By Lindsay Perigo
[Published with permission from Solopassion.com]

It was reassuring to read on WhaleOil about a new organisation called Advance Australia which humans are joining "to make sure their beloved country doesn’t succumb to rampant radicalism or political correctness" of the kind viciously promoted by the Soros-funded group GetUp. We could do with something like Advance Australia in New Zealand, where sub-humans—biological humans who nonetheless renounce reason and repair to force—are attempting to end free speech at every turn. They are our local Antifa, except that Antifa should be called (and will be by me henceforth) "Profa" because they are pro-fascist. In their behaviour, appearance and mindless malice they are the modern-day version of Mussolini's Blackshirts. In their beliefs they are Islamo-Marxists, which makes them fascists also.

At present they are successful. Although Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were finally allowed in to New Zealand to speak at a privately-owned venue—having been denied a ratepayer-funded one by Phascist Phil—the private owner was intimidated by Profa at the last minute to such an extent that he called the event off and told the pair he didn't want them anywhere near his establishment.

We saw Profa in action again at an Auckland University debate where the sub-humans almost succeeded in preventing Don Brash from speaking by incessantly screeching into megaphones. The organisers were capitulating and moving on to the next speaker when a chorus went up from the humans present, "Don Brash! Don Brash! Don Brash!" The humans made it clear that they would keep this up until Don was allowed to speak as scheduled. This time Profa caved, and Don spoke. No thanks to the cowardly organisers.

If we are not brave in our advocacy of free speech, we shall lose what's left of it. Too much ground has been given already, but we are not yet at the point to which Britonistan has descended where Orwell's Thought Police have become a literal reality and police officers assigned to Hate Crime Units knock on doors and arrest people for criticising Islam on Twitter. That is the point the Islamo-Marxists want to get us to, though. Here was New Zealand Federation of Islam Associations president Hazim Arafeh talking about his letters to the Immigration Minister, Minister for Ethnic Communities and the Human Rights Commission asking for Lauren Southern to be denied entry to New Zealand:

"I don't think insulting Muslims comes under free speech, that's an abuse of freedom of speech. I'm talking on behalf of 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in New Zealand who are going to face a very hard time by all the comments she is going to make." 

A Muslim named Azad Khan started up an illiterate petition, citing Lauren's blasphemy against Allah ("Allah is gay") and her opposition to multi-culturalism as the reasons she should be denied entry.

The Muslims, it will be recalled, were joined by Marxists calling themselves Auckland Peace Action ("Peace"? More Orwell!) who threatened to "confront and blockade" Lauren and Stefan. 

The Islamo-Marxists won't be satisfied until criticism of Islam is criminalised. In this they are supported by New Zealand's bulwarks of Political Correctness such as the Human Rights Commission. Here's then-Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy presenting the HRC's submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in Geneva, July 2017. She cites Section 61 of the Human Rights Act:

61 Racial disharmony

It shall be unlawful for any person--

(a) to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or

(b) to use in any public place as defined in section 2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or

(c) to use in any place words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person using the words knew or ought to have known that the words were reasonably likely to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical or broadcast by means of radio or television,

—being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.

Then she complains:

"it should be noted that 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.
 
And so she recommends:

That the Committee urges the 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, criminalise "hate speech" against Islam!

This is the same Dame who wrote in a Herald op-ed:

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.

Devoy has departed, but you can be sure the Thought Commissars who remain will diligently promote this item on the Islamo-Marxist agenda. 

Here are my own alternative recommendations—which I would urge upon members of the recently-formed Free Speech Coalition—designed to save and restore free speech:
​
1) Salman Rushdie’s famous dictum, “There is no such thing as a right not to be offended” must be emblazoned in the sky, fry-quacking moronnial snowflakes notwithstanding.

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) So too must Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which says: "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."

4) Section 4 of that Act, which says the Act can be trumped by other legislation, must be repealed.

5) Section 61 of the Human Rights Act must be repealed.

5) The office of Race Relations Commissar must be disestablished.

6) So too must the entire Human Wrongs Commissariat.

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Incite 22/11/18]

President Trump has a highly amusing habit of triggering members of the press to the point of hysterical backlash.  While running as a presidential candidate he coined the term “fake news”, which I think will be in modern parlance forever.
 
The point at which the mainstream media wets its diapers is always when the President touts that “fake news is the enemy of the people.”  

This statement triggers the press so profoundly, from Left to Right, that they just cannot get the insult straight in their heads. Triggering has this confusing effect on human thought.  

The president never says “the press is the enemy of the people,” or “news is the enemy of the people.”  He says precisely “fake news is the enemy of the people.”  Do Americans want news based on reality or propaganda based on fiction?  That is the difference between news and fake news.

After the recent debacle in the White House press conference concerning Jim Acosta refusing to pipe down, instead clutching the microphone in order to assail the president with a third question (each reporter is meant to ask only one, two at most), the president revoked Acosta’s press pass into the White House. Then the whole thing ended up in court.

Acosta was vindicated and CNN put out statements about the evils of the president’s “attack” on First Amendment rights of journalists and reporters.  If this is what people seriously consider to be an attack these days, then they have become softer than slugs.

During the last presidency of Barack Obama, the press and he were all loved up in a slobbering love affair because he was the first anti-Western values president, who happened to also be black, and identity politics just made them glow with virtue-signalling obsequiousness. 

By way of contrast, President Trump – alpha, white, male, thrice married and a billionaire to boot, exudes the classic image of the American Dream achiever.  At the same time, he constantly expresses disapproval of the hostile tactics and lies of the mainstream media, which sends its pedlars spinning straight back to their computers to indulge in ever greater screeds of hate for a president who calls them out over the false yarns that they then try to pass off as news.  Fake news.

The Trump presidency has been more accessible to the press than any other presidency in American history. The reason the mainstream media thinks that the president is harder on them is because they cannot help but be psychologically triggered by him – since the president doesn’t give them what they see as their rightful due: automatic respect despite their lack of veracity.

A little history may offer some context about how reasonable President Trump has in fact acted toward a viciously hostile mainstream media.

John Adams, America’s 2nd president, signed the Sedition Act into law in 1798. He had imprisoned and fined 25 men, mostly Republican writers, editors and publishers.

“One Republican was convicted of sedition for publishing a pro-Jefferson campaign pamphlet that accused President Adams of appointing corrupt judges and ambassadors. Two men were found guilty of raising a “liberty pole” and putting a sign on it that said, “downfall to the Tyrants of America.” Another was arrested, but never tried, for circulating a petition to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts themselves. A drunk was fined $150 for insulting President Adams.”

Abraham Lincoln, America’s 16th president, felt the sting of excoriating hostility from the press, a thing which he often complained to his wife about.  Mary would respond by accusing him of being “thin-skinned.” But as the North and South went to war, press communications became a casualty especially for newspapers who were in sympathy with a pro-peace and pro-slavery agenda:

“Eventually the military and the government began punishing editorial opposition to the war itself. Authorities banned pro-peace newspapers from the U.S. mails, shut down newspaper offices and confiscated printing materials. They intimidated, and sometimes imprisoned, reporters, editors and publishers who sympathized with the South or objected to an armed struggle to restore the Union. For the first year of the war, Lincoln left no trail of documents attesting to any personal conviction that dissenting newspapers ought to be muzzled. But neither did he say anything to control or contradict such efforts when they were undertaken, however haphazardly, by his Cabinet officers or military commanders. Lincoln did not initiate press suppression, and remained ambivalent about its execution, but seldom intervened to prevent it… Soon all of Washington’s telegraph wires, the standard medium for transmitting news from city to city, fell under military control—as ‘The New York Times’ founder Henry Raymond had learned to his consternation after Bull Run. In the aftermath of the stinging Federal defeat there, a season of official crackdowns on individual newspapers commenced. The hostility toward pro-peace, pro-slavery journals made the angry crowd that menaced the Herald offices after Sumter seem like a band of carolers by comparison.”

Woodrow Wilson, America’s 28th president, at the outbreak of WWI, considered that in the interests of ‘public safety’ government should have full censorship rights over the press. By executive order, he created an agency  – the Committee for Public Information – specifically to win and keep the loyalty of young American men to enlist and fight in the war. 

“Immediately upon entering the war, the Wilson administration brought the most modern management techniques to bear in the area of government-press relations. Wilson started one of the earliest uses of government propaganda. He waged a campaign of intimidation and outright suppression against those ethnic and socialist papers that continued to oppose the war. Taken together, these wartime measures added up to an unprecedented assault on press freedom.”

Harry Truman, America’s 33rd president, famously wrote a diatribe against the American press covering the White House, comparing them to prostitutes:

“Presidents and the members of their Cabinets and their staff members have been slandered and misrepresented since George Washington… When the press is friendly to an administration the opposition has been lied about and treated to the excrescence [sic] of paid prostitutes of the mind.”

Barrack Obama, America’s 44th president, became an expert at press persecution, only, as with most vices Obama engaged in (like his cigarette habit), he took pains to make sure it was done on the sly:

“In 2009…the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

It only got worse from there:

“Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.”

That, however, was nothing compared to what then took place against journalist James Rosen:

“In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a “flight risk.”
The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen’s emails from 2010.”

The persecution of James Rosen of Fox News, James Risen of The New York Times, the Associated Press scandal, the persecution of Sharyl Attkisson over her reportage of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal and the persecution which resulted in the imprisonment of political commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

When it came to aggressive suppression of the press, Obama’s administration was medieval, but I never heard the likes of Jim Acosta grandstanding at the Whitehouse in a bid to champion press freedoms. In comparison to Obama, President Trump is a fluffy kitten, yet he psychologically has a hold over the press which is remarkable for its ability to trigger them into hysteria with a few mere words.  It’s as if they’re all suffering from PTSD after seeing a fellow press colleague tarred, feathered and roasted over a spit.

The president is so antithetical to the mainstream media in his cultural stance on everything – tone, manner, looks, lifestyle, forthrightness, traditions, patriotism, ego etc – that they find him personally and deeply offensive.  He only needs to look askance at them for a millisecond and they rattle louder than a murder of crows. 

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

​