Unless you agree with us completely you shall not speak

Over the last few months I've been wondering just is and and is not allowed to be said about the covid disaster that is unfolding in the brave new world of New Zealand, 2021.  

There have been hints as to what it could not be uttered in the rapidly cut off callers to Newstalk ZB.  

One night, while talking out loud to himself, Marcus Lush of NewstalkZB indicated that he couldn't allow any opinions that could spread disbelief.  

Nick Mills, the Wellington morning host, has over time perfecting his technique for stopping callers, after initially just talking over them proved too much for him.  Last week he talked over someone who had lost his job due to the vaccine mandates, making sure to not let him speak more than several words before interrupting and filling the airwaves with his own voice.  Later on, someone tried to say something was completely and utterly cut off, so who knows what was said that was so horrendous, that it was dumped without a word.

This censorship has been pointing to anything related to a negative opinion on lockdown and covid vaccination, more recently job losses due to mandates, and now vaccination passports.  If you have a negative opinion about any of these topics, you are not invited share this opinion, and are likely to be rapidly shutdown if you dare speak.

The difference between the total free reign that callers get to talk if they stay within the allowed opinions vs the disallowed is stark.  I have considered phoning in just to give an alternate view but have stopped myself multiple times.  Considering that my thoughts stray so far outside of what is deemed to be acceptable, the most I could hope for would be to say maybe five words before being summarily disconnected.

Even worse, politicians and political commentators can now get away with openly stating that they do not want to be near an unvaccinated person as if that person is unclean or contaminated.  

Here's a clue if you are confused as to why this is a problem - replace "unvaccinated" with any other type of person and ask yourself if you would like to associate with the type of person openly stating this sort of sentiment.

Labour MP and Government Minister, Stuart Nash, has been the most egregious example of this type of demonisation.  He has repeated this position multiple times, that I have heard myself, that he does not want to be near an unvaccinated person, nor does he want his daughter near unvaccinated people, without any apparent sense of shame over what he is saying.  Nor was any challenge made by any of the hosts of NewstalkZB involved in conversations with him when he has said these things.

Should there be any surprise, therefore, that Marcus Lush read out the following text on air last Thursday (18 November between 8:15 & 8:30pm):

"I think we should bring back the gallows for the unmasked and the unvaxed. We'll never return to normal at this rate. The unvaxxed will kill all of us."

The following meme best describes how people are being encouraged or even programmed to think of unvaccinated people:

Source - MiaT on Twitter

Listen to Marcus Lush read that text

At last a definition

Last weekend, the definition of just what could be said and what could not was laid out explicitly in this article: Scorn for vaccine disinformation, published in the Sunday Star Times 14 November, 2021.  

The article has since been renamed; currently is it called "A paper on vaccination in pregnancy co-authored by Simon Thornley has been panned by experts around the world".  Most likely to continue to denigrate the target, who has since the original publishing has been successfully bullied into withdrawing the named paper, but that's another story.

Here is the definition of what constitutes thought crimes today in New Zealand, in 2021:

Given an environment of unvaccinated people feeling under pressure, particularly in traditionally female-dominated professions – plus a speaker, Thornley, who’s got “high possible impact owing to his status” – the paper would operate as disinformation.

“Or possibly malinformation – true information used with ill intent,” she says.

While misinformation is defined simply as false information, disinformation is false information created with the intent of causing harm.

What. The. Hell.

Long time readers of this blog will know of my Polish background and of the types of things I have written about over the years, most especially propaganda, disinformation and leftism.  The above description has left me chilled me to the bone.  Especially, "malinformation – true information used with ill intent".

So it doesn't even matter if what you say is true and recognised as true. If that truth is considered harmful as defined by someone who determines what is and isn't harmful, then you will be censored in today's New Zealand.  

This explains the very active suppression of disallowed opinion in the mainstream media.