Skip to main content

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sine dominico non possumus

This post was inspired by posts on TBR and A Servant's Thoughts on male vs female church attendance. ... "We Cannot Live without Sunday," takes us back to the year 304, when Emperor Diocletian prohibited Christians, under pain of death , to possess the Scriptures, to meet on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist and to build premises for their assemblies. In Abitene, a small village in what today is Tunis, 49 Christians , meeting in the home of Octavius Felix, were taken by surprise on a Sunday while celebrating the Eucharist, defying the imperial prohibitions. Arrested , they were taken to Carthage to be interrogated by the proconsul Anulinus. Significant, in particular, was the response given to the proconsul by Emeritus, after being asked why he had violated the emperor's order. He said: "Sine dominico non possumus," we cannot live without meeting on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. We would not have the strength to face the daily difficulties and not

Hmmmm

The University College London Union will probably never see any irony in this. The president of a London university atheist society has resigned over a row about an image of the Prophet Muhammad. The society at University College London (UCL) published an image on its Facebook page showing "Jesus and Mo" having a drink at a bar. The atheist group was asked by the UCL union to remove it, but refused and started a petition defending its freedom of expression. A student Muslim group began a counter-petition asking for its removal. The cartoon in question of course is designed to be offensive to Christians as well as Muslims. "The society was asked to remove the image because UCLU aims to foster good relations between different groups of students and create a safe environment where all students can benefit from societies regardless of their religious or other beliefs." Source: Muhammad cartoon row leads to resignation

This will scare the liberals

Teenagers in New Zealand are conservative about sex education and abortion. How could this be? After all the sexualisation they have been exposed to, all the State endorsed sex-ed - and they're turning out to be conservative!! Oh, the horror! And David Farrar's polling company did the research. This is hope, people. The young are not lost! Teenagers conservative about sex/abortion – Poll ~ Investigate Daily