By Olivia Pierson
First published on Insight@theBFD 23/01/2020

Controversial French author and philosopher, Renaud Camus, has been convicted and sentenced for “public incitement to hatred or violence by reason of origin, ethnicity, nation, race or religion through words, writings, images or public media by electronic means.”

Judges gave Camus a two-month suspended prison sentence as well as ordering him to compensate two anti-racist organisations to the tune of 1800 euros.

The conviction is the result of a speech Camus made to the National Council of European Resistance in November 2017, where he declared that:

“Immigration has become an invasion[..] The irreversible colonisation is demographic colonisation, by the replacement of the population. The ethnic substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the history of our nation since it has existed; as with other people, if the story continues, it will not be that of France.”

Camus, who is decidedly against all forms of violence, has been punished for criticising immigration. 

There is no longer any commitment to freedom of speech in France.  The nation is subject to such intrusive hate speech laws that to speak one’s mind about anything pertaining to humans is dangerous, for all of us are part of some group identity which falls within the wide definitions of “origin, ethnicity, nation, race, religion or sexuality.”  

The list of people in France who have had similar legal charges brought down upon their heads is long, but here’s just a few well-known cases:

• Filmmaker Costa Gravas for insulting Catholics in a poster advertising his film Amen
• Oriana Fallaci for insulting Muslims in her book The Rage and the Pride  
• Bob Dylan and Rolling Stone magazine for insulting Croats 
• Philippe Val of Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine for insulting Islamic terrorists
• Brigitte Bardot, who received no less than five convictions for insulting Muslims while campaigning against the cruelty of halal animal slaughter practices in France.

Voltaire’s famously liberal-minded attitude: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, no longer applies to French citizens, as it won’t apply to New Zealand citizens if PM Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little get their way.

The Labour government of New Zealand seeks to bring in new hate speech legislation soon and have been clear that this is their intent, hence Little’s fast-tracking a review of our laws as they now stand. 

Little said last year about our existing laws which he wants “updated”: 

“If your hateful expressions and hateful actions are directed at somebody’s religion, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination other than race then actually it doesn’t cover that, there’s no offence at that point.”

This is exactly why this government needs to be stopped from touching our current laws; as his comment clearly shows, Little makes no distinction between hateful expressions and hateful actions – they’re one and the same thing to his fickle mind.

If a justice minister does not understand the difference between words and actions, then there is no hope that what will potentially be enacted will be in any way just. 

​Free speech traditionally exists as a principle of Western liberty in order to protect speech that is disagreeable, disharmonious, offensive, insulting or otherwise controversial. Only hate speech which overtly calls for acts of violence to be committed against a person, or group of people, should be illegal – and in our country, already is.  

In an interview with Sarah Wildman of Vox, Renaud Camus claims that his Great Replacement theory does not just rail against ethnic population replacement, but also against many aspects which modernity itself replaces:
​
“It applies to all contexts in the world, I think. Replacement is the very essence of modernity that things are being replaced [by industry]. Objects are being replaced, landscapes are being replaced. Everything is being replaced. It is the very character of what it is to be alive today.” 

Providing what can only be described as a deeply conservative view, Camus goes on:

“The refusal to be replaced is a very strong feeling in man. It doesn’t really need to be put into hearts and into minds. The will not to be replaced was at the centre of resistance to colonialism. The refusal of being a colony in India or in Africa is very much part of anti-replacism. People don’t want other people to come in their territory, in their country, and change their cultures and their religions, their way of living, their way of eating, their way of dressing. It is a worry that is central to the very essence of being human. Being human is being not replaceable. That is, not being an object, not being a thing.”

Camus is aware that his Great Replacement viewpoint is the resulting pushback of decisions made by the global political elites who have been in power for the last three decades – and he is correct.  

It was against this indiscriminate replacement that saw Trump’s 2016 message resonate so strongly with the “forgotten men and women of America.” 

These folks watched their jobs be xeroxed en masse overseas while they themselves hit the poverty line in dying towns and cities which were once vibrant centres of manufacturing and industry - Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.  They jumped at the chance to vote for a president who consistently acknowledged what they had gone through and could see how casually they had been cast aside; replaced.  

Trump’s America First policies are turning this replacement around in the U.S, but what of France and Europe?

No such luck.
 
Instead, people such as Camus, who have well thought out views worth dissecting through discussion are shut-down, fined and imprisoned by a court system hell-bent on never acknowledging that unprecedented levels of immigration from the third world will eventually transform any first-world nation into third-world status – and Europe’s hate speech laws now prove this to be a fact.
 
Observe that the liberty to speak openly about any topic whatsoever was always the hallmark of a first world, civilised country which valued freedom. To muzzle freedom of speech and punish people for their views has always been the scourge of third world shitholes. 

Are we Kiwis going to let Ardern’s foolishly backward government do this to our precious Godzone? 
​

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"

By Olivia Pierson
First published on Insight@theBFD 16/01/20 

New Zealand schools are now nothing more than perverted institutions of political propaganda aimed at innocent children by leftist educational activists posing as teachers – otherwise known as child molesters of the mind.  Lindsay Perigo, the boldest broadcaster we’ve ever seen in this country, labelled them thus years ago, but if anything, even he may have understated the case.
 
The ringleaders of this disgusting racket, Jacinda Ardern, James Shaw and Chris Hipkins, are about to unleash onto our nation’s 11-15 year-olds a ‘climate literacy’ course titled Climate Change – prepare today, live well tomorrow, where, as Perigo points out, feelings are given priority over reason and facts.

Louis Houlbrooke of the NZ Taxpayers’ Union states in his press release about the course:

“The teacher resources even include a 15-page ‘wellbeing guide’ for teachers and parents, which warns: Children may respond to the climate change scientific material in a number of ways. They may experience a whole host of difficult emotions, including fear, helplessness, frustration, anger, guilt, grief, and confusion. When discussing the material, teachers may encounter students who cope through avoidance, denial, diversionary tactics, wishful thinking and a range of other coping mechanisms. This isn’t teaching kids how to think – it’s telling them how to feel.”

This course was piloted in 2018 at South New Brighton School, Christchurch – obviously the stupidest school in New Zealand. Now it is to be rolled out into all state schools. 

Because the subject matter causes so much anxiety and fear in young children (as indoctrinating them about an imminent human extinction will tend to do), the emotional side had to be addressed by the mind molesters, so encouraging children to become activists against the so-called climate change impact is designed to mitigate their anxieties. The curriculum course is so blatantly Marxist that the notoriously leftist Guardian in the UK wrote a glowing piece about it. 

Why the hell can youngsters not just be left alone to experience the golden weather of an innocent childhood along with some sensible, stimulating STEM?

“The new taxpayer-funded curriculum promotes the campaigns of Greta Thunberg, School Strike for Climate, and even Greenpeace," says Houlbrooke. “Students are encouraged to reduce their feelings of climate guilt by participating in this kind of political activism.”

If parents of Western children in the year 2020 happen to be worried now about nurturing young adults through the trenches of mental illness, depression, sundry syndromes, nihilistic acts such as school shootings and drug use, just try to imagine what this very young generation will look like in another ten years after being the recipients of all this anxiety-inducing Extinction Rebellion garbage taught as science.

Forget the little freak Greta Thunberg, the mind molesters of our current government won’t be satisfied until we’ve turned out a nation full of little Jokers.
 
And just so we’re clear about the facts, National, under Simon Bridges, has done absolutely nothing to stop them, in fact, he’s on their side. Every single National MP unanimously voted along with Labour for the Zero Carbon Bill in parliament.
​  
The only advice I can give to parents who see this evil for what it is: while you still can, put your children in a charter school or an integrated school of special character which does not have to teach this damaging crap. Yet.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"

By Dieuwe de Boer
Right Minds 18/1/20 - republished with permission

To save being asked in the comments, I may as well start this post with an update on my own situation. As my story travelled the globe, I turned my phone off on Saturday evening and took my family to church on Sunday. This week I've focused on my work and have spent my spare time in the ongoing quest for answers. I'd like to thank everyone for their universal messages of support.

Next to my bed lies a stack of books, the one on top right now is The Meaning of Conservatism by the late Sir Roger Scruton. It's my dad's copy, the first book on conservatism he ever read. For Sir Scruton, conservatism was not merely about politics. He was a philosopher and intellectual whose interests were in love and beauty; in the transcendent and the cosmic.

He changed the way I look at the world. Everything from the classics, traditions, faith, culture, music, literature, and architecture are now windows into humanity's reach for transcendence.

Sir Roger Scruton will be remembered as one of the greatest conservative thinkers of our time. Not because he crafted his own ideology, but because he demonstrated the joy of the conservative worldview and a life in harmony with the natural order. A life based on the recognition of the other, rather than gratification of the self.

He brought the word oikophobia—"the repudiation of inheritance and home"—into the political discourse. He saw something very dangerous in a society that could not hold itself together, ripped apart by those who reject the privileges gifted from those who have gone before us.

My own introduction to Sir Roger Scruton was a documentary he made in 2008, "Why Beauty Matters." The BBC has attempted to purge this work, but it's been kept alive by his Brazillian fans, the very ones who I suspect put Jair Bolsonaro in power:

This documentary is a brief hour of your life you will neither forget nor regret. It's inspired me on many an occasion to pause and fully appreciate beauty and to study and feel the meaning of great works.

As much as I love Lady Thatcher, Sir Scruton was instrumental in preventing the reduction of conservatism to mere market economics (known formally as neo-liberalism). It's not that conservatism is incompatible with the free market, but at its heart, conservatism deals with things that are sacred and should be held back from the market. So Scruton became a defender of the idyllic countryside, an opponent of concrete sprawl and modern design, a defender of love as something that should not be bought or sold, and an opponent of the ugliness of postmodernism.

Sir Roger Scruton understood the role of beauty as indispensable for human flourishing, inextricably linked to the formation of our loves. He taught that beauty is objective, and that its lack of utility is precisely what makes it important when it comes to understanding the divine.

Of course, the woke mob inevitably came for him too, and likely played a role in his demise as he struggled through illness over the last year of his life.

"Once identified as right-wing you are beyond the pale of argument; your views are irrelevant, your character discredited, your presence in the world a mistake. You are not an opponent to be argued with, but a disease to be shunned. This has been my experience."
— Sir Roger Scruton
​
 Sir Roger Scruton wrote a large number of books, composed music, and leaves us numerous insights, articles, and interviews. What he does not leave behind is a British conservative intellectual who can match him.
​

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"

​