​By Lindsay Perigo
[First published on SOLO, 26/5/18 - reproduced here with permission]

New Zealand Fascist of the Left Susan Devoy, tax-funded campaigner against free speech, likes to dismiss opinions she disapproves of as "stale, male and white." She has stepped down as Race Relations Commissioner in the wake of what stuff.co.nz has called "a groping scandal" (not involving her) at the Human Wrongs Commissariat (officially the Orwellianly-misnamed Human Rights Commission). Several other Commissars have been terminated. 

I am not concerned here with the grotesque irony of a sexual harassment scandal in the very Commissariat that is supposed to be a bulwark against sexual predation.

I am concerned that the battle Devoy was waging to turn New Zealand into Britonistan—formerly the United Kingdom, where Tommy Robinson has just been jailed for 13 months for live-streaming outside a courthouse about a Muslims-grooming-children-for-sex case—will proceed apace regardless of who staffs the Commissariat. What happened to Tommy Robinson is what Devoy wants to happen to freedom-lovers here. 

Jihadwatch's Robert Spencer, himself banned from Britonistan, reports:

Arrested, tried, and sentenced within an hour: Tommy Robinson gets 13 months for livestreaming outside courthouse. Not only that, but it is very hard to get any information at all, as the police have imposed a gag order regarding this case — obviously they know how bad it makes them look, as the darkness of Sharia-compliant totalitarianism descends upon the UK. Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will curse the name of Theresa May as the destroyer of free Britain.

YouTuber Lauren Southern, also banned from Britonistan, has been keeping tabs on this outrage:

In New Zealand, Devoy has long lamented that existing provisions for jailing miscreants for speech she disapproves of are inadequate. In her words:

I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out.
I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums, comments sections on some media outlet websites as well as their social media accounts.
I am keen to see our Police begin to gather hate crime statistics – at the present time this is not something they collate when responding to call outs.
Free speech is one thing.
Hate speech is another.

Devoy wants more speech (especially anti-Islam speech) to be imprisonable and wants to see some actual imprisonment. In her report to her UN puppet masters last year she complained of our Human Rights Act:

... both section 61 and section 131 are limited to instances of racial disharmony. Jurisprudence indicates that the provisions may only be applied to religious groups where membership is restricted to a pre-existing cultural group with a long-shared history and common belief as to their historical antecedents. The provisions are therefore unable to be utilised in respect of religious hate speech directed at Muslim New Zealanders, who, for the most part, belong to a
variety of ethnic minority communities in New Zealand. ... 

She urged the NZ Government to:

(a) Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities; and

(b) Following that review, make any changes necessary to ensure that the legislative framework is adequate and contains appropriate and effective sanctions. 

In other words, turn New Zealand into New Zealistan, where people can be jailed for drawing attention to Muslims' grooming of children for sex (perhaps there is really nothing anomalous after all in the Commissariat's being embroiled in a predation scandal). Or drawing Mohammed. Or making any criticism of Islam whatsoever (thus hurting Muslims' feelings). Or making any criticism of anyone or anything except freedom-lovers and freedom.

In an earlier article I outlined what must be done to restore freedom of speech to New Zealand. I repeat and update it here:

1) Salman Rushdie’s famous dictum, “There is no such thing as a right not to be offended” must be emblazoned across the sky.
2) So too must “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” The counter to bad ideas is good ideas, and the free exchange thereof.
3) Dame Susan must be abolished—i.e., the office of Race Relations Commissar must be disestablished.
4) Article 14 of our Bill of Rights must be declared inviolate:
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.
4a) Article 4 of our Bill Of Rights, saying any part of it can be overridden by other legislation (such as the Human Rights Act), must be repealed.
5) The Human Rights Act must be repealed.

The current debacle with the Commissariat provides a splendid—and probably the last—opportunity to proceed on this course. The opportunity should be seized as a matter of civilisation-saving urgency. Those who look at totalitarian countries and say, "It could never happen here," would have said the same thing about Britain. Yet Britons who "never never never shall be slaves" are now just that, enslaved by the enforcers of laws against "disharmonious" speech.

Ding, dong, Devoy is gone ... but her evil flourishes everywhere.

To counter it, I hereby propose an International Coalition for Freedom of Speech, open to all-comers who may well disagree on everything else but are united on this one epochal tenet—that free speech (including "disharmonious" speech) is sacrosanct. 

I also propose a "Free Tommy Robinson" campaign. Tommy will die in jail at the hands and penises of Islamosavages—Theresa May's exact intent. This must not be allowed to happen! Free Tommy!

Sign the petition now to Free Tommy Robinson here.
​

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Incite Politics 17/5/18]

If ever there were a people who could be described as truly pathetic, it is the Palestinian people. 

From go to utter woe, these people have developed no cause, no sense, no decent reason for living – and the victimhood they cling to should make any person with an iota of self-esteem wince.

Too many times have they been offered a nation to call their own, but their leaders have always declined the offer, insisting instead on abject poverty and violence from dogmatic superstitious zeal. Generation after generation has grown up without education and work, without hope, without the will or the intelligence to turn their shabby little lives around, and so the only thing they excel at is crying, screaming and pointing the finger of blame at neighbouring Israel for their miserable condition.   

The Palestinians have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in peaceful co-existence while the Jewish State is allowed to draw breath. How do we know this? Because since 1937 there have been more than a dozen opportunities for Palestinian Arabs to create their own state, yet Palestinian leadership consistently rejected all these opportunities.

Yasser Arafat, who set up an intricate and broad terrorist infrastructure with the sole goal of violently wresting Palestine back from the Israelis, sat down in 1972 with the petite and punchy Italian political interviewer Oriana Fallaci. Fallaci asked him this question: 

“You always invoke the unity of the Arab world.  But you know very well that not all the Arab states are ready to go to war for Palestine…a peaceful agreement is possible, and can even be expected… If such an agreement should take place, as Russia too expects, what will you do?” 

Arafat responded: 

“We won’t accept it. Never!  We will continue to make war on Israel by ourselves until we get Palestine back.  The end of Israel is the goal of our struggle and it allows for neither compromise nor mediation.” 

Fallaci pressed him:

“But what does Palestine mean?  Even Palestine’s national identity has been lost with time, and its geographical borders have also been lost.  The Turks were here before the British Mandate and Israel.  So what are the geographical borders of Palestine?” 

Arafat answered: 

“We don’t bring up the question of borders.  We don’t speak of borders in our constitution because those who set up borders were the Western colonialists who invaded us after the Turks.  What we want, ever since the catastrophe exploded in 1947, is to free our land and reconstruct the democratic Palestinian state.”

And he meant it. 1972 was a busy year for Palestinian terrorist activities, most notably: the Sabena Flight 571 hijacking en route from Brussels to Tel Aviv; the Lod Airport massacre; the Munich Olympics massacre; the Israeli Embassy bomb in London; and the Israeli Embassy Bangkok hostage crisis.

Under the oversight of the Clinton administration in 2000 Arafat was offered the entirety of Gaza, East Jerusalem and nearly all of the West Bank during the Oslo accords, which culminated with the Camp David summit. Arafat smilingly refused, and then launched the vicious second Intifada against Israel, which brought the Palestinians worldwide sympathy when Israel fought back.

Since the Oslo accords five Israeli prime ministers – Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert and Netanyahu – have all thoroughly endorsed a two-state solution.

Abbas, leader of the party Fatah (2008), was offered most of the West Bank (97%), part of East Jerusalem and Gaza, along with Israeli withdrawal from settlements in the Jordan Valley and Eastern Samaria. The offer also included a protected tunnel between Gaza and the West Bank to give Palestinians safe passage between the two territories. Abbas refused out of hand, so Israel ceased all negotiations.

But, as Arafat so bluntly explained, Arabs don’t want to speak about borders when it comes to Israel. They want the whole of Israel without any Jews in it. In other words, they want another Jewish genocide. 

This is what the UN Security Council is lending its support to every time it condemns Israel for “attacks” against Palestinians, who never stop waging war and violence on Israel.

So now, with the help of President Trump, Israel has moved its US Embassy to Jerusalem – an important symbolic and practical gesture to state that Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel. The Palestinians have gone mad again (not that there was ever a pause in their wretched insanity). Their violence has been encouraged by Hamas (backed by Iran), who use their people shamelessly in this worthless cause of hate, and the usual suspects like the UN and the European leaders, and all the other ignorant anti-semitic liberals call these deaths “tragic”. 

These deaths are not tragic; they are 100% volitional. When I see a horde of mindless, nihilistic, screeching zoo animals that somewhat resemble humans indulging in acts of violent hysteria over the results of their own stubborn refusal to even begin to civilise themselves, I feel not an ounce of sympathy, for they are contemptible.

A proposed UN.statement from Kuwait called for an investigation to see whether the Israeli Defense Forces are in breach of international bans on “wilful killing and wilfully causing great suffering.”  After 60 people dead and many hundreds wounded the Palestinians are calling the Israeli response “a massacre,” even though the Palestinians once again initiated the violence.

Nikki Hayley condemned Hamas’ use of…

“maps and social media showing the latest routes to reach Israeli communities in case demonstrators make it through the security fence.” 

She also cited media reports that stated they heard:

“Hamas messages over loudspeakers that urge demonstrators to burst through the fence, falsely claiming Israeli soldiers were fleeing, when in fact, they were not.” 

Haley praised the Israeli forces’ performance through the protests: 

“I ask my colleagues here in the Security Council, who among us would accept this type of activity on your border? No one would. No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained.”

Before the Palestinian representative could offer his usual victim-obsessed lies and remarks, Hayley had the good sense to walk out of the UNSC chamber.

If the Palestinians had accepted a two-state solution back in the 1930s they could’ve been building a genuine country long before the “great catastrophe” of Israel’s independence in 1948 ever took place. They would’ve been spared the suffering of exile. If Arafat had accepted one of the many offers he was given to establish a Palestinian state in the 60s and 70s, or the 90s for that matter, the drive of all that aggression in their young men could’ve been channeled toward building a country and forging livelihoods within their own state. If Abbas had accepted the offer given to him during Obama’s administration instead of rejecting it out of hand (as he now admits to doing), the Palestinians would be a decade into building themselves a country. 

I believe a two-state solution is now off the table altogether since it has become abundantly clear that the Palestinians love their suffering and victimhood status more than they love the idea of having their own home.  There are many reasons now why a two-state solution looks as though it could never work.

The world must stop lavishing the pathetic Palestinians with sympathy and attention in reward for their violence and derangement. This has become a deeply sick and co-dependent arrangement for all concerned.

Don't just take my word for it, take Mossab Hassan Yousef's - a Palestinian who gave voice to the truth late last year at a United National Human Right's Council "Debate."

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