APARTHEID FLOURISHES IN THE 21st CENTURY

June 21, 2025
, , , Apartheid

In 1994 Westerners celebrated the “end of apartheid” in South Africa when that country was so hurriedly granted the alleged magic of “majority rule”.

“No more apartheid” was the cry of the moment. Not so. Apartheid is flourishing in the 21st century but the liberal elites that have been the curse of the West for so long refuse to acknowledge it because it does not suit their agenda of “coloured people always right, white man always wrong”. In this piece we shall look at how apartheid, defined as special rights based on race, is present and growing in four countries: New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia and Israel.

Currently there is probably no nation that embraces apartheid more broadly and deeply than New Zealand where it has infected society and the economy like a cancer – helped every step of the way by gutless and worthless politicians and judges who lack the spine and the principle to stand up for the traditional rights of New Zealanders against the ever increasing racist demands of the greedy, pale-faced tribal elite of part-Maoris. I use the word “part-Maoris” in the interests of linguistic precision as Maoris (genuine Maoris) are extinct; the last full blood died in the 1950s and to-day there are not even any half-bloods. The reason why they are extinct is that they preferred to breed with Europeans rather than with each other.

What motivates the tribal elite in its never-ending grab for superior rights and public resources seems to be a real hatred of the white man – the one who brought peace, law and order, prosperity, personal freedom, intellectual enlightenment, personal safety and material comforts to a primitive Stone Age people, the word “Stone Age” being applied to any society that used stone for their tools and weapons because they had not invented metal. In fact, the fish hooks and nails that Captain Cook’s sailors traded with them was the first metal that they had ever seen. The hatred that the tribes had for each other pre-1840, as exemplified by the endless tribal wars, seems to have been transferred to a hatred of their European saviours and this is key to understanding the preposterous demands that the tribal elite are constantly making. Please note: this hatred seems to apply only to the tribal elite and their intimidating foot soldiers in the gangs and NOT to the majority of part-Maoris.

New Zealand’s health system is riddled with apartheid, with Auckland’s District Health Board prioritising Maori and Pacific Island patients for some surgeries, pushing European New Zealanders who have paid taxes all their lives down the waiting list purely for racist reasons. This medically indefensible move was introduced by that “kind” Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern – the one who, along with her shadow, little Chris Hipkins, pushed a harmful and largely ineffective vaccine on to gullible New Zealanders from which quite a few have died. Priority for an operation should be based on how sick the patient is, how urgently treatment is needed, and how long one has been on the waiting list. Nothing else – least of all racist considerations just to buy Maori votes for the Labour Party. Health is too important to be subjected to the politics of race.   

Then again in 2023 – again during the Ardern nightmare – Pharmac introduced “ethnicity criteria” (preference for Maoris and Pacific Islanders) for drugs for Type-2 diabetes, heart problems, lung cancer and breast cancer.

People claiming to be “Maori” can get their rates remitted on freehold land that they own in a council area while the tribes can trade and do other business without paying as much tax as others, thus giving them an advantage over competitors in an industry. 

They also have an undue representation in Parliament by way of the race-based Maori seats, for which a smaller population base is required than for a general seat, thus giving them an advantage in parliamentary representation. And now they are trying to bring similar race based power into local government by means of “Maori wards” – a truly toxic development but in line with New Zealand’s ever growing move to a fully apartheid state where there will never be national unity. Where are the protestors who raged against “separate race rights” in South Africa? Sadly those who protested against the Springbok tour, etc. are racists without knowing it as they are “offended” only if it is coloured people being discriminated against and not Europeans.

Like New Zealand, Canada has been a victim of the wretched and racist U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This has taken some very ugly forms that are likely to be followed in New Zealand once the tribal elite get wind of them. One of Canada’s greediest tribes is the Pacheedaht people of British Columbia, most of whom are thoroughly Westernised but seem to harbour a deep, racist hatred of their fellow non-Indigenous British Columbians and want to inconvenience and harm them as much as possible. From 25th April to 16th May, 2025, this tribe, with the collaboration of the spineless and equally racist British Columbian provincial government, banned all non-Indigenous people from the Juan de Fuca Park (a PUBLIC park) so that some of the tribespeople could “reconnect with their native territory”.

Not satisfied with this, the Pacheedaht elite got the British Columbian government to ban non-Indigenous people from Botanical Beach on Vancouver Island from 4 p.m. on 24th May until 4 p.m. the next day. This was so as “to provide time, space and privacy for members of the Pacheedaht ‘First Nation’ (!) to harvest marine resources and reconnect with an important part of their territory”. Botanical is a very big beach and they could have done this without closing the beach to all others. But, of course, that would not have satisfied their hatred towards “non-Indigenous” people, which seems to have been the whole point of the exercise. Botanical is an extremely popular beach and no doubt that was why these “Indigenous” racists chose it.

Another British Columbian public country park is Joffre Lakes Provincial Park, which is one of the busiest recreational spots in British Columbia. Therefore – and obviously for this reason – it was closed off to British Columbia’s 4.6 million “non-Indigenous” people in 2023 for 39 days, in 2024 for 60 days, and in 2025 for more than 100 days. This was so that another two tribes, Lilwat and N’Quatqua, could “reconnect with the land”. This increasing scale of closures in successive years would suggest that the one day closing of Botanical Beach is a template of things to come. No doubt next year it will be closed not for a day but for a week and then for a month the following year. Gradualism is the most effective way of taking away people’s rights.

On 15th April, 2025, the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment and Parks announced the indefinite closure of a section of the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve while on Cabbage Island the once popular wilderness camp sites have been closed to non-Indigenous people who can now be prosecuted under Canada’s National Parks Act for entering this once public reserve.

In the words of British Columbia’s Ministry of the Environment and Parks “more temporary closures are anticipated”. They tried to justify all this petty apartheid by saying “these temporary closures represent a critical step forward on the path of reconciliation”!!!! It would be hard to make this stuff up. What could be a more effective way of worsening race relations than to inconvenience 4.6 million British Columbians and violate their long held rights so as to oblige a pushy, hate-filled, Westernised tribal elite in their racist games? 

A similar problem exists in New Zealand where in 1998 seventy-two camping areas in the South Island (called “nohoanga”) were taken out of public ownership and handed to the Ngai Tahu tribe by the National government of Jim Bolger. These are one hectare sites on what was once public land adjacent to rivers and lakes and during the stated periods (210 days a year), are for the exclusive use of those New Zealanders who can claim a drop of Ngai Tahu blood. This is so that these racially privileged people can fish in the rivers and eat plants and weeds just like their Stone Age ancestors even though the diet now for many of them consists of Big Macs, KFC and not much else.

Then there are the “mataitai” regulations which in the 1990s privatised the control of non-commercial fishing to various tribal groups. These are now race based fishing reserves which replaced our fishing areas that were open to all New Zealanders. Non-Maori may still fish in these areas – but only if the tribe lets them. Thus do we become second class citizens in the land that our pioneer forebears built with their sweat and toil.

The first mataitai was in Lyttelton harbour and it covers 25 hectares of sea and 2.5 km of coastline. In 2004 an 8,000 hectare mataitai was declared over Paterson Inlet on Stewart Island and then other large mataitais followed including Moremore, off Napier (9,000 hectares and c. 20 km of coast), Raukokere, East Cape (2,600 hectares and c. 13 km of coast), and Aotea harbour (4,000 hectares and c. 45 km of coast). These mataitais deprive recreational fishermen of their ancient and precious common law rights. Any permission given by the tribe for others to fish there can be revoked at any time. By 2012 the Government had 26 mataitais covering a lot of fishing areas. As Dr. Hugh Barr wrote in the book, Twisting the Treaty, “No democratic government should be allowed to tolerate them….These unnecessary, historically dubious and ever expanding Maori private fishing rights are incompatible with a fair, decent and non-racist society”.

In Malaysia racial division is embedded in the Constitution and therefore even to question any of the many instances of racial discrimination in favour of Malays and against Indians and Chinese is illegal!!!!

The Malayan peninsula came into the modern world via the British Empire which governed the various Malay states from the early nineteenth century until Independence in 1957. By then the Malays – mainly peasants called “bumiputra” – constituted slightly over 50% of the population, the remainder being made up of Chinese and Indians who lived mainly in the towns. So, being in the numerical majority, the Government elected by the votes of the bumiputra quickly went about rewarding them by a torrent of apartheid rules favouring these peasants while discriminating against the hard-working Indians and Chinese who provide most of the tax revenue.

Regardless of merit the Malays are given preferential entry to government universities, with 90% of places going to them. This forces Chinese and Indian students to attend the expensive private universities where, of course, they receive a better education since places there are based on merit.

Malays alone get discounts for new government houses as well as preferential treatment in receiving public housing. They also receive cheaper burial plots while 30% of the shares of every listed company must be held by Malays. And, of course, all the key positions in government are held by Malays on the basis of race rather than competence.

However, Malaysia is not the only country to discriminate against students of various races in respect of entry to university. New Zealand does the same. Although discrimination is widespread across all New Zealand universities we shall confine the comments here to the medical schools of Otago and Auckland. In these, non-Maori students are actively and institutionally discriminated against as they can attain higher marks but are rejected from medical school so as to enable those with lower marks to be admitted solely because they have a bit of Maori or Pacific Islands blood in them. Also privileged – but to a lesser degree – are those from rural areas, those from “low socio-economic backgrounds”, and those who are refugees or the offspring of refugees. Anybody but white people!

After 2010 these two medical schools got on the apartheid train and went full steam ahead so that by 2016 Maori and Pacific Island students entering Otago Medical School increased by 179% – not on merit but on race.

In 2020 Otago University had 202 places in its Medical School but 120 of them were reserved for the privileged “special categories” (Maoris, Pacific Islanders, etc.), leaving only 82 (40%) places for others. How on earth is New Zealand ever going to get a competent medical profession with policies like these?

In 2020 Auckland University’s Medical School had 185 places with Maoris and Pacific Islanders taking up 52 of them – again not on merit. These Maori and Pacific candidates are not selected by the entry exams but are assessed “by reference to specific material provided by applicants about their engagement  with their communities”!!!!!

This brand of apartheid stinks as it breeds justified resentment on the part of white and Asian students who are rejected in favour of those with lower marks but who can tick a certain racial box, reduces the prestige of the two Medical Schools, and lowers the standard of competence within the medical profession. It also stigmatises those medical students of Maori or Pacific ancestry regardless of whether they got in by means of a racial leg-up or on their own merits. It is here that one of the worst injustices occurs. If, for example, a Maori or Pacific Island student sits the general entrance exam with the other students (European and Asian) and passes with flying colours without any race-based help and then becomes a doctor, he/she is likely to be looked at with a certain amount of suspicion by the general public who would say – wrongly but understandably – “I am not going to a Maori doctor because they only got there by racial preference rather than competence”. This is merely another injustice that apartheid produces. 

Some of the cruellest instances of apartheid to-day are found in Israel where the ruling race of recently arrived Jews treat the traditional inhabitants, the Arabs, as despised, second-class creatures whom they look down upon as “goyim”. These injustices began even before the state of Israel was created in 1948 by Jewish terrorists and by the use of terrorism. In the 1930s when Jews started to migrate to Palestine in great numbers they took land via the Jewish National Fund from the Arabs. A condition of the purchase of such land by a Jew was that “at any time in the future, under any conditions whatever”, it must not “be alienated to anyone who is not a Jew”.

Similarly in 2017 Israel’s parliament passed a law allowing the state to seize land privately held by Palestinians (Arabs) in the West Bank and grant the property to new Jewish settlements “for their exclusive use”. This was but one of at least 50 articles of legalised discrimination that the Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Jews. Over the preceding years thousands of Palestinians living in Jerusalem, descendants of families who had lived there for generations, had been deprived of their right to continue living there.

In 2013 the Israeli authorities copied apartheid South Africa exactly when they forced Jews and Arabs to stand in separate lines at bus stops in the West Bank – another instance of Israel’s “dual rights” system.

Israel’s apartheid extends into family relationships. In 2012 its Supreme Court upheld a legal prohibition forbidding Palestinians living in the West Bank who marry Israeli Arabs from living in Israel. In the Occupied Territories Palestinians are placed under military law while Jews are governed by civilian law. “There is an apartheid state here. In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state,” declared Tamir Pardo, a former head of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, in 2023.

The worst form of racial discrimination is in the supply of underground bunkers for the people of Israel when they are attacked by some other nation such as Iran with whom Israel’s government has provoked yet another war. These underground shelters are largely effective and there are enough of them for c. 75% of the population. However, they are built almost exclusively in Jewish areas while Arab towns and communities are left without them.

In the words of another Jew, Peter Munz, late Professor of History at Victoria University of Wellington, “Israel, a nation caught by and persevering in a Stone Age mentality which allows citizenship only to the descendants of Abraham, is a non-secular, racist state which not only denies full rights to the Arabs living inside Israel, but also has invaded the West Bank in order to settle Israelis on foreign soil so that the Arabs cannot govern themselves, not even in those lands that are left to them”.

The irony of all this is that the apartheid practised in Israel, New Zealand, Canada and Malaysia to-day is motivated by hatred – in the case of New Zealand and Canada, the hatred of the tribal elite for the white man who actually lifted them out of their barbaric and violent ways into the comfort and safety of the modern world, in the case of Israel it is the Jewish contempt for non-Jews (“goyim”) while in Malaysia it is the envy of the lazy and backward bumiputra for the more hard-working, enterprising and successful Chinese and Indians.

It was only in South Africa where apartheid was conceived not out of hatred but out of a genuine regard for the welfare of the people – both black and white – whose conditions, freedoms, safety and prosperity could only decline under what would inevitably be a corrupt, greedy and less competent rule of the more primitive black man. This fear has been realised since the premature imposition of “majority rule” in 1994 which has brought increased insecurity, misery and poverty to people of all races (outside the black governing elite) with power cuts every day, pot-holed roads, broken traffic lights, rotting rubbish, overflowing sewers, lawlessness and a youth unemployment rate of 60% in 2024, the second highest in the world. And yet it was South Africa that was singled out for fanatical condemnation of apartheid and not these other four nations whose motives for imposing apartheid are far less honourable than those of the Boers.

Book Review: The Pioneers – Makers of New Zealand

June 11, 2025
, , , , , Book Review

By Mike Butler on Breaking Views

Don’t forget the old pioneers

The Pioneers – Makers of New Zealand, a new book by writer-publisher John McLean, reminds us of those who built New Zealand, tells how, and explains why their contribution should not be forgotten.

McLean descends from an unusual pioneering family of Scots who did a double migration, first to Nova Scotia in 1793, and then on to Waipu, in Bream Bay, Northland, in 1854.

The people behind contractors John McLean and Sons also descended from this group. This company built bridges, railways, most of Wellington’s wharves, the entire Auckland electric tramway system, as well as the early stages of the Otira Tunnel under the southern Alps, starting in 1907.

This is the third book in a trilogy that McLean has written about the New Zealand pioneers, the others being Voyages of the Pioneers to New Zealand 1839-85, and Sweat and Toil, the Building of New Zealand.

Direct quotes from pioneers bring to life his latest story of those early days, when men, sometimes couples, travelled all the way from England, Scotland, or Ireland, to get in on the ground floor of a new colony.

Attracted by the lure of wealth, cheap land that they could own, the safety of British law, and the familiarity of British culture, they, often unexpectedly, found themselves faced with the daunting task of having to clear dense native bush before they could build shelter, let along plant anything.

Sometimes the forest was so dense there was not even enough room to swing an axe.

Without government welfare, and without money to make the long trip home, mostly to nothing, most pioneers had no option but to do keep going until the hut was built and the farm planted.

In a nutshell, “no other option but carry on” is the pioneering spirit.

That early energy and determination began to fade in the children of the pioneers, at the turn of the century, prompting Lord Ranfurly to say, in 1904, that “the people of the colony were growing too fond of going to the government for everything and were raising children that were unfitted for a pioneering life”.

“The king hit to the pioneering qualities of enterprise, hard work and self-reliance came with the introduction of the welfare state by the first Labour government which took office in 1935,“ Mclean wrote.

His close look at reactions to arrival in a new land, their houses, food, cooking, drink, clothes, transport, religion, social and sporting activities, their effect on the environment, and the origin of the towns, among numerous other chapter headings, sheds light on the culture that the descendants of British early settlers have that seems invisible but which is omnipresent.

For instance, the habit of a Sunday roast that came with the pioneers had become a feature of life in Britain as the main meal of the week that was slow cooked while the family went to church, ready to be eaten when they returned home.

The forebears of the sparrows on your lawn were introduced to counter voracious caterpillars that invaded from the virgin bush to eat every blade of new sown grass.

Whiskey, beer and cigarettes, racing, cricket, rugby all came with the pioneers.

McLean shows that relations between pioneers and Maoris were mainly of mutual benefit, except for when some tribes rebelled in some areas in the 1840s and 1860s.

The military response to those rebellions led to the creation of military towns including Hamilton, Cambridge, Pirongia, and Kihikihi, numerous redoubts (settler forts) signposted as historical reminders, as well as extensive land confiscations in parts of the North Island as a consequence of insurrection.

McLean’s easy-to read third book on the New Zealand pioneers will rekindle in those of us with forebears who came here early a renewed understanding and respect that may have been sidelined as unacceptable, or which may have just drifted away with the passage of time.

The Pioneers – Makers of New Zealand, John McLean, Winter Productions, 256 pages, illustrated, is available from independent bookshops or www.trosspublishing.com

THE WAR AGAINST ELON MUSK AND FREE SPEECH

June 7, 2025
, , , Freedom of Speech

By John McLean

When riots eventually broke out in Britain in August, 2024, against the British government’s subversive policy of changing the kingdom’s demographics by allowing millions of Third World chancers to arrive in Britain where even illegal immigrants are housed free of charge in nice hotels (a luxury not available to the native born) the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, seized with both hands the opportunity of using the riots as a pretext to limit free speech – just as Jacinda Ardern did in New Zealand in 2019 after one man, Brenton Tarrant, shot some Muslims in two mosques.

In both cases these manipulative Prime Ministers clicked in to the media hysteria around these two unfortunate events as they believed that a traumatised public, manipulated into “group outrage” by the mainstream media, would accept such violations of freedom that would be unlikely to be accepted in more normal times. By no yardstick could the riots be justified but that does not mean that the issue of mass migration that triggered them should not be recognised as a very serious problem.

By blaming “social media” for the riots Starmer, with the help of a compliant media (BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, etc.) managed to shift the debate from the serious issue that provoked the riots to the alleged “danger” of social media.

This war against social media is strongly supported by the mainstream media, consisting as it does of government stooges of mainly definite Left wing views. Mainstream media, with its “group narrative” of events, fears the power of the free wheeling ideas that are expressed on social media and which are so often outside the agreed narrative of the sinister combination of government, academia and mainstream media.

The more that people engage with – and get their news from – social media, the fewer newspapers they will buy and the more likely they are not to watch the BBC or, even worse, New Zealand’s TV1 News at Six. That means less revenue from the sale of newspapers and from advertising from mainstream media and more for Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms, leading eventually to the demise of mainstream media and the sacking or redundancy of more and more of its reporters. We saw this in New Zealand with the closedown of TV3 with the loss of hundreds of jobs. 

This fear was also what motivated London’s Independent newspaper on 13th August, 2024, to write an article headlined “How To Delete Your X Account After Elon Musk’s ‘Vile’ Site Helps Fuel Far-Right Riots”. The article itself was effectively an instruction manual for readers to quit X, guiding the reader through the technicalities of what buttons to push, etc. 

Fear of the growing power of social media is also why Stuff on its website took to writing at the end of its online articles: “Be a Friend of Facts. What you’ve just read was written by a fiercely independent reporter and general good human. Our journalists tell it like it is. They’re trained to know facts from falsehoods, science from spin, politicking from public interest…Our journalists are free to report the news across Aotearoa without corporate or government influence.” There are at least seven false statements in this mighty piece of misinformation, including the name of the country. Thus by its own words does Stuff show the greater truth of social media over mainstream.

They have reason to be afraid for their jobs for during the weeks of the protest at Parliament in Wellington against the brutal and unnecessary Covid mandates and lockdowns more people were getting their online information and news from Voices for Freedom and other online groups on social media than from the mainstream media. All this helps explain the continuing hostile articles in mainstream media against X and other social media platforms. 

Starmer and his gang of crusading female ministers singled out Musk, the owner of X, as the prime target of blame for the riots that swept through the working class areas of Britain – even more so than Tommy Robinson. And yet neither Musk nor Robinson were even in Britain at the time! Starmer has threatened to force X to “restrict” posts that some of its more than 350 million users might put on it – posts that are “legal but harmful”. This would include any post that dares to question the economically damaging and yet ineffective “net zero” policy or indeed global warming itself.

In the words of the leader of Britain’s Reform Party, Nigel Farage, “What we should be allowed to do on social media is to speculate, to ask questions, to try to put facts out, put facts out that wake up the rest of the community. And while you’re engaged in something like that you can never guarantee that what you say is 100% true….Now, Starmer, by cracking down on that, poses the biggest threat to free speech we’ve seen in our history”. 

Starmer must have been a very shonky lawyer not to understand that it is not technologically possible for a social media platform to sift out instantly views that in Starmer’s narrow opinion are false. In the case of United States v Alvarez the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views”. How could X or other platforms  work out what is true and what is false since this can only be done through debate, fact sharing and comparisons within a legal framework that allows it?

As Hannah Cox wrote in Newsweek on 15th August, 2024, “The Brits are in a full-fledged free fall into oppression where citizens will be terrified to push back, unable to meaningfully participate in their government or their society, where neighbours will turn on neighbours”. In other words, a snitch society of Left wing crusaders scouring the Internet to find posts that are off the official narrative and which they can claim are “false”. Just like in the days of the Stasi in East Germany under the Communists.

As part of their war against Musk, which is really a war against free speech, both the British government and the European Union have brought in legislation (Britain’s Online Safety Act and the E.U.’s Digital Services Act) to try to get rid of X by financial means. The British Act demands that social media platforms actively identify, mitigate and manage the risks of harm from “illegal” material – something that, as already mentioned, is technologically impossible. The E.U. allows them to fine X a total of 6% of its global annual revenue while the British Act goes for 10% of the same. 

State regulators (censors) cannot be trusted to decide what is “true” speech and what isn’t. Remember the whopping lie that Jacinda Ardern told during the contrived Covid hysteria when she said that she would continue to be “your single source of truth”!!!!!! This was at a time when she was propagating the lie that her government’s chosen vaccine was “safe and effective” when in fact it was neither.

A further part of the Starmer government’s attack on free speech is a proposal to force schools to teach children as young as five to spot “extremist” content and “fake news” online. This is a form of child abuse. Starmer, in his earlier incarnation as Director of Public Prosecutions, used to prosecute people for child abuse. Should he ever feel the same inclination again, perhaps the best place to start would be for him to look in the mirror.

“English classes might be used to scrutinise newspaper reports, comparing their style and language to fake news, while pupils may be taught how to identify fake news websites via their designs,” wrote London’s Independent on 11th August, 2024. Why not use English classes to teach these deprived children how to speak and write basic English grammar, something that teachers now find too boring and insufficiently ideological to satisfy their brainwashing instincts.

The use of the word “extremist” is most disturbing because, if we are to maintain our freedoms and way of life – or even, let it be said, our traditional demographics – it is both natural and desirable to be “extremist” in upholding them. As the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, said in 1964, “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice”. Therefore, when the authorities try to demonise people for being “extremists” or, more particularly “Far Right extremists”, they should not only be disbelieved but also called out and exposed.

Since she resigned and fled the country in a hurry Jacinda Ardern has devoted herself to what appears to be her first love: online censorship or, to be more precise, dictating to people what we can think and say on the Internet. In her usual manipulative way she calls it the “Christchurch Call”. The aim of this particular piece of censorship is to combat “online extremist content” – no doubt people like Barry Goldwater for saying “extremist” things in defence of liberty. In her intolerant mind the word “extremist” really applies to any view that gets in the way of her own views and prejudices; this was on public display during her would-be Covid dictatorship. Our forebears have died in the world wars for freedom of speech and we need to be as “extremist” as possible in defending it.

The war against Elon Musk is being waged on several fronts and is very disturbing since X is probably the last bastion of free speech in the world. In the words of Musk himself, “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy and Twitter (now X) is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated”.  

Oh dear! How dare he utter such heresy. A horrified Under-Secretary in Britain’s Labour government, Jess Phillips, damned X as “a place of misery” (for over 350 million users!). She would know all about misery as her habitually sad face epitomises it – the last person you’d ever want to meet at a party.

John Swinney, the First Minister in Scotland’s devolved government, chimed in and screamed, “The conduct [of X] is unacceptable and needs to be tackled”. His predecessor as First Minister, Humza Yousaf, went further and declared that Musk was “one of the most dangerous men on the planet”. Yes, dangerous to types like Yousaf for providing a platform for people to criticise the secrecy and incompetence of the Scottish government. 

During his brief and disastrous term as First Minister Yousaf introduced unprecedented restrictions on free speech, especially in respect of “transgenderism”, which is itself a violation of nature since biologically every person born male has thousands of male only cells while everyone born female has thousands of female only cells and these can never be changed during a human life. 

When British commentator Posie Parker pointed out this eternal and proven rule of nature at a park in Auckland, she was physically attacked and had to be rescued by the police. So much for free speech in New Zealand, where it is now subject to the “thug’s veto” – as was so plainly obvious during Julian Batchelor’s tour of the country to oppose the poison of “co-governance”. The hate campaign against social media has been well thought out and no repetition of such slogans as “hate speech”, “racism” or “Far Right” should distract us from its real purpose of straight out censorship. 

Another weapon that has been used against X is cyber attacks to prevent people being able to tune in to its debates with Donald Trump and Ron de Santis. 

In New Zealand the government’s war against free speech is now so all encompassing that there is even ideological training of police officers who have been ordered that ANY reported incidents of “hate speech” that are not offences still have to be recorded as “hate incidents”, the test of a “hate incident” being anything that the complainants feel is “hateful” towards them as a member of a minority group. But there is no “hate” against Europeans as a group- e.g. the Maori Party’s constant and racist hate campaigns against European New Zealanders. The test for this “hate” is entirely subjective (what some member of the public decides it should be) and not objective. The police do not make reports for other matters that are not offences without good reason so why should they do so for this? Under the defective leadership of Police Commissioner Andrew Coster (an Ardern appointment) the men and women in uniform are fast becoming “thought police” in the manner of the old Soviet Union.

In this war by the authorities against the right of the individual to express himself or herself on social media we must fight back with all our strength. Hopefully this article has shed a little light on the subject. There is more information on this vital matter in the book “Free Speech Under Attack”, published by Tross Publishing (www.trosspublishing.com) 

1 2 3
Copyright © 2023 Tross Publishing. All rights reserved.