascist blather as to whether you are male, female, other (please specify) or would prefer not to say, before being able to submit your thoughts.

https://consultations.justice

Please note, I have not yet myself proceeded beyond this page, as I am still deliberating as to which gender I am (sarcasm; a gay man is still a man!). But I shall go there. Everybody should. 180 years of freedom of speech is about to be overturned by the Woke-Fascist regime of Comrade Ardern and her Jacindistas, leaving one to wonder why did we ever bother fighting Hitler?! Let this glorious era end with at least a bang, rather than a whimper. That bang must come from We the People. It is unlikely to come from the mealy-mouthed, word-mincing, punch-pulling Free Speech Union, who, in their July 2 press release celebrating the launch of their online "Hate Speech Detector" said this:

The website is a part of a new campaign from the Free Speech Union to convince the Government to withdraw its proposed new laws, or at the very least limit the changes to what the Royal Commission actually said.  [Bold mine.] 

Whoa!! What the Royal Commission actually said?! No way, Free Speech Union! What the Royal Commission actually said  was reprehensible, and is the exact basis on which the evil Ardern is proceeding! It included:

39. Amend legislation to create hate-motivated offences in:

a) the Summary Offences Act 1981 that correspond with the existing offences of offensive behaviour or language [Bold mine] ...

40.  Repeal Section 131 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and insert a provision in the Crimes Act 191 for an offence of inciting racial or religious disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communications with protected characteristics that include religious affiliation [Bold mine]... 
​
42. Direct New Zealand Police to ... train their frontline staff in:

a) identifying bias indicators so that they can identify potential hate crimes when they perceive that an offence is hate-motivated;

b) exploring perceptions of victims and witnesses so that they are in a position to record where an offence is perceived to be hate-motivated; ...

Fundamental to New Zealand's future well-being is social cohesion. 

Elsewhere in their execrable document the Royal Commission commended the practice of taking umbragees (the "offended") at face value, without evidence or corroboration, and pursuing the umbragers accordingly, as is now common in Britonistan.

How does this differ in any way from what the Ardern Regime is proposing?!

The incitement of hatred against a group based on a shared characteristic, such as ethnicity, religion or sexuality, is an attack on our values of inclusiveness and diversity.  Such incitement is intolerable and has no place in our society.

The aims of the proposals are to:

Increase the number of groups of people that are protected by the incitement provisions, such as religious groups and rainbow communities

Make it clearer what behaviour the law prohibits and increase the consequences for breaking the law

Improve the protections for groups against wider discrimination.

The six proposals that we would like to hear your views on relate to:

Changing the language in the incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 so that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech

Replacing the existing criminal provision in the Human Rights Act 1993 with a new criminal offence in the Crimes Act 1961 that is clearer and more effective

Increasing the punishment for the criminal offence to better reflect its seriousness

Changing the language of the civil incitement provision to match the changes being made to the criminal provision

Changing the civil provision so that it makes ‘incitement to discriminate’ against the law
Adding to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to clarify that trans, gender diverse and intersex people are protected from discrimination. 

We may be sure that this is mere Orwell-speak for: "criticism shall henceforth be conflated with incitement, and thus, criminalised." Any dissent from the dictatorship's Woke-Fascist agenda will be imprisonable.

Criticism of what, exactly? Well, more than anything the Woke-Fascist regime wants to criminalise criticism of Islam, whether that criticism be long and erudite or crude and succinct. Say "Islam sucks," and you'll go to jail. (Say "Christianity sucks" and nothing will happen at all. Ditto "Atheism sucks." Neither should anything happen. I'm an atheist, but I defend to the death the right of any religious person to his or her beliefs, and of me to mine.) Islamic leaders were demanding this within hours of the Christchurch mosque slaughter. Liberty-lovers must continue to reserve the right to proclaim that Islam does suck, and the horror of that slaughter does not mitigate the horror of Islam.

Almost in equal measure Apartheid Ardern wants to criminalise criticism of her racist Brown Supremacy agenda. Say "separatism sucks" and you'll go to jail. (Say "white people suck" and nothing at all will happen, apart from applause from Woke virtue-signallers.) Say, "It sucks that the Mongrel Mob is getting taxpayer money from the so-called Human Rights Commission" and you'll be called a racist. Don Brash could go to jail multiple times, and not necessarily concurrently, for umbraging so many umbragees, as he so admirably did at Victoria University last year:

In most Muslim-majority countries, for example, there are laws which make it a criminal offence to speak ill of Islam, or to make an attempt to convert people from Islam.   Laws against blasphemy – speaking ill of Islam – can get you killed in Pakistan.   Even suggesting that Muslims are free to vote for a non-Muslim as Governor of Jakarta can get you jailed in Indonesia, as the former Governor of Jakarta discovered to his cost.

A couple of years ago, a Turkish writer who had been invited to give three lectures in supposedly modern Malaysia was detained and forced by the religious affairs authority in that country to abandon his third lecture.  His crime: arguing that Islam should never use coercion either to win converts or to keep those who are already Muslim in order.

Nor is it only Muslim-majority countries which seek to suppress free speech in the name of religion.  Since 2013, insulting the feelings of religious believers has been a criminal offence in Russia. ...

In March last year, New Zealand saw the tragedy of 51 Muslims killed, and many more injured, by a man who clearly hated Islam with a passion and who saw it as his duty to kill as many Muslims as he could.  No sane person could condone such an atrocity and the perpetrator has rightly been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

But the event has prompted serious discussion about whether New Zealand needs laws prohibiting so-called hate speech, with both Attorney General David Parker and Justice Minister Andrew Little talking publicly about the need for laws to criminalise hate speech.  The Human Rights Commissioner has also called for such laws.

But it’s a hugely tricky area, and perhaps that explains why we haven’t yet seen any draft legislation which would restrict hate speech.

What does “hate speech” actually mean?  Nobody defends the right for people to urge violence against persons or property of course.  But beyond that opinions will differ.

Should Israel Folau be allowed to point out that the Old Testament says that gays will go to hell after they die unless they repent of their homosexuality?  I would argue “yes”.

Should Muslims be allowed to argue that gays, adulterers, and those who abandon Islam should be killed, thus implicitly condoning murder?  I would argue “no”.

But those are, at least to me, relatively straightforward cases.  There are many other areas where societal attitudes are effectively shutting down discussion or debate, with mainstream media simply refusing to entertain debate in areas where views differ strongly.

For example, it is judged to be too insensitive, or too judgmental, to suggest that the children brought up by their two natural parents are likely to have a much better start in life than those brought up in single-parent families, or in families where the adult male changes at irregular intervals.

It is regarded as quite inappropriate to recommend that adoption be regarded as an alternative to either abortion or single parenthood.

It is regarded as verging on treason to question whether human-induced climate change is really the most serious challenge facing humanity, despite the contrary views of people as different as Canadian Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, and Matt Ridley, a well-known British science writer.

It is regarded as far too judgmental to suggest that some cultures are superior to, or more advanced than, others.

It is regarded as quite inappropriate to publicly question the wisdom of allowing as immigrants people who believe that adulterers should be stoned to death.

And you dare not suggest that the Enlightenment civilization brought to New Zealand by the early British settlers was significantly more advanced than the Maori culture of the early nineteenth century, even though early nineteenth century Maori had no written language, had not yet invented the wheel, and were still practising cannibalism. 

Please note, all of this is true right now, without the explicit killing of free speech being advocated by the Jacindistas.

This is where we are. With the assistance of the Communist Party of China (of whom criticism will also be criminalised), and the Wuhan Virus it so generously gifted to the rest of the world, Comrade Jihadi Jacinda Podesta is about to impose China's "social credit" system, a modernised version of George Orwell's 1984, upon all New Zealanders. Big Sister has replaced Big Brother. This is the "social cohesion" so avidly promoted by the Royal Commission. What it really is is coerced conformity. Society will "cohere" because there's a government gun at everybody's head.

The zombified young (moronnials), far from being fired up in defence of freedom, have been lobotomised and brainwashed into believing that freedom is a patriarchal, capitalistic, White Supremacist ruse. The media have become the regime's lickspittles. A sisterhood of snowflakes has overtaken Academia. Infantile "feelings" and Thunberg tantrums have supplanted logic, reason and their indispensable crucible, open and forthright debate. Fry-quacking, upward-inflecting wannabe umbragees get out of bed each day, if they get out of bed at all, just to find someone to be umbraged by; now they'll have the satisfaction of seeing their umbrager jailed, as well as cancelled, sacked, censored, doxxed or otherwise lynched by the repulsive mindless Woke-Fascist mob on "social" media.

Freedom-lovers must react, not with the FSU's weasel-worded  "concern" about the pending tyranny but with utmost disgust and righteous revulsion and an unflinching determination not to let it happen. (The problem with the FSU probably derives from the fact that it's stuffed with lawyers, who may well be salivating at the endless litigation that will come their way as they try to keep umbragers out of jail. Shakespeare had a good idea about lawyers, but I shan't repeat it lest I be accused of "incitement"!)

Rather than entrenching totalitarianism, let us boldly proclaim that there is indeed no such thing as a right not to be offended, and that the precept, "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" should permeate all social discourse and be emblazoned across the sky.
​

The government’s discussion document is here.

Personal submissions from NZers can be submitted here until August 6th.

Have your say!

---

Over the last few years, I’ve already written a boat-load of articles covering the issue of Freedom of Speech.  Here’s a handful of those:

We Must Speak Freely - It's Holy Ground!

The Human Rights Commission & Free Speech

Rhetoric Doesn’t Kill People, Violence Does: New Zealand’s Anger, Sorrow & Worry

What Happened to Renaud Camus is Coming to NZ

Little Truth Does He Know

Satire Died a Quick Death in New Zealand

Kiwis Just Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are

There is no Measure for Hate Speech

Criminalising Hate Speech - an Affront to Our Natural Liberties

Ardern Intent on Smashing Free Speech

Now that our government is asking for citizen submissions from New Zealanders to put forth their thoughts on the proposed hate speech laws, I thought I’d publish my submission to encourage other folks to make their own before August 6th.

---

Submitted to Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination in Aotearoa New Zealand Submitted on 2021-06-30 12:25:06

Proposal 1:
Change the language in the incitement provisions so that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech
Do you agree that broadening the incitement provisions in this way will better protect these groups?

No

Why or why not?:

Hateful speech is not a crime and should remain not a crime.
Inciting violence, death or grievous bodily harm toward an individual or individuals is a crime and should remain a crime.

In your opinion, which groups should be protected by this change?
Groups:

None.

“Groups” is sloppy political rhetoric by those who advance collectivist groupthink. There is no such entity as a group, there are only individuals.
Legal individual rights and citizen protections apply to individuals.

Do you think that there are any groups that experience hateful speech that would not be protected by this change?
Groups not protected:

Indeed. All individual citizens who do not actively identify with a particular group, which is most of NZ.

Proposal 2:
Replace the existing criminal provision with a new criminal offence in the Crimes Act that is clearer and more effective
Do you agree that changing the wording of the criminal provision in this way will make it clearer and simpler to understand?

No

Why or why not?:

No. The waters have already been muddied by Section 61 which encourages groupthink along the lines of race, colour and ethnicity.
All NZ citizens are individuals deserving of protections under the law concerning their physical safety, including their private property, no matter what race they are.

Do you think that this proposal would capture the types of behaviours that should be unlawful under the new offence?

No

Why or why not?:

Nobody needs to be protected from verbal abuse or insulting speech by the law.
It is already a criminal offence to incite violence, death or grievous bodily harm toward any individual.

While nobody enjoys being insulted or verbally abused, it should not fall into the category of being a crime unless it meets the threshold of libel or defamation causing actual harm to a person’s good name or reputation.

Proposal 3:
Increase the punishment for the criminal offence to up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 to better reflect its seriousness
Do you think that this penalty appropriately reflects the seriousness of the crime?

No

Why or why not?:

It is utterly ridiculous to even consider sending people to prison or fining them for offending someone’s feelings. This is an abuse of state power.

If you disagree, what crimes should be used as an appropriate comparison?
Proposal Three: If disagree what crimes should be used as comparison:

Exercising the right to an expressed opinion should not be a crime unless it meets the high threshold of libel or defamation causing significant damage to a person’s reputation.

Proposal 4:
Change the language of the civil incitement provision to better match the changes being made to the criminal provision
Do you support changing this language in section 61?

No

Why or why not?:

Hatred and contempt are feelings. No law, either civil or criminal, should be making legislation around people’s feelings. This is absurd on its face.

Do you think that any other parts of the current wording of the civil provision should be changed?

Yes

Why or why not?:

The Human Rights Act should not trump our Bill of Rights Article 14:
Freedom of Speech
"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."

Proposal 5:
Change the civil provision so that it makes 'incitement to discrimination' against the law
Do you support including the prohibition of incitement to discriminate in section 61?

No

Why or why not?:

People should be free to judge/discriminate in their expressed opinions about anything or anyone without fear of the law. What matters is that all citizens are equally protected under the law when it comes to physical harm, injury or property. This new law will create crimes with no actual victims.
Hurt feelings are not a basis on which to create laws.

Proposal 6:
​Add to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to clarify that trans, gender diverse, and intersex people are protected from discrimination
Do you consider that this terminology is appropriate?

No

Why or why not?:

It’s utterly appalling to legislate around hurt feelings.

Do you think that this proposal sufficiently covers the groups that should be protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act?

No

Why or why not?:

This proposal will do nothing except create totalitarian laws which discriminate against a citizen's right to freedom of expression and open debates. It is anti liberty, anti civilisation and anti human flourishing.
It will only create a seething underbelly of hatred toward our laws and towards those who write them and those who enforce them.
In short, this entire proposal will turn our democracy against itself by creating unprecedented divisions amongst its people.
It’s undemocratic.

Do you consider that this proposal appropriately protects culturally specific gender identities, including takat■pui? 
Not Answered
Why or why not?: