Here’s a better idea — round up all the unvetted Third World migrants that Mutti Merkel invited in from 2015 onwards and who have contributed nothing to German society except exacerbated crime rates. Send them to Zelenskyland instead.
Charlotte Dennett tells the chilling tale of how the DuPonts killed her husband Gerard Colby’s monumental history of their staggering crimes
I’m honored to post Charlotte Dennett’s jaw-dropping account of what befell her husband Gerard Colby’s indispensable DuPont: Behind the Nylon Curtain (a killing not unlike the later “privishing” of Colby and Dennett’s Thy Will Be Done, which tells the shocking story of how Nelson Rockefeller used the Wycliffe Bible Translators to help annihilate the Indians all along the Amazon).
As Charlotte notes below, both books are included in my series the Forbidden Bookshelf, whose aim is to bring such books back to life (as e-books) with new introductions. (Check out https://openroadmedia.com/forbidden-bookshelf for the entire library.) As she also notes, she and Gerard will both appear as interviewees in Amy Smiley’s forthcoming documentary, Reading the World: The Life anad Times of Mark Crispin. (Peter Dale Scott is another taboo author who’ll appear, to talk about his Dallas ‘63.)
While we all tend to know about the flagrant censorship of movies, TV shows, newspapers and online, too few of us are conscious of how “privishing” has blighted the book publish industry, and thereby helped keep We the People in the dark; so please read this terrific piece, and share it far and wide.
Whistleblower Alert: Beware the Covert Art of Privishing
Author Gerard Colby, at National Press Club, reveals publishers’ dirty secret of how non-fiction books are commonly censored in America
Imagine what authors go through, taking risks while exposing the rich and powerful, only to see their books die shortly after they are published. Their publisher may have told them “Too bad. Your book has had its run.” Or “Sorry, it just didn’t catch on.” This is not the kind of verdict authors want to hear, especially after spending years pouring heart and soul into researching and writing a book to inform an uninformed public.
We were going to take a relatively steady-as-she-goes approach to the under-16 social media ban this election, given it was not scheduled to be read this year, but breaking news–
Chris Hipkins just released Labour’s AI Action Plan, and it confirms one of our worst fears — they want to censor your access to lawful online communication.
Labour wants a much bigger online speech regulator with a broader remit, and they’re using “child safety” and “AI” as the cover to build it and expand its powers well beyond children – imagine what they’ll do nine months from now!
Hipkins’ announcement today means this fight can’t wait— we need to change tack and mobilise now, making it clear to all voters exactly what’s at stake and making it clear to all politicians that we will publicly campaign against any attempts to smuggle an online safety regulator in under the auspices of an “under-16 ban” or “AI risk”.
They’re not even in Government yet, but they want to take the online safety regulator, first proposed two weeks ago, as part of the “under-16 social media ban” (the Online Safety Bill).
There is no public mandate to gatekeep adults access to lawful communication — this is not a power we should hand to Labour (or to any government!) — can you imagine how tempted some parties will be to use this power to censor what they don’t like?!
Stopping a regulator that can gatekeep what adults are allowed to say and access online is one of our biggest red lines this election.
Labour announces an “online safety regulator” to deal with “AI-enabled harms” They’re not even in Government yet, but they want to take the online safety regulator, first proposed two weeks ago, as part of the “under-16 social media ban” (the Online Safety Bill),
This was never about child safety
As a mother myself, I worry about social media and the overabundance and access of online influences. There are undoubtedly real harms out there. But I oppose broad online regulatory powers, because I know how they end up: adults’ speech gets policed, and it doesn’t actually make kids any safer.Labour has already shown their hand and we know where this leads. What starts with AI could easily end up with the super regulator being the “single source of truth” – and we know what damage that did to our community!
There are ways to reduce harm online, and there are targeted measures the Free Speech Union has no objection to, like resourcing and enforcing existing laws dealing with child sexual abuse material online and banning non-consensual deepfake pornography.
But look at what’s actually been proposed today: sweeping new territory for this regulator, with no detail on where its limits are. Their own release says it will sit inside the Department of Internal Affairs. Yet they’ve also told media it might be independent instead.
They can’t even agree on where the power will sit, let alone how it will be checked!
The “under-16 ban” and “AI risks” are being used as trojan horses for something much bigger: far greater government control over what New Zealanders can access and say online. And once it’s been built – no government in power is likely to remove it. We need to fight back now, while it’s still just a proposal, not law.
Best wishes,
Jillaine Heather, Executive Director | The Free Speech Union
Healthy people in the U.K. are being recruited to test an experimental Alzheimer’s drug that researchers say could prevent Alzheimer’s before any symptoms show up.
Who the hell signs up for that?
Researchers will screen adults between 55 and 80 for a blood biomarker called p-tau217. Only people whose results suggest they’re at elevated risk of developing Alzheimer’s will be invited into the trial.
So imagine feeling perfectly fine and then taking a blood test that tells you that you may have an elevated risk of developing Alzheimer’s. Would you rather wait and see what happens, or spend the next four to six years receiving IV infusions of an unapproved drug that might prevent it?
Oh, and some participants will receive a placebo.
The drug, trontinemab, is designed to clear amyloid plaques from the brain. Early studies suggest it can do that quickly, but researchers still don’t know whether clearing those plaques before symptoms begin will actually prevent dementia.
It can also cause infusion reactions and a condition called ARIA: inflammation, swelling or small areas of bleeding in the brain.
So, who the hell signs up for this?
Someone so terrified of Alzheimer’s that they’re willing to risk making their life a living hell.
What’s worse is that there is still no cure for Alzheimer’s, so if the drug doesn’t work, you’re essentially headed where you were already headed, only now you’ve spent years getting infusions and worrying about side effects.
Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti wrote to the Labour candidate for the Kapiti seat to obtain her views after Tim Costley of National gave his. As it happens, both now live in Waikanae and both are likely to be in the next parliament, which should be useful in lobbying for local needs which the central government is responsible for (and not KCDC).
“There is clearly very little appetite in our community for being merged with Councils in the wider Wellington region, and I am committed to ensuring our community’s views remain front and centre in any future decision-making. People want a local government setup that truly understands, protects, and reflects our district’s unique needs.
National rammed us through this process, with Council’s only being given 90 days to negotiate proposals and engage their communities. Labour is keen to make sure we take time to get this right.
I share the concern about a single Wellington-wide super-council model that could dilute local voice and decision-making for Kāpiti. Our local identity, rural-urban balance, and distinct priorities risk being lost in such a broad regional structure. Labour wants to ensure that any reforms to local government deliver better outcomes without undermining local voice, accountability, or democratic input.
Regarding the options moving forward, I’m supportive of exploring sub-regional pathways that keep governance close to home, including a North-Western approach, provided any proposed model is grounded in community engagement and a clear understanding of what best serves our district’s future.
On the process, I believe democratic safeguards should be respected and local communities shouldn’t have fundamental governance changes forced upon them without genuine buy-in. Labour is not advocating for forced amalgamation of councils.”
NZ First’s candidates are a real mixed bag, but Casey Costello is one of the best.
I have spent much of my life thinking about what it means to be a New Zealander.
I am Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hau, and Ngāti Wai. I descend from Tāmati Waka Nene and Patuone, both of whom were signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi and early leaders of the idea that Māori and Pākehā had entered into a shared political future.
On the other side of my family, I descend from Anglo-Irish settlers who arrived here in the 1860s.
I am proud of all of that. I know where I come from, and I know the stories of my ancestors. But none of those things makes me one bit more or less entitled to call this country home than any other New Zealand citizen. My ancestry is part of my personal story.
It is my citizenship that makes me part of our national story. Because, first and foremost, I am a New Zealander.
Citizenship should be the great equaliser. It’s the sacred promise that however your family arrived here, whatever your race, religion, or background, you stand alongside every other New Zealander as an absolute equal before the law and within our democracy.
It is a principle New Zealand First has defended consistently: one law for all, equal citizenship, and a country in which your political rights do not depend on your race or ancestry.
And I believe that principle is going to matter enormously in the next Parliament.
When I joined the police as a 20 year old, I took an oath to uphold the law without favour or affection, malice or ill will. The law is not supposed to ask who you are before deciding how you should be treated. I have carried that solemn oath beyond my time in blue.
Equality doesn’t mean we all have to be identical or forget where we came from. It simply means ancestry should neither elevate you above your fellow citizens nor diminish your standing among them. You shouldn’t need the “right” bloodline to have your voice heard, and you shouldn’t ever have to apologise for who your ancestors are, no matter if they arrived in a waka, ship, or aeroplane.
But, I’ll be honest, right now, our democracy faces a real turning point.
We have watched for years as an agenda of race-based division has tried to fracture our country into competing categories of citizens with different political rights. New Zealand First has been steadfast in attempting to hold back the tide, but there is only so much we can do against the bigger parties.
In November we need more seats.
The bigger, well-funded parties will compromise when the pressure gets turned up. We’ve seen it happen before. New Zealand First is the only party with the courage to hold the line.
But courage doesn’t pay for billboards, ads, or town hall meetings. If we are going to fight back against this tide of division and win more seats in November, we need the firepower to do it.
Other parties seem to think that citizenship is just an administrative detail, a passport, or a box to tick on a form. One that means little and can easily be doled out.
It means much more than that. Citizenship is a commitment to a country.
It’s the decision to join a national community and say, “This is my nation too. Its future is my future, and its democratic institutions are mine to protect.”
That is why New Zealand First has always stood for one law for all. And why we accept and respect both the rights and the responsibilities that come with belonging to the group called New Zealanders.
New Zealand First believes citizenship itself deserves to be respected and protected.
We do not believe New Zealand should continue drifting towards a system where people are divided into political categories according to ancestry. Nor do we believe there is anything unreasonable about saying that the most fundamental democratic rights should be connected to citizenship.
If you are deciding who governs New Zealand, who writes our laws, who spends our taxes and what direction our country takes, citizenship is a natural and meaningful threshold.
That does not diminish the contribution of permanent residents or migrants. Before entering Parliament, I spent years advocating for exploited migrants. I have seen first hand the enormous contribution people from around the world make to New Zealand.
People can come here, build businesses, raise families, contribute to their communities, and make New Zealand their home. But citizenship should still represent something distinct; the formal decision to join our nation. A privilege, honour, and responsibility.
Otherwise we should ask ourselves:
What does New Zealand citizenship actually mean?
New Zealand First believe it means equal standing before the law, rights accompanied by responsibilities, and participation in a common democracy.
If you believe that, if you refuse to let your citizenship (or fellow New Zealanders’) be downgraded into a second-tier status based on race, then sitting quietly on the sidelines is no longer an option.
Believing in equal rights isn’t enough anymore. We need you actively in this fight with us. We need supporters delivering leaflets in their neighborhoods, placing signs on their fences, and talking to their friends and family before it’s too late.
