Commie attacks on freedom of expression endorsed by so called RW blogs


I’ve had a bit to say over on the Standard relating to the issue of the extreme left pressure group @actionstation and their idiot idea to petition the Human Rights Commission to prosecute Cameron Slater.

Slater said in a blog post and on Twitter that he thought the best way to deal with violence from the PLO and ISIS was to “kill them before they kill us”. @actionstation said this was hate speech directed at Muslims.

Now, I’ve made my feelings clear on this issue at the Standard, and you can read my comments on the thread if you’re interested. However the thing that really struck me in this argument was that someone posted a regulation from the OMSA.

The Online Media Standards Authority is a group that was set up after the so called “Dirty Politics” train of events wherein certain bloggers appeared to believe they had some peace to make with mainstream media and this was perhaps a way to do it.

Both Kiwiblog and Whaleoil joined up. I knew this however what I did not know until today was exactly what was specified in the OMSA charter. Someone quoted part of it today and I was horrified at what I read.

Standard 6 Discrimination and Denigration
Publishers of news and current affairs content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the New Zealand community on account of gender, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.


6a. This standard is not intended to prevent the publication of material that is:

  • factual, or
  • the expression of genuinely held opinion, or
  • the reporting of legitimate humour, drama or satire.

I found it hard to believe that self professed right wing bloggers had signed up to a clause that basically consists of manifest Marxist rubbish. The first paragraph is just typical culturally Marxist Critical Theory crapola. A poisonous anti-freedom of expression regulation of the kind that we need to get the hell out of our culture.

We are the West. We resist tyranny. Don’t our free speech traditions mean anything anymore?? Damn these fools who would throw all that made us great away so casually.

No true right wing blogger would sign up to this extreme left crap, and worst of all pay good money to subscribe to it. Farrar and Slater need their damn heads read.

You can read all of OMSA’s regulations here.

18 thoughts on “Commie attacks on freedom of expression endorsed by so called RW blogs

  1. 1. How does this clause relate to IS or the PLO

    2. Said it before, say it again, Blubber Boy is a closet Labour supporter.

    3. By his own admission he is a dirty despicable worm.

    4. Posts for profit without revealing that it is a paid advertorial. Then shuts down any dissent.

    Think on him no more.


  2. We don’t agree on much, do we? But on this, I am in total agreement with you. Free speech is not a left/right issue. It is a Human Rights issue.

    I despise most things Andrew Bolt writes, but I support his right to write, and opposed his prosecution for expressing an opinion. I believe his opinion was incorrect, but the way to deal with that is argument, not prosecution.

    I believe that the 1st Amendment to the US constitution should be adopted world wide, and I wonder why the US doesn’t include these words when it writes constitutions for other countries. This is echoed in Article 19 of the UDHR.

    The robust exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of any democracy. Yes, I am a lefty, and I support freedom and equality for all. I can point you to countless other “lefties”, humanists and free thinkers, who fight at all costs to protect the free speech rights of those whose views they abhor.

    Slater is a bully, an attention whore, and can dish shit out but cries like a baby when it is thrown back at him, but that does not mean he must be shut down, it simply means he should be challenged and ridiculed.


  3. Well red, marxist answers your own question. A marxist communist is one who imposes all ten planks of the communist manifesto piece by piece. The 6th plank says:


    So their you have it, an income tax and central bank are planks 2 & 5 which were implemented in the 1930s, this is 80 years later, so slowly but surely we are becoming a communist society or something like that. And why do they need to do it progressively, so that you will hardly notice it until it is too late.


  4. Income tax in NZ originated in 1903 I gather – all for a good cause of course. The locals then thought it sucked because they could see where it would lead.

    The only right turning thing Farrer ever touched was the indicator stalk in his car.


  5. Brown, I found out about this recently. When the income tax was first imposed, the proposition was it would only be at a maximium of 5%, and on only some of the people. As it says in the NZ encyclopedia.

    It was not imposed on most people. After the great depression, the government borrowed money, and that’s when an income tax became permanent. Besides the communist manifesto says a highly graduated income tax. 5% on the top earners is not a highly graduated income tax. And a central bank is from where the government borrows from. And how can they be sure the government will pay it back? Income tax.


    • “the proposition was it would only be at a maximium of 5%” Cue Tui billboard

      Just like the maori electoral seats, which were introduced in 1867 at a time when only property owners were entitled to vote and maori generally only had communally-owned property. Of course, they should have been abolished with the introduction of the universal franchise (which signalled the start of the long, slow decline of western civilisation, but my thoughts on that are well-known). But of course, they remained in place until today, when under the corruption of the vile MMP system, those on the “maori roll” exercise a significant amount more electoral muscle than those on the general roll.


      • Gantt, take a look at the big point. My main point was that in the 1930s is when the income tax and central bank were introduced. Then Brown said that’s not true because of what happened previously before then. Than I said that it was small, until the 1930s. Are you understanding me Gantt.

        In fact, it is possible that originally it was a tax on the profit of business people which was originally called income. And then the historians said we can’t allow people to think that, so then they rewrote it as income tax.


        • I understand precisely what you were say. I have two eyes with which to see. I’ve read Alinsky, I’ve read Gramsci, and I know history.

          Friend, I’ve tried to refrain from saying this because mostly your contributions are relevant and enlghtened, but you need to dial back on the condescension. Check your comments before you post. “Are you understanding me” is incredibly condescending and arrogant, coming from someone who doesn’t know the correct usage of “their, there, they’re”.


          • Gantt, if you think my grammar and spelling is bad, you haven’t seen other people’s grammar or spelling. For instance some people say Muri instead of Maori. I do know the difference between their, there, they’re but if most people’s spelling and grammar is far worse I don’t see why I should have to do the same, and no one’s getting paid, it is simply a hobby.

            Their = referring to the person who owns it
            There = Referring to a place
            They’re = They are

            The reason I said are you understanding me, is that their are some people who I have to explain things over and over to. One person I’ve explained to 30 times, another 5 times. When I explained things the first time, Brown went on about a technical detail; their was income tax before the 1930s, but it was inconsequential. After defending my original statement, then you found fault with my additional technical detail, so then now I’ve brought up my original statement which if looked at, you wouldn’t have said what you said. So are you understanding me, was after I put the relevant points together, and then if that was enough, then I would leave it at that. Are you understanding me means is their anything I haven’t explained well enough.

            Maybe you haven’t heard, but their is a blogger called Griff who is dogmatic about global warming, and whenever I make a powerful point, he talks as if what I’m saying doesn’t make sense. So when you consider the fact that I have to explain things over and over again and I’m constantly asked to dumb things down, maybe you might see things in a different light. Are you understanding me, means I’m willing to explain it again if necessary. Without saying that some people get lost so easily.


            • OhMyFuckingGod, I (politely) ask you to tone down the condescension and this is how you choose to reply?

              Brown’s point was not a reply to your point (hence it isn’t indented beneath yours). Brown’s point was tangential from your point, and referenced back to the original post.

              I wasn’t replying to a “technical detail” as such, I was using a technical detail in your point to cast cynicism and ridicule on the fact that any government anywhere would keep such as promise as a “maximum 5%”, and using the racist electoral seats as but one example.

              I don’t particularly care how many times you’ve had to explain anything to anybody. The readers and commenters of this blog are of higher intelligence than most other places, thus you should leave your comment, then engage in discussion, or clarify as required (if, for example, your writing style or poor grammar cloud your original comment to the extent the person with whom you’re conversing really does miss it).

              And finally, lunatics like griff are among the very good reasons I don’t frequent kiwiblog, and haven’t for many years. I don’t particularly care what he/she has to say on any topic, much less “global warming” and I don’t much care to read here, about your arguments with him/her there.

              Are you understanding me, meatloaf? Do you feel me?


              • Here’s the thing Gantt, whenever I’ve said something that you disagree with, it seems to me that you are ready to pounce on me. You look for whatever fault you can. Now their are some comments you’ve made that I don’t agree with, but I don’t even say anything. So when it comes to you talking about my comments being condescending, I was never on the attack. I was simply on the defense.

                And I find it hard to believe that you are a Christian, when the fourth commandment says, if you use God’s name in vain you will not be held guiltless. Anyhow I’ll make you a deal, I won’t talk to you if you won’t talk to me. As I’ve said, all my comments to you are in defense to you out to find fault, at least that’s how I feel. So if you find what I’m saying to be condescending, just don’t talk to me. Finally, if we look at my language its all formal, and I can’t say the same about your language.

                Last of all when I’m talking about being on the defense their are other blogs we’ve both used, where I’ve used a different name. This shouldn’t be too hard for you to figure out, as I’ve made similiar comments.


      • You are absolutely right Gantt.

        1 Maori vote is worth 2 other votes.

        There is no place in a modern democracy for race or religious based seats.

        Every where in the World it has led to problems.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. In fact the proposition was that only the wealthy would pay the tax, and the middle class would pay less. So you could technically call it a wealth tax. Someone from the John Birch society said the original income tax in the states was a tax on profit.


  7. The income tax issue arose out of a desire to break up large but undeveloped land holdings and thereby enable poorer blokes to get into farming. RI think a rebellion against income tax was born about 20 years ago but never took hold. Ian Wishart did a bit of work on it I recall. I had a falling out with a friend that worked at IRD – you need to choose your friends.


  8. Brown when the original income tax was imposed or proposed before the 30s, yes that’s the story. However, in the 1930s just about every nation was indebted, so how were they going to pay it back. Before the 1930s most nations had just a few taxes, but in the 30s a new deal was announced that we can do more, but you will need to do more.

    If you’re not convinced look at sections 4 to 6:

    The Reserve bank collects taxes and fines etc, to pay the IMF. On a business income tax return it says, this information will go to anyone we have an international treaty with, it doesn’t say this on any other return. So the people who lend to us, have a right to know how much everyone is earning, and the more we are earning the more debt we can handle.

    About no income tax, their was a time when we only owed $10 billion. If we had continued to pay down the debt, the income tax could have been abolished. Income tax only is required when a country owes, because the lenders need to know how will you guys pay it back.


  9. I was demerited off Kiwiblog for defending western civilisation against attacks from a psychotic white hating anti-western critical theorist.

    David Farrar has to think deeply about a lot of things before he can describe himself as a “liberal”

    In its true sense, liberalism is a product of the civilised and educated west. The left have today perverted it into a wing of Cultural Marxism, a force designed to destroy western civilisation.

    The language used in the OMSA regulations is not the language of true liberals. It is the language of critical theorists, and their objective is the destruction of the civilisation that brought us true liberalism.


    • Good article Red,

      Your presence on KB is greatly missed. The fruitloops that arrive there when the sun goes down are the worst.

      DPF is an unashamed progressive but I won’t hold that against him as compared to other media outlets, he is relatively light touch with his censorship. He would do well however to limit the sheer number and size of posts as the fruitloops have made parts of the blog unreadable for the casual watcher


      • The laugh is we have the psychotic SH posturing as a defender of Western civilisation when the cowardly disgusting POS had all this to say not long ago-

        The savages were those people like you who stole our land through murder, and then forced marched most of my tribe hundreds of miles to Oklahoma, a march that left thousands dead, including women and children.

        We did not invade England and wipe out millions through disease, concentration camps, and mass deportations.

        Millions dies from white diseases, were forced off their land into concentration camps, and given disease infested blankets in an early form of germ warfare.

        And that is just the tip of the iceberg. By any reasonable standards, that was not just harsh, it was evil and deliberate mass murder.

        My people had vastly more genuine individual liberty before the English came along, trashed our property rights, and forced thousands to march all the way to Oklahoma to live in concentration camps.

        If this is the kind of shit Farrar wants to support on his blog he’s no liberal. This mythical, distorted propaganda is not designed to support true liberalism. Its whole intent is to destroy one of the greatest civilisations that has ever existed on earth, and that has brought freedom and democracy to millions.

        This perverted and distorted out of context smearing of our history and our achievements and the work of our forefathers is a direct result of Critical Theory and its rampant in every Western country in one form or another for the same purpose. To divide us, to make us feel ashamed of ourselves, and ultimately to weaken us so the Commies can prevail. Once they succeed we can kiss goodbye to so called “liberalism”, in any format.

        SH’s use of the terms “my people” and “people like you” leave no doubt about whether he is for us or against us. His posturing today as a defender of the West against untrammelled immigration/ invasion is an insult to any intelligent person. The guy is a psychotic narcissist who will latch on to any cause that brings him attention. Its not even about Indians, or white people, or even immigration. Its really just about SH.


Comments are closed.