Free Speech vs Fake Democracy

Legitimate dissent is the foundation of a democratic system. Without it, the public cannot consider new ideas, policy innovation becomes impossible, and the voters are rendered powerless. The actions of the coward Auckland Mayor Phil Goff to stifle this dissent is an affront to the democratic principles he claims to defend. This latest national scandal exposes the fact that when Cowardly Phil and others like him tell you that you are living in a democracy, they are lying to your face.

But he looks like such an honest guy!

But he looks like such an honest guy!

Free speech means risking being exposed to ideas with which you strongly disagree, in return for the freedom to honestly express your own. Any rational and mature person can see that this is a fair and advantageous trade.

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux are citizen-journalists who advocate for sadly-controversial common-sense ideas. They favour nationalism over globalism, secure and responsible immigration over open borders, and academic honesty over campus Marxist hysteria. They are coming to face an audience willing and eager to hear their thoughts. Nobody who disagrees with them is compelled to attend.

Cowardly Phil (infamous political prostitute for Chinese Big Business) reacted to this planned event by barring the speakers from the venue that they had long-previously booked, and further barring them from any Auckland City Council venue. Instead of encouraging a diverse range of ideas to be considered, the city government is cracking down on advocates for the common-sense ideas and attitudes of untold hundreds of thousands - or millions - of Kiwis. A huge portion of the country has just been told – by their government – that their ideas are forbidden, and should not be spread or tolerated.

Ask yourself: is this what you expect from a government that claims to embody the public will?

No, when confronted with legitimate, meaningful dissent, the system's mask slips. It cracks down on people simply hoping to express their honest opinions, trying to contribute positively to the public discourse. It exposes its tyrannical instinct and need for total control. In so doing, the system ironically exposes its own fragility and duplicity.

The fact is that it cannot stand up to real dissent. A democracy supposedly thrives on dissent, on disagreement, on the struggle of good ideas overcoming bad ones. In the same way that the stronger stag defeats his weaker rival for status and mating rights, so too is a strong idea supposed to prevail against its inferiors for the support of the body politic.


The system is terrified of letting this process take place. You are allowed some mostly-inconsequential choices, of course – left vs right, Labour vs National, liberal vs conservative. You get to make a couple of marks on an irrelevant scrap of paper every few years. Debate is constrained to a very small range of topics and solutions to grant the illusion that the public has any real influence on the direction of the country. These debates result in very little in the way of meaningful outcomes, always flowing in the same direction; slightly higher or slightly lower tax? Slightly more immigration per year, or slightly less? Privatisation of critical infrastructure and industries now, or in five years' time? The People's Front of Judea, or the Judean People's Front?

This smokescreen distracts us from asking the only question that matters:  is this good for our people?

This smokescreen distracts us from asking the only question that matters: is this good for our people?

In contrast, when a real choice is offered, one that presents an alternative to the plan that international finance has for the country, such as the resistance to globalism that Molyneux and Southern advocate, the system feels threatened and reacts with outrage and heavy-handedness.

The fact is that you are only allowed free speech when your ideas are in line with the system-approved policies. The system is challenged when the public is invited to decide on anything fundamental; anything that can inform their outlook, change their worldview, or give them a new vision of the future – a vision different from that of the global order and the 'elites' who serve it. A future greater and more noble than crass consumerism and cosmopolitan rootlessness.


This is the smoking gun. When Cowardly Phil tells you that you aren't allowed to hear these ideas, he is telling you that you don't live in a democracy. You don't call the shots, you don't get to decide – hell, you don't even get to know what the options are! Big Phil and his fellow 'elites' don't trust you to think for yourself, to recognise good ideas and reject bad ones. They want to make those decisions for you, to their own private advantage.

The choices you get to make are to choose between watching Dancing with the Stars or MasterChef. But it's people like Cowardly Phil who control the schedule. His mates' ads run during the break of both shows, so your choice makes no difference to him.

We believe in real choices, in real power, in real change. Not vanilla vs strawberry. Not Samsung vs Apple. It is the people's right to entertain any idea, evaluate it, and if it passes muster, implement it through the organs of the state. To have the government dictate which ideas may be contemplated by the public is a brazen betrayal of the democratic principles it purports to uphold, and of the New Zealand people it claims to serve. Free speech is the first and best defence against tyranny and must be defended to protect the people against the malicious and depraved system that rules over us.