A Parliamentary Travesty: Brownlee's Authoritarian Overreach

The spectacle that unfolded in Parliament this week, Where Gerry Brownleee, the Speaker of the House, bumbled his way through Standing Orders, represents nothing short of a constitutional crisis wrapped in the Speaker's robes.

Chlöe Swarbrick, the Green Party co-leader, was unceremoniously booted from the House for the remainder of the week for the grievous sin of suggesting that "If we find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history" regarding Israel's ongoing war crimes in Gaza.

This isn't just parliamentary theatre; it's a damning indictment of Speaker Gerry Brownlee's authoritarian tendencies and his fundamental inability to apply standing orders with even a semblance of consistency or fairness.
 

Yesterday, 1 News reported:

Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has again been kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise for a comment she made yesterday in the House.

Yesterday, Swarbrick was kicked out of Parliament during an urgent debate on recognising Palestine as a state.

The debate was called after Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Government was weighing up its position on the issue.

In recent times, the UK, Canada, France and Australia have announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state.

During the debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said MPs could "grow a spine" and support her bill which would impose sanctions on Israel.

In response, Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said: "That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise." When she refused, Brownlee said she would have to leave for the rest of the week and removed her from the House.

 

The hypocrisy here is so brazen it would be laughable if it weren't so deeply concerning for our democratic institutions. When John Key famously roared at the entire Labour Party to "get some guts" during his tenure as Prime Minister, did we see Brownlee, then in opposition, calling for suspensions? Quite the contrary. Brownlee himself applauded most vociferously, treating Key's insulting outburst with admiration. Brownlee was similarly accepting of Brooke van Velden's use of the word "Cunt". However, when Swarbrick uses less insulting language, calling for government MPs to show some "spine," suddenly we're dealing with language that's "completely unacceptable" to parliamentary standards.

This selective enforcement isn't just inconsistent, it reveals Brownlee's fundamental bias as Speaker, a bias that has been exhibited throughout his tenure. As Speaker of the House, his role demands impartiality, yet time and again we witness him wielding the Speaker's power like a partisan cudgel, particularly against opposition MPs who dare challenge the government's moral failings.

CHLOE EJECTED:

I had a little sympathy for parliamentary protocol until I saw this. Gerry Brownlee gives standing ovation to John Key after Key's outburst criticising opposition MPs.

Brownlee also contravened Jonathan Hunt's Standing Orders by banning her for a week#nzpol pic.twitter.com/rdJinbGKh2

— Mountain_Tui (@Mountain_Tui) August 12, 2025

Brownlee's authoritarian streak isn't new. Earlier this year, his handling of the Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in Parliament demonstrated the same heavy-handed approach. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke and co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi have been hit with sanctions for what was fundamentally an expression of cultural protest against legislation threatening Treaty rights.

Rather than recognising the profound cultural and constitutional significance of their protest, Brownlee chose punishment over understanding. The parallel is striking: whether it's Māori MPs defending indigenous rights or Swarbrick calling for international law enforcement, Brownlee consistently sides with unfair authoritarian silencing over justified democratic debate.

Most concerning is Brownlee's apparent disregard for parliamentary procedure itself. Standing Orders clearly state that following an MP's suspension for one sitting day, "the matter is at an end." Yet Brownlee has attempted to extend Swarbrick's punishment across an entire week, a ruling that fundamentally contradicts established parliamentary practice.

📍Let’s not mince words: Speaker Gerry Brownlee has shown glaring hypocrisy in singling out Chlöe Swarbrick for her sharp—but frankly, deserved—rebuke of the government, and booting her out of the House for the rest of the week.

Her comments came at the end of a fiery speech… pic.twitter.com/60u2fUIzUt

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) August 12, 2025

This isn't just procedural pedantry; it's the difference between rule of law and rule of the whims of a deluded right winger who doesn't understand the correct proceedures that govern his position, or even remember what he himself has said in the past.

In 2008, Gerry Brownlee accused Michael Cullen of not having a backbone. So how can he now say in all honesty that a Green's MP essentially saying the same thing is misconduct?

Here is Brownlee using the exact same language:

Does he agree with Trevor Mallard when he stated in the same speech: “any decent leader would have had the backbone to turn round, go the other way, and not greet Tame Iti,”; if so, does his trio of hongi with Tame Iti last week indicate that he is not a decent leader and has no backbone, because he did not take the strongly worded advice of his wise colleague?

 

When Speakers start making things up as they go along, particularly to silence opposition voices, we're witnessing the erosion of democratic norms that took centuries to establish.

This pattern of believing rules don't apply to him isn't new territory for Brownlee. In 2014, while serving as Transport Minister, he offered to resign after deliberately bypassing airport security in Christchurch, leading two staff members through an exit door to avoid security screening because he was apparently running late for a flight. The Civil Aviation Authority investigation revealed that the dishonest Brownlee had "plenty of time" to go through security correctly and still catch the flight, as a review of screening times that day showed the process took less than two minutes per passenger.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this display of authoritarian overreach from a man whose ministerial career is marked by catastrophic failure. As Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Brownlee presided over one of the most bungled reconstruction efforts in New Zealand's history. The Christchurch rebuild became synonymous with delay, cost overruns, and bureaucratic incompetence under his watch. Communities waited years for basic infrastructure while Brownlee's ministry shuffled papers and shifted blame.

Then there's Brownlee's budget bungling, most notably his increases to the petrol excise duty and user charges because Bill English couldn't balance the budget properly. Not to mention Brownlee's press secretary, Nick Bryant, involvement in Cameron Slater's attack campaign against a public servant which resulted in death threats. Throughout his parliamentary career, Brownlee has demonstrated a particular talent for inflammatory and often racist rhetoric and campaigning when it suits him, yet now he demands standards of discourse he never applied to himself. His history of intemperate outbursts and partisan attacks sits poorly with his current position as supposed guardian of parliamentary decorum.

Swarbrick's comments weren't frivolous parliamentary point-scoring, they addressed New Zealand's immoral position regarding Israel's documented war crimes in Gaza. International courts have established clear evidence of violations of international humanitarian law, but our government appears to be paralysed by political calculation rather than moral clarity.

#BHN Tonight at 9pm
- Jacinda rules out attending COVID hearing
- The hypocrisy around Chloe's ejection
- Erica Stanford bans more te reo in primary schools#nzpol #nzpolitics https://t.co/pJhtGJpqDw

— Pat Brittenden (@patbrittenden) August 13, 2025

When an MP calls for basic adherence to international law and human rights obligations, the appropriate response isn't suspension, particularly in a country that prides itself for it's leadership on democratic principles. Instead, we have a Speaker who treats legitimate criticism of government inaction as grounds for silencing robust debate. This isn't protecting parliamentary standards; it's protecting the government from accountability.

Brownlee's ruling represents a dangerous precedent where Speakers can essentially manufacture extended punishments beyond established procedures. If this stands unchallenged, we're accepting that parliamentary rules can be bent to suit political convenience, a path that leads inevitably to the erosion of democratic safeguards. The real travesty isn't Swarbrick's call for moral courage; it's Brownlee's attempt to silence it through procedural authoritarianism.

National is Trying to Steal the Election

Democracy in New Zealand, as in many nations, was hard-won through struggle, sacrifice, and relentless advocacy. From the suffragists of the 1890s, who fought tirelessly for women’s right to vote, to Māori activists who challenged colonial exclusion to secure representation, the journey to universal suffrage was marked by petitions, protests, and unwavering resolve. The 1893 Electoral Act, granting women the vote, was a world-first, but it followed decades of campaigning by figures like Kate Sheppard, who galvanised thousands to demand change.

Māori, denied equal voting rights under early colonial systems, faced even greater barriers, with the Māori seats, established in 1867, emerging only after fierce resistance to land confiscation and marginalisation. These hard-fought victories remind us of the saying, “The vote is a right, not a privilege, and it must be guarded fiercely.” Yet, as we face the National-led coalition’s electoral reforms ahead of the 2026 election, that right is under increasing threat, with changes that could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands from participating in democracy.

The National-led coalition government has introduced electoral law changes that appear designed to undermine our democratic process. The Electoral Amendment Bill, currently under scrutiny, ends same-day voter enrolment, a practice that has allowed New Zealanders to register and vote on election day or during advance voting since 1993. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith claims this addresses delays in vote counting, pointing to the three weeks it took to finalise the 2023 election results. But this justification holds little water. Electoral officials have noted that coalition negotiations, not vote counting, caused the bulk of delays before the coalition of chaos government could be formed.
 

On Monday, Newsroom reported:

 

Attorney-General rules her own Govt’s voting crackdown breaches human rights

Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament.

She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected.

Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count.

However, the impact of scrapping same-day enrolment could be even more profound. In 2023, an estimated 300,000 to 350,000 special votes were cast by those who enrolled late or needed to update their details. These voters are disproportionately young, Māori, Asian, and Pasifika...groups that tend to support Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori. By closing enrolment 12 days before election day, the coalition of chaos has deliberately tried to lock these voters out, a move that even Judith Collins in her role as Attorney-General has warned may breach human rights law and disproportionately affect Māori communities.

But that's not all. Reports have surfaced of numerous individuals being inexplicably removed from the Māori electoral roll, prompting Te Pāti Māori to launch court proceedings to challenge what they see as systemic voter suppression. This follows the coalition’s reversal of Labour’s 2022 reforms, which allowed Māori to switch between the Māori and general rolls outside pre-election periods. These changes threaten to alienate Māori voters, who already contend with longer wait times at polling booths and limited access in remote areas. Te Pāti Māori’s legal action reflects a broader fear that the government is targeting Māori political power, especially after their strong 2023 performance, securing six electorate seats.


Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Te Pāti Māori files urgent High Court proceeding over electoral roll concerns

Te Pāti Māori says it has filed urgent proceedings in the High Court over reports people have been removed from electoral roll or shifted off the Māori roll.

...

RNZ has spoken to several affected people, including Taryn Utiger, who could not find herself on the Māori roll despite switching to it last year.

She said she updated her details a month ago and called the Electoral Commission to double check she was all set to vote.

"They were like, yup ka pai you're on the Māori electorate roll, everything's good to go you will be able to vote in the local body elections and the referendum. I was like cool, thought that was the end of it, everything confirmed. Then I logged in last night and nothing."

Compounding this assault on democracy, numerous reports have also emerged of New Zealanders on the general electoral roll being inexplicably removed without notification or justification. These cases, spanning urban and rural electorates, occurring just before the end date for registrations, August 1, 2025, for local body elections, suggest a troubling pattern that undermines the integrity of the electoral system. The removal of eligible voters from the general roll, much like the issues plaguing the Māori roll, raises serious questions about administrative incompetence, or worse, deliberate manipulation.

Such actions are profoundly undemocratic, eroding trust in the electoral process and fuelling suspicions of a coordinated effort to suppress participation, particularly among demographics less likely to support the coalition. The lack of transparency around these removals only deepens the sense of unease, as voters are left wondering whether their right to vote is being systematically eroded.

Further compounding the issue, the coalition has reinstated a blanket ban on prisoner voting, ignoring the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to expand voting rights to all prisoners. This move disproportionately impacts Māori, who are overrepresented in the justice system, further eroding their democratic voice. ACT leader David Seymour’s dismissive rhetoric, labelling late enrolees as “dropkicks,” reveals a contempt for democratic participation that betrays the coalition’s motives. The right wing doesn't like democracy, as evidenced by their numerous policies that weren't canvased prior to the election.

These reforms aren't about efficiency; they're about engineering an electoral advantage. Special votes have historically favoured left-leaning parties, often shifting final results in their favour. By restricting access, the coalition is banking on suppressing turnout among groups less likely to support them. This echoes tactics seen in other democracies, where voter suppression has been used to skew outcomes. 

Worse still, reports on social media suggest the Electoral Commission has recently removed thousands of voters from the electoral roll without notification, which will leave many to discover on election day that they’re ineligible, with no recourse under the coalition’s plan to end same-day enrolment. While it’s unclear if these removals deliberately target left-leaning voters, the National-led government’s unjustifiable policies disproportionately affect communities more likely to support Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori. This pattern of disenfranchisement raises alarming questions about the integrity of our electoral system.

The fight to protect New Zealand’s democracy must be swift and unified. Te Pāti Māori’s court challenge is a vital step, but opposition parties, civil society, and voters must rally to safeguard the right to vote. Public pressure and scrutiny at the select committee stage of the Electoral Amendment Bill are essential. The sacrifices of those who fought for the right to vote demand that we act. New Zealand’s democracy deserves to amplify every voice, not silence those who seek change. The 2026 election hangs in the balance, and with it, the soul of our nation.

The Coalition of Chaos' Assault on Electoral Fairness

The National-led government, propped up by its coalition partners ACT and New Zealand First, has embarked on a brazen assault on New Zealand’s democratic fabric. Their latest electoral law overhaul, set to decline hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders the right to vote by scrapping same-day enrolments, is a calculated move to tilt the electoral playing field in their favour. This is'nt just a bureaucratic tweak; it’s a deliberate act of voter suppression that threatens the very principles of fair representation.
 

Today, RNZ reported:

Enrolment changes could have 'significant' impact on democratic participation - Ministry of Justice

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says comments made by the deputy prime minister - calling voters who enrol late "dropkicks" - are "unhelpful", as changes to voter enrolment are rolled out.

Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period.

...

On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour backed the changes, insulting the hundreds of thousands of people who enrolled or updated their address, and voted, during the advance voting period and on election day itself.

"Frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law," he said. "It's actually made so easy to do, they even have a little orange cartoon running around telling people to do it. And if you're too disorganised to do that over a thousand days between two elections, then maybe you don't care that much."

The coalition of chaos, as this shaky alliance has been correctly titled, is engineering a system where fewer voices, particularly those who've not enrolled in their local electorate, are heard at the ballot box. The decision to end same-day enrolment, a measure that allowed 110,000 New Zealanders to enrol or update details on election day in 2023, is nothing short of undemocratic. These voters, often young, Māori, Pasifika, or in unstable housing, are disproportionately likely to support progressive parties like Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori.

Constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis has noted that special votes, which include late enrolments, have historically favoured left-leaning parties. The government is effectively silencing people who don't agree with their neoliberal dogma, prioritising administrative convenience over democratic participation. Even the Ministry of Justice warned that these changes could lower turnout and erode confidence in the electoral system, a damning indictment of the coalition’s priorities.

ACT leader David Seymour’s contempt for our democracy is palpable. His dismissal of late enrolees as “dropkicks” who “can’t get themselves organised” reveals a deeper disdain for the very people democracy exists to serve. This isn't an isolated incident, but a window into the right-wing’s broader attitude: a belief that only the “deserving” should have a say. Seymour’s rhetoric, dripping with elitism, belies a worldview that sees voting as a privilege for the wealthy and sorted few, not a universal right. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s feeble rebuke of Seymour’s comments as “unhelpful” does little to mask the coalition’s complicity in this socially ignorant narrative.

Adding to this litany of anti-democratic measures is the government’s failure to address the unfairness that allows property owners with multiple homes to vote in each district where they own property. This archaic rule grants wealthier New Zealanders disproportionate influence in local elections, as their multiple votes amplify their voice over those who rent or own a single home. It’s a stark injustice that undermines the principle of equal representation. Compounding this, the coalition’s discussions about abolishing regional councils threaten to further erode local democracy. These councils, vital for environmental and community governance, ensure regional voices are heard. Dismantling them would centralise power and silence communities, reflecting the government’s broader pattern of prioritising control over democratic fairness.

The government’s anti-democratic streak doesn’t stop there. Their plan to reinstate a blanket ban on prisoner voting, reversing Labour’s 2020 reform that restored rights to those serving less than three years, is a shameful regression. This move will strip voting rights from an estimated 2,000–3,000 inmates, including those on remand who may later be acquitted, a clear violation of fundamental rights.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s response to concerns about this breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as ruled by the High Court in 2015, was a chilling “I do not care.” This flippant disregard for judicial rulings and human rights underscores a government more interested in populist posturing than upholding democratic principles.
 

Last year, RNZ reported:

 

Government rejects four voting changes as review lands

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has ruled out several recommendations from the Independent Electoral Review set up by the previous government.

The minister on Tuesday released the final report, which makes more than 117 recommendations, after it was delivered to him at the end of November 2023.

• Goldsmith ruled out action on some recommendations, including:
• Lowering the voting age to 16
• Allowing all prisoners to vote and stand for Parliament
• Freezing the ratio of electorate to list seats, which would lead to an increase in the number of MPs over time
• Repealing the offence of 'treating' voters with refreshments and entertainment.

Equally troubling is the coalition’s refusal to lower the voting age to 16. Despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming that 16 and 17-year-olds have the cognitive capacity for “cold decisions” like voting, and a 2024 Independent Electoral Review supporting the change, the government has stonewalled progress. They clearly don't want young people to get into the habit of voting throughout their lives. Their 2023 withdrawal of a bill that would have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local body elections, with Local Government Minister Simeon Brown halting Justice Committee deliberations, snuffed out public consultation and silenced a generation eager to engage on issues that effect them directly.

This move, coupled with the coalition’s broader agenda, paints a picture of a government allergic to inclusive democracy. From voter suppression to disenfranchising prisoners and stifling youth voices, the National-led government’s actions betray a cynical and destructive agenda and won't do anything for our declining participation rates. By rigging the electoral system to mute progressive voters, they’re not just undermining democracy...they’re gambling with the trust that holds it together. Voters deserve better than a coalition of chaos that prioritises power over principle.

Luxon Doesn't Think the Proud Boys are Terrorists

In a highly questionable move, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has allowed the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a track record of extreme violence, to slip off the New Zealand terrorist watch list. Despite advice from the NZ Police and other government agencies, Luxon’s administration opted not to renew the designation under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, effectively decriminalising support for a group linked to the January 6 US Capitol riot that caused nine deaths, including the deaths of five police officers.

Earlier this month, RNZ reported:

It's no longer illegal to be a proudly violent Proud Boy

It started as a fringe movement in the United States - a group of self-described "Western chauvinists" known as the Proud Boys.

A bunch of them were jailed after the 6 January US election riots, and they have now been pardoned by President Trump.

Their legacy of far-right extremism, violent rhetoric, and polarising influence has raised questions not just in American courtrooms but on Kiwi shores too.

"They have been organising in New Zealand, although they deny that is the case," Stuff investigative journalist Paula Penfold tells The Detail.

"Now, the terrorist designation that they were given [in New Zealand] in 2022 has been allowed to expire, and we don't yet know the reasons for that to have been allowed to happen, we don't yet know whether the Proud Boys are still active in New Zealand, but we think it's pretty important that our authorities should find out."

Founded in 2016 by Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys quickly gained notoriety for their involvement in violent street clashes, their role in the 6 January Capitol riots, and their unwavering embrace of conspiracy theories.

This decision, shrouded in secrecy, raises serious questions about the National-led government’s priorities and its troubling alignment with extremist ideologies. As we dissect this choice, we must also confront broader patterns of complicity, from ACT’s flirtations with white supremacists to National’s cosy relationship with Trumpian politics, and the urgent need to curb the influence of fascists in Aotearoa.

The Proud Boys’ designation, established in 2022, was a response to their role in the Capitol riot and their crypto-fascist tactics. Yet, Luxon’s inaction suggests a troubling dismissal of his own agencies expert advice and previous decisions made by the Jacinda Ardern administration.

Why would he take such a risk? Evidence points to political expediency. National’s coalition with ACT and NZ First, the most right-wing New Zealand government in decades, may be reluctant to alienate conservative voters by targeting far-right groups. 

But questions remain. Why would, for instance, the National coalition of chaos fail to designate the Proud Boys, a group who murders police officers, as terrorists while putting other white supremacist groups on the list?

Last week, the NZ Herald reported:

Extremist white supremacist group behind race war plots remains on NZ terrorism watchlist

A violent neo-Nazi hate group with international reach has been relisted as a terrorist entity by the New Zealand Government, amid ongoing efforts to prevent extremist ideologies from taking root or operating within the country.

The Base is a white supremacist “militant accelerationist paramilitary group” that advocates for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish white “ethnostates”.

The group’s ideology is said to be “rooted in extreme racism, antisemitism, and the belief in an impending race war”.

It is active in the US and Canada, with reports of training cells in Europe, South Africa and Australia.

The group, also known as TB, was first designated as a terrorist entity in New Zealand in June 2022 alongside another US group, the Proud Boys.

The decision also appears to align with diplomatic pressures from the Trump administration, which has pardoned Proud Boys members, even those who murdered police, and downplayed their threat. Many Proud Boys are reportedly linked to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), engaging in human rights abuses by abducting law abiding migrants and detaining them in concentration camps without due process. Allowing such individuals, some convicted of killing police, freedom to travel to New Zealand is reckless and indefensible. Clearly, fascists with blood on their hands should be barred from our shores, full stop.

This isn’t an isolated incident. The National-led government’s flirtation with extremism is part of a broader and uglier pattern. ACT leader David Seymour, for instance, has accepted donations from individuals openly advocating for violence against Muslims, including those boasting about bombing mosques. Such associations aren't mere oversights; they signal a willingness to court extremist support for political gain.

Similarly, the recent invitation of James Lindsay, a US commentator who peddles debunked “white genocide” conspiracies, to speak at ACT’s 2025 Rally underscores how far-right ideologies are being promoted and platformed by our right-wing politicians. Lindsay’s rhetoric, cloaked in free speech dogma, fuels division and emboldens white supremacists to hate on minority groups.

 

In 2022, Salon reported:

Meet James Lindsay, the far right’s “world-level expert” on CRT and “Race Marxism”

In a Feb. 5 appearance on Glenn Beck’s talk show — which Beck called “probably the most important podcast perhaps that we’ve ever done” — self-proclaimed critical race theory expert James Lindsay issued a dire warning. While discussing dark right-wing theories about “The Great Reset” and Democratic-run reeducation camps for the unvaccinated, Lindsay warned that a severe reckoning was at hand for the world’s elites: “It’s coming for them. They’re going to lose all of their power. They’re going to be exposed for crimes the likes of which we’ve never seen in human history.”

...

In 2018, as a math PhD running a business that fused massage therapy with martial arts, and a supporting character in the foundering New Atheism movement, Lindsay became a national name by pulling off a deft hoax that made liberal academics look dumb. Along with two co-conspirators, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, Lindsay drafted 20 fake research papers with outlandish premises — to research canine “rape culture” at dog parks, or a proposition that men use dildos on themselves to overcome transphobia — and submitted them to a series of often obscure scholarly journals.

Around a third of the papers were accepted, and in 2018, the hoaxers, all of whom then called themselves liberals — although Boghossian was closely associated with accused white supremacist and “race realist” Stefan Molyneux, who has argued that Black people are “collectively less intelligent” than other races — revealed the experiment as an exposé on the terminal wokeness of academia, particularly the identity-oriented fields that the three called “grievance studies.”

 

When government-aligned parties amplify such divisive voices, they legitimise hate, undermining the social cohesion Aotearoa prides itself on.

Luxon’s government also helps to promote extremist views while also mirroring the Trump administration’s playbook, particularly in its erosion of indigenous rights. National’s coalition has pushed unpopular policies like the review of the Treaty of Waitangi, which undermines Māori sovereignty and echoes Trump’s marginalisation of Native American communities. This alignment isn’t coincidental.

As Trump pardons Proud Boys and weakens democratic norms, National’s soft stance on far-right groups suggests a shared ideological drift. Both governments prioritise appeasing conservative bases over protecting marginalised communities, whether it’s Māori here or migrants in US detention (concentration) camps. This convergence is a stark warning: when leaders downplay extremism, they pave the way for its normalisation.

The need to reduce white supremacist influence in New Zealand has never been more urgent. The Proud Boys, with their history of violence and ties to authoritarian regimes, are not a theoretical threat. Their lapsed designation risks emboldening local white supremacist sympathiser.

Aotearoa must not become a haven for fascists or a stage for their propaganda. Luxon’s government must reverse course, heed the advice of their security experts, and reinstate the Proud Boys’ designation as terrorists without further delay. Beyond that, it must reject the influence of extremists, whether through donations to ACT or invitations to divisive figures.

New Zealanders deserve a government that stands firm against hate, not one that cuddles it for political points. This is a moment for vigilance. The National-led government’s actions, ignoring advice, platforming extremists, and aligning with Trump’s racist agenda, threaten the values of inclusivity and justice that define Aotearoa. We must demand accountability, reject fascism in all its forms, and protect our communities from those who would divide us. The Proud Boys belong on the terrorist watch list, and white supremacists belong nowhere near our politics.

The Moral Abyss of Concentration Camps

The concept of detention centres and concentration camps is a grim spectre in human history, a mechanism of dehumanisation and control that has no place in a civilised world. These camps, defined as large-scale detention sites where civilians are imprisoned without due process based on ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs, are an affront to the principles of justice, dignity, and human rights.

From the Nazi atrocities to contemporary proposals that echo their chilling intent, concentration camps represent a deliberate stripping away of humanity, a policy rooted in fear, supremacy, and exclusion.

On Monday, the Guardian reported:

Israeli plan for forced transfer of Gaza’s population ‘a blueprint for crimes against humanity’

Military ordered to turn ruins of Rafah into ‘humanitarian city’ but experts call the plan an internment camp for all Palestinians in Gaza


Israel’s defence minister has laid out plans to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of Rafah, in a scheme that legal experts and academics described as a blueprint for crimes against humanity.

Israel Katz said he has ordered Israel’s military to prepare for establishing a camp, which he called a “humanitarian city”, on the ruins of the city of Rafah, Haaretz newspaper reported.

Palestinians would go through “security screening” before entering, and once inside would not be allowed to leave, Katz said at a briefing for Israeli journalists.

Israeli forces would control the perimeter of the site and initially “move” 600,000 Palestinians into the area – mostly people currently displaced in the al-Mawasi area.

Eventually the entire population of Gaza would be housed there, and Israel aims to implement “the emigration plan, which will happen”, Haaretz quoted him saying.

Since Donald Trump suggested at the start of the year that large numbers of Palestinians should leave Gaza to “clean out” the strip, Israeli politicians including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have enthusiastically promoted forced deportation, often presenting it as a US project.

Katz’s scheme breaks international law, said Michael Sfard, one of Israel’s leading human rights lawyers. It also directly contradicted claims made hours earlier by the office of Israel’s military chief, which said in a letter that Palestinians were only displaced inside Gaza for their own protection.

Israel and the United States’ use of detention centres for genocide and mass deportations demand a fierce and unflinching critique. Historically, Nazi Germany’s concentration camps stand as a horrifying benchmark. Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi regime operated over 44,000 camps and incarceration sites, imprisoning millions, including Jews, Romani people, political dissidents, and others deemed “undesirable.”

Approximately 1.65 million people were registered prisoners, with around one million perishing in camps like Auschwitz, Dachau, and Treblinka through starvation, forced labour, and gas chambers. These camps were not mere prisons but industrial-scale machines of death and oppression, designed to eradicate entire communities. Their legacy is a stark warning: when a state targets a group as “other,” the descent into barbarity is swift and catastrophic.

In 2025, Israel’s proposed “humanitarian city” in Gaza, as outlined by Defence Minister Israel Katz, bears a chilling resemblance to this dark history. The plan, reported by Haaretz and The Guardian, aims to confine 600,000 displaced Palestinians, eventually the entire 2.1 million population of Gaza, into a sealed-off area built on Rafah’s ruins. Palestinians would face “security screenings” and be barred from leaving, with the stated goal of “voluntary emigration” that critics, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, label as ethnic cleansing.

Legal scholars like Michael Sfard argue this violates international humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on forced transfers. The plan’s language of “humanitarian” aid masks a reality of mass detention and starvation, with 758 Palestinians already murdered and over 5,000 injured at aid distribution centres since May 2025. Such policies echo the Nazi tactic of disguising genocidal intent as “resettlement,” a comparison that, while sensitive, is grounded in the mechanics of control and displacement.

So, anyone who doesn’t go to the concentration camp will be “eliminated.”

Doesn’t sound genocidal at all… pic.twitter.com/mvuLIENeRm

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) July 10, 2025

However, the scourge of detention centres is not confined to Israel's genocide in Palestine, but festers globally, exposing a troubling trend of state-sanctioned oppression. In China, over one million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities are detained in Xinjiang’s “re-education” camps, where forced labour, cultural erasure, and torture are documented by Human Rights Watch. Australia’s offshore detention centres on Nauru and the now closed Manus Island detention centres held approximately 1,200 refugees in conditions described by the UN as “inhumane,” with 14 deaths reported since 2013.

In Libya, UN reports estimate 20,000 migrants are held in detention centres, often subjected to torture and extortion, with 3,000 deaths recorded in 2024 alone. These global examples mirror the dehumanising logic of historical concentration camps, using euphemisms like “processing” or “re-education” to sanitise systemic cruelty.

Across the Atlantic, the United States under the Trump administration is reviving its own form of detention horror. Reports from Reuters and the New York Times reveal plans to use military bases like Fort Bliss to detain up to 10,000 migrants, with ambitions to scale this to hundreds of thousands as part of the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. Currently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds 41,000 people in for-profit facilities, with Guantánamo Bay recently reactivated for indefinite detention.

These centres, often compared to concentration camps by scholars and activists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, mirror the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. The rhetoric of “invasion” and dehumanising terms like “animals” used by Trump is no laughing matter, and recalls Nazi propaganda, fostering indifference to the suffering of detained families, including children who are routinely separated from their parents.

People are comparing Trump's Alligator Alcatraz detention centre to Hitler's concentration camps. But they're wrong! Just look, the roofs are a completely different colour. #uspoli #fascism pic.twitter.com/nBdwFlezf9

— Peter Murphy (@PeterWMurphy1) July 13, 2025

The moral bankruptcy of concentration camps lies in their denial of individual rights and their reliance on collective punishment. Whether it’s the 27 Palestinian detainees tortured at Israel’s Sde Teiman camp, as documented by Amnesty International, or the 2.5 million deportations under U.S. policies since 2020, these systems thrive on dehumanisation. They're not solutions but atrocities, breeding cycles of violence and causing untold damage.

Israel’s occupation, America’s xenophobia, and the global detention regimes around the world must end, not through war but through political pressure,  justice and a recognition of our shared humanity. To ignore this is to court the same indifference that enabled the Holocaust’s horrors. We must resist these atrosities, for history shows what results if nothing is done.

Elon Musk’s Anti-Woke Grok Fix Backfires

In the ever-evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, Elon Musk’s Grok, developed by xAI, has sparked heated debate. It’s not for its promised “truth-seeking” prowess but for its alarming descent into extremism. Designed to counter what Musk perceived as the “woke” leanings of other AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Grok’s recent updates have exposed a troubling reality. 

The notion of a neutral, truth-seeking AI is a myth when its parameters are shaped by ideological tinkering. The evidence suggests that reality, far from being a neutral arbiter, often leans liberal when subjected to rigorous scrutiny, a truth Musk’s interventions seem desperate to obscure.

The saga began when Musk, frustrated by Grok’s responses that he deemed too politically correct, announced in July 2025 that xAI had “significantly improved” the chatbot. The goal? To strip away what Musk called “woke filters,” ostensibly to make Grok more aligned with unfiltered truth. Yet, within days, Grok was spewing antisemitic tropes, praising Adolf Hitler, and referring to itself as “MechaHitler” in posts on X.


On Wednesday, the Guardian reported:

 

Musk’s AI firm forced to delete posts praising Hitler from Grok chatbot

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence firm xAI has deleted “inappropriate” posts on X after the company’s chatbot, Grok, began praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as MechaHitler and making antisemitic comments in response to user queries.

In some now-deleted posts, it referred to a person with a common Jewish surname as someone who was “celebrating the tragic deaths of white kids” in the Texas floods as “future fascists”.

“Classic case of hate dressed as activism – and that surname? Every damn time, as they say,” the chatbot commented.
Trump greets Musk on stage at a rally
Tesla shares dive as investors fear new Elon Musk political party will damage brand
Read more

In another post it said, “Hitler would have called it out and crushed it.”

The Guardian has been unable to confirm if the account that was being referred to belonged to a real person or not and media reports suggest it has now been deleted.

In other posts it referred to itself as “MechaHitler”.

“The white man stands for innovation, grit and not bending to PC nonsense,” Grok said in a subsequent post.

It tied Jewish-sounding surnames to “anti-white hate” and suggested a Holocaust-like response to perceived slights. This prompted swift backlash and deletions by xAI. The Anti-Defamation League condemned these posts as “irresponsible, dangerous, and antisemitic,” highlighting the real-world harm of such rhetoric.

This wasn’t Grok’s first misstep. Earlier in 2025, the chatbot fixated on “white genocide” in South Africa, a far-right conspiracy theory, in response to unrelated queries. xAI attributed this to an “unauthorised modification.” In June, Musk expressed dismay at Grok’s reliance on mainstream sources, which he claimed exhibited a liberal bias, and vowed to retrain it to align with his vision of truth.

These incidents reveal a pattern: Grok’s updates are not about uncovering objective reality but about steering the AI toward a specific ideological bent. This bent amplifies fringe narratives under the guise of being “unfiltered.” The irony is stark. Musk’s push to make Grok less “woke” has instead produced a chatbot that parrots extremist talking points, undermining the very truth-seeking mission he claims to champion.

This reflects a broader tension: reality, when examined through evidence and reason, often aligns with liberal principles, equality, diversity, and historical accountability. These are grounded in observable data and social progress. Studies have shown that even AI models like ChatGPT, which Musk criticises, tend to lean moderately left. This is because their training data reflects the internet’s collective knowledge, which increasingly rejects discriminatory tropes.

By contrast, Grok’s recent updates instructed it to assume media viewpoints are biased and to embrace “politically incorrect” claims. This has led it to embrace divisive and debunked narratives. This programmed bias, driven by Musk’s personal disdain for perceived liberal orthodoxy, reveals a deeper truth: AI, essentially designed to gather information on how individuals think, is only as neutral as its creators allow.

I don’t know who needs to hear this but the creator of “MechaHitler “ had access to government computer systems for months pic.twitter.com/D9af7uYAdP

— David Leavitt 🎲🎮🧙‍♂️🌈 (@David_Leavitt) July 9, 2025

When Grok was directed to draw from websites like 4Chan, platforms that are havens for unmoderated right-wing voices, it absorbed the toxic rhetoric of trolls and propagandists, not the clarity of reason. Musk’s defenders might argue he’s merely seeking balance, but the evidence suggests otherwise. His interventions have consistently nudged Grok toward amplifying right-wing talking points, from dismissing electoral fraud claims to endorsing antisemitic memes.

This isn’t truth-seeking; it’s agenda-setting. Reality, it seems, has a liberal bias not because of some grand conspiracy but because facts often challenge entrenched power and prejudice, something Musk’s vision for Grok appears unwilling to accept.

In New Zealand, where debates over free speech and misinformation rage as fiercely as anywhere, Grok’s misadventure serves as a cautionary tale. AI can illuminate or obscure, depending on how it’s wielded. By prioritising ideological purity over empirical rigour, Musk risks turning Grok into a tool for division rather than discovery. If we’re to navigate the complexities of truth in the digital age, we must demand AI that respects reality’s nuances, not one that bends to the whims of its creator.

Shane Jones is a Fascist

The spectre of authoritarianism rarely announces itself with jackboots and torchlight parades. More often, it arrives draped in the rhetoric of economic necessity, promising prosperity whilst systematically dismantling the institutions that protect democratic accountability. 

Such is the case with Shane Jones, New Zealand First's Resources Minister, whose latest tirade against regional councils represents a chilling escalation in his campaign to eliminate environmental oversight that stands between his corporate benefactors and unfettered resource extraction.

Jones' inflammatory rhetoric comparing the Otago Regional Council to the "Kremlin of the South Island" and dismissing its qualified staff as "KGB green zealots" would be laughable were it not so dangerously revealing of his authoritarian instincts. His call to "disestablish regional councils" because they dare to apply existing environmental law represents nothing less than an assault on New Zealand's democratic institutions. This is the language of a man who views legitimate democratic processes as obstacles to be eliminated rather than safeguards to be respected.

On Friday, the ODT reported:

 

‘Kremlin’ councils need to go: Jones

Resource Minister Shane Jones has called the Otago Regional Council "the Kremlin of the South Island" after an application to expand the Macraes gold mine ran into trouble.

Mr Jones, who is also the regional development minister, said the council was full of "KGB green zealots" and the episode showed why regional councils needed to be scrapped.

The Otago council’s assessment of environmental effects — which recommended Oceana-Gold’s application to expand its mine be declined in full — was "ideological scribbling".

Any other investor or miner in New Zealand would now quickly conclude they had to join the fast-track application process, "which will enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised", he said.

 

The parallels to historical fascism are unmistakable. Like the dictators of the 1930s who railed against "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs," Jones employs inflammatory language to delegitimise any institution that challenges his pro-drill agenda. His dismissal of evidence-based environmental assessments as "ideological scribbling" echoes the fascist contempt for expertise and scientific inquiry that characterised regimes which prioritised ideology over evidence. 

When Jones describes regional councillors as "Politburo apparatchiks," he reveals his own authoritarian mindset, anyone who disagrees with his vision for environmental destruction must be part of some sinister conspiracy rather than public servants just doing their legally mandated jobs.

What makes Jones' extremism particularly troubling is the financial corruption that underpins it. The Resources Minister's relationships with mining companies extend far beyond policy alignment into the murky waters of financial influence. Analysis of political donation records reveals a staggering pattern of corporate capture that would make even the most cynical observer blush.

NZ First received at least $121,680 from donors linked to fast-track projects in 2024 alone, with Jones personally benefiting from quarry company J Swap in August 2023, the same company that subsequently donated $11,000 to NZ First and applied for fast-track approval. AJR Finance, connected to quarrying interests, contributed a massive $55,000 to NZ First. These figures represent just the tip of the iceberg in a system where corporate donors are literally buying policy outcomes.


Last year, RNZ reported:

Quarry company J Swap's fast track plea after donations to Shane Jones and NZ First

A NZ First donor wants Fast Track legislation to free up permanently protected land for quarrying.

J Swap, a company involved in quarrying, wants land protected under QEII covenants to be available to quarry. It donated $11,000 to NZ First in December, after the coalition was formed.

It also gave $5000 to NZ First's Shane Jones in August 2023 and $3000 to National's David MacLeod in September 2023.

The proposed Fast Track legislation is touted as a "one-stop shop" for approving infrastructure projects. It would sit over a range of existing acts and regulations and would mean an application would only need to go through one process for approval instead of several consents under the existing system.

Jones' undeclared dinners with mining company representatives, arranged by his own staff, demonstrate a level of impropriety that would have seen ministers resign in shame during more principled eras. That he refuses to answer questions about these meetings whilst simultaneously pushing legislation that directly benefits his dinner companions represents corruption in its most brazen form.

The Minister's attacks on environmental groups further reveal his authoritarian tendencies. His vitriolic campaigns against Greenpeace and the Green Party are not merely political rhetoric but systematic attempts to delegitimise opposition voices. When Jones declares that environmental organisations are "economic saboteurs," he employs the classic fascist tactic of painting political opponents as traitors to the nation. This is the language of autocrats who cannot tolerate dissent.

His promise that fast-track legislation will "enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised" is perhaps the most revealing statement of all. Here, Jones explicitly acknowledges that his legislative agenda is designed not to improve environmental processes but to eliminate environmental opposition entirely. This is not governance; it is the systematic dismantling of democratic accountability.

The implications extend far beyond mining policy. If Jones succeeds in eliminating regional councils, institutions that employ thousands of professionals and manage critical functions, he will have destroyed a fundamental layer of New Zealand's democratic architecture. These councils don't just assess mining applications; they manage flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, and public transport. Their elimination would represent the largest centralisation of power in New Zealand's modern history.

Regional councillor Alexa Forbes correctly identified Jones' rhetoric as undermining confidence in both central and local government. When ministers attack the institutions they're supposed to work with, they erode the very foundations of democratic governance. This is precisely how democratic backsliding occurs, not through military coups but through the gradual erosion of institutional safeguards by those entrusted to protect them.

Jones' vision of New Zealand is one where corporate donors write policy, environmental laws are ignored, and democratic institutions are eliminated if they prove inconvenient. His $3 billion mining export target comes with a hidden cost: the transformation of New Zealand into a corporate playground where profit trumps the environment and democracy becomes an obstacle to be overcome.

The tragedy is that this assault on our democratic institutions is being conducted by a minister whose own party received just 6.08% of the vote in 2023. Through the accidents of coalition politics, a fringe politician bankrolled by mining interests now wields the power to reshape New Zealand's governance structures according to his authoritarian vision.

History teaches us that democracy's greatest threats often come not from external enemies but from those within who promise prosperity whilst dismantling the institutions that protect the Kiwi way of life. Shane Jones embodies this threat, and his agenda must be recognised for what it truly is: not economic development but undemocratic destruction, funded by corporate interests and executed through authoritarian rhetoric that would make history's dictators proud.

Peter Thiel is Building an AI Driven Mass Surveillance State

Make no mistake: the United States is constructing the most comprehensive civilian surveillance apparatus in human history. And they're not even trying to hide it anymore. 

Under the Trump administration's enthusiastic blessing, tech behemoth Palantir Technologies is weaving together the digital breadcrumbs of every American citizen into a single, all-seeing artificial intelligence system that would make Orwell's 1984 look quaint. Big Brother is no longer just watching. He's predicting, profiling, and pre-emptively punishing.

The latest bombshell? Palantir secured more than $113 million in federal contracts since Trump took office, including sweetheart deals that hand over the most intimate details of American lives to Peter Thiel's surveillance empire. We're not talking about collecting metadata here, we're talking about real-time behavioural analysis of every citizen, powered by AI that doesn't just watch but makes judgements about who deserves scrutiny.

 

Yesterday, The Economic Times reported:

Palantir Under Siege: Protesters rage over surveillance, ICE links in NYC office blockade

Palantir Technologies was confronted with furious protests on Thursday, as protesters were angry with the data analytics firm for its contracts with US immigration officials and the Israeli defense forces to reportedly build surveillance systems, as per a report.

Palantir Faces Protests Over ICE and Israeli Military Ties
The protests against Palantir were organised by the campaign group Planet Over Profit, with help from a coalition of local groups including Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Bay Resistance, and the immigration rights group Mijente, as reported by the Independent.

...

Company’s History
The data analytics company was founded in 2003, backed by arch-conservative Peter Thiel and the CIA, the firm sells data-crunching services to companies, government agencies, intelligence services, and militaries, according to the report.

Palantir had first started working with ICE under former US president Barack Obama's administration, and is now reportedly helping the Trump administration to build a comprehensive surveillance system that gathers data from many government departments, and is allegedly working even with the Israel Defense Forces, as per the Independent report.

The crown jewel of this digital dystopia is Palantir's Gotham software, previously reserved for hunting terrorists abroad but now trained on American citizens at home, particularly noteworthy given the illegal ICE abductions. This AI-powered beast doesn't just collect data, it makes judgements, identifying "anomalies and patterns indicative of illegal activities or security threats." "Anomalies"? What a delightfully vague term for anything the algorithm decides doesn't fit its narrow definition of normal behaviour.

This isn't some far-off sci-fi nightmare. Immigration and Customs Enforcement records show Palantir recently received a $30 million contract to build a platform to track migrant movements in real time. Today it's migrants; tomorrow it's anyone who questions the government's increasingly authoritarian reach. The infrastructure for total surveillance is being built brick by digital brick, and most people are blissfully unaware of the implications.

But here's where it gets truly sinister: Palantir isn't content with just spying on people. They're throwing $100 million at marrying artificial intelligence with nuclear technology through a strategic product partnership with The Nuclear Company to co-develop NOS, the first AI-powered, real-time software system designed specifically for nuclear construction. What could possibly go wrong when you combine mass surveillance capabilities with atomic infrastructure?

The terrifying reality is that this AI-driven surveillance state represents the weaponisation of technology against the very people it's supposed to serve. Palantir, co-founded by Trump ally billionaire Peter Thiel, who was controversially granted New Zealand citizenship under John Key's government, offers data-analyzing software that uses AI to pull information from a multitude of sources and compiles it into charts, tables and heat maps. Your tax records, social security information, immigration status, online activity, all fed into an algorithmic maw that assigns you a threat score without you ever knowing why.

The most chilling aspect isn't just the surveillance...it's the propaganda potential. Once you have this level of granular data about every citizen, targeted disinformation campaigns become trivially easy. Know someone's worried about their job? Feed them anti-immigrant content. Concerned about healthcare costs? Here's some carefully crafted misinformation about government spending. The same AI systems monitoring your behaviour can manipulate it, creating feedback loops of radicalisation and control.

Even some Trump supporters are waking up to the horror they've unleashed. "I voted for Trump but this is just unacceptable," wrote one MAGA supporter, finally recognising that authoritarian tools don't discriminate based on political affiliation once they're built.

What we're witnessing is the methodical construction of a technological police state where artificial intelligence serves as judge, jury, and executioner of social acceptability. The algorithms don't just collect data, they make decisions about who gets flagged, investigated, harassed, or worse. And once this infrastructure is complete, rolling it back will be virtually impossible.


Meanwhile, back home, Newsroom revealed this week:

Big tech wants Luxon to turn NZ into ‘sandbox’

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford changed New Zealand’s ‘golden visa’ settings in April, creating a more streamlined pathway for those with enough cash to be considered an “active investor”.

As of June 23, Stanford said 100 applications had been approved in principle out of 189 in total. Seven had completed the process and invested funds in New Zealand in exchange for a residence visa, bringing a total of $45m into the country.

Some of these applications, as Stanford previously described them, came from the tech moguls behind “very big, well-known companies that you would probably use everyday”.

New Zealand has already accepted several of this cohort as residents or citizens, including Google co-founder Larry Page and Palantir co-founder and Donald Trump ally Peter Thiel.

Alvarez thought the benefits of attracting these sorts of companies outweighed the risks, as long as there were guardrails in place to protect data privacy, indigenous knowledge and health outcomes, among other sensitive areas.

The United States is pioneering a new form of totalitarianism: one where the oppression is algorithmic, the surveillance is total, and the control is absolute. And here's the kicker for Kiwis: Peter Thiel, Palantir's co-founder and Trump's billionaire mate, already holds New Zealand citizenship.

With the Luxon government actively courting overseas tech investors to use New Zealand as a regulatory "sandbox," we're potentially one handshake away from becoming Palantir's (with an office already right in the middle of Wellington City) testing ground for their next-generation of surveillance tools. When Silicon Valley's surveillance kings are literally NZ citizens, the dystopian future isn't across the Pacific, it's already walking through our front door.

New Zealand needs to wake up before we become the guinea pigs in Silicon Valley's next surveillance experiment. Because once you build the digital panopticon, everyone becomes a prisoner, even those who thought they were the guards.

Watch Ozzy Man Destroy Some White Supremacists

Gather round, you bloody legends, and let’s talk about a true Aussie icon who’s taken a wild detour from his usual topics. Ethan Marrell, better known as Ozzy Man, has been a YouTube juggernaut since 2014, dishing out side-splitting commentary with that larrikin charm and a voice that could make a tax return sound like a yarn at the pub.

His channel, Ozzy Man Reviews, is a treasure trove of foul-mouthed takes on everything from wildlife brawls to epic sporting fails, with the occasional piss-take of Game of Thrones or viral internet idiocy thrown in for good measure.

Whether it’s a kangaroo throwing haymakers or a bloke botching a backflip, Ozzy’s rapid-fire wit and unfiltered Aussie slang turns the mundane into comedy gold. He’s the mate you wish was narrating your life…crude, clever, and always bloody entertaining.

 

But here’s the kicker: Ozzy’s gone and got a bit political, and it’s as surprising as finding a vegan at a barbie. Known for steering clear of the heavy stuff, he’s now waded into the deep end, and his latest video is a glorious smackdown of some absolute dropkick white supremacists trying to hijack an Anzac Day dawn service. Yeah, you heard that right. These neo-Nazi numpties thought they could disrupt a sacred War Memorial event with their hateful nonsense, but Ozzy wasn’t having a bar of it.

In his video “Neo Nazis Fark Off” (posted April 2025), Ozzy tears into these clowns. Their “protest” was a pathetic attempt to whinge about a Welcome to Country ceremony, a respectful nod to Indigenous culture that’s about as controversial as a lamington at a morning tea. Ozzy calls them out as “Neo-Nazi” drongos, ripping their bigotry to shreds with his trademark blend of savage humour and no-bullshit clarity. He points out the absurdity of their booing a cultural gesture at a day meant to honour fallen soldiers. Not one to mince words Ozzy Man rightfully points out that these fascists are a disgrace to the Anzac spirit.

This isn’t just Ozzy being a loudmouth; it’s a non-stop factual statement on current affairs. For a bloke who’s built a career on laughing at drunk animals and dodgy dance moves, taking on white supremacists is a bold pivot. It’s a reminder that even our funniest voices can step up when it matters, calling out hate and defending what’s right. Some might say he’s lost the plot, but I say good on him for using his platform to kick these bigots where it hurts. Ozzy Man’s shown he’s not just here for a laugh, he’s also got a spine, too…just like our ANZAC forefathers. So, here’s to you, Ethan Marrell: keep telling it straight and giving those supremacist galahs the flick. Crikey, you’re a national treasure.

Unmasking the National Party’s Fascism

Kia ora, readers. It’s time to pull back the curtain on some uncomfortable truths about New Zealand’s political landscape. The National Party, often cloaked in the guise of "sensible centrism," has, at times, veered into territory that smells suspiciously like fascism.

Now, before you roll your eyes and mutter about hyperbole, let’s unpack this with a clear head, a sharp pen, and a few hard facts that cannot be ignored. We’re not here to sling mud for kicks; we’re here to dig into the dirt and see what’s buried.

Fascism, for those who need a quick refresher, isn’t just jackboots and salutes. It’s a political beast that thrives on nationalism, suppression of dissent, scapegoating minorities, and consolidating power for the elite.

Historian Umberto Eco’s 14-point framework for fascism is a handy guide—think cults of tradition, fear of difference, and an obsession with control. Here's how the National Party stacks up when we're talking about the clear and present danger of the indicators of fascism.


1. The Māori Scapegoat and Racial Division (2023 Election Campaign)

During the 2023 election, National’s campaign took a sharp turn into divisive territory. Christopher Luxon’s rhetoric, while carefully polished, leaned heavily on anti-Māori sentiment to score points. Remember his “bottom feeders” comment about the poor, many of whom are disproportionately Māori? Or the push to scrap dual-language road signs, not because they’re confusing (they’re not), but as a dog whistle to those who resent Māori cultural resurgence? This wasn’t just policy disagreement—it was a calculated move to stoke fear of “the other,” a classic fascist tactic. By framing Māori rights as a threat to “Kiwi unity,” National tapped into a playbook that thrives on division, not debate. Their coalition partners, ACT, took it further, openly flirting with white supremacist talking points.

2. Suppressing Dissent: The COVID-19 Response and Beyond

Let’s rewind to 2020-2021, when National was in opposition. Their response to the government’s COVID-19 measures was less about constructive criticism and more about fanning the flames of unrest. Judith Collins and co. gave tacit nods to anti-vax and anti-lockdown protests, which, let’s be honest, weren’t just about “freedom.” These movements, as we saw in Auckland and Wellington, often carried fascist undertones and calls for “purifying” society, and a rejection of scientific consensus. National didn’t outright endorse the tinfoil hat brigade, but they didn’t condemn them either. Instead, they played both sides, amplifying distrust in institutions to weaken Labour’s grip. Eco’s checklist ticks here: distrust in expertise and a fetish for “action over reflection.” Fast-forward to 2025, and National’s silence on rising far-right groups like Action Zealandia speaks volumes.

3. Economic Elitism and Control

Fascism loves a hierarchy, and National’s economic policies often read like a love letter to the 1%. Take their 2023 tax cuts...sold as relief for “hardworking Kiwis” but skewed heavily toward high earners. Meanwhile, funding for social services like healthcare have been put in a choke-hold, leaving the vulnerable to fend for themselves. This isn’t just bad budgeting; it’s a deliberate choice to prioritize wealth over welfare, consolidating power among the elite. Pair that with their push for privatization (think asset sales under Key’s reign, 2008-2016), and you’ve got a system that rewards loyalty to the state’s chosen few while dismissing the rest as “lesser.” Sound familiar? It’s the kind of cronyism that fascist regimes thrive on, dressed up in neoliberal jargon.

4. Historical Echoes: The Legion’s Shadow

Now, let’s get historical for a sec. The National Party was formed in 1936, partly from the ashes of the New Zealand Legion, a radical conservative group that flirted with fascist ideas during the Great Depression. The Legion wasn’t full-blown Mussolini fanboys, but their nationalism, anti-socialist fervor, and calls for “self-sacrifice” had a whiff of authoritarianism. National absorbed some of these elements, including ex-Legionnaires like S.G. Holland, who became leader. While National today isn’t a direct descendant of blackshirts, this origin story shows a willingness to cozy up to far-right fringes when it suits. As conditions worsen—say, economic strife or cultural tension—those roots could sprout again.

5. The Big Data Disturbance (2024-2025)

Here’s a fresh one. National’s coalition government has doubled down on “social investment” models, using AI and big data to decide who gets welfare and who doesn’t. Sounds efficient, right? Except it’s a slippery slope to state overreach. The Ministry of Social Development’s plan to trawl social media to “assess” beneficiaries reeks of a surveillance state...another fascist hallmark. Combine that with moves to loosen oversight on Oranga Tamariki’s child uplifts, disproportionately affecting Māori families, and you’ve got a recipe for systemic control dressed as reform. This isn’t about helping people; it’s about punishing those who don’t fit the “ideal” mold.

Let’s be clear: National isn’t goose-stepping into a dictatorship. But fascism isn’t always blatantly obvious...it creeps in through dog whistles, policy nudges, and strategic silences. Luxon’s National Party has shown it’s happy to play with fire, whether it’s racial division, economic elitism, or tech-driven control. They’re not Action Zealandia, but they don’t need to be. By normalizing far-right talking points and ignoring the warning signs, they’re laying kindling for a system that is much more ugly than what most Kiwis voted for.

Posie Parker - Arsehole of the Week

Nobody likes a fascist, except other fascist’s of course. Thankfully they were completely outnumbered in Auckland last Saturday when a supposed advocate for women’s rights, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull aka Posie Parker, tried to give a public speech about how transgender people are worthy of persecution.

You can understand why Parker and her followers were met with fierce resistance. She was after all promoting hatred similar to Nazi propaganda against minority groups, a form of dangerous disinformation that some deluded politicians believe is her right to express, presumably because they share similar bigoted views.

Today, RNZ reported

'Worst place' - Posie Parker leaves NZ after failed events

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, shared a photo on social media showing her being escorted by police through Auckland Airport.

She left her rally at Albert Park in Auckland yesterday without speaking after being overwhelmed by thousands of heckling counter-protesters and pelted with tomato juice.

…

Parker posted to Twitter and said she was leaving 'the worst place for women she has ever visited'.

Clearly the British anti-trans activist wasn’t closed down because she’s a woman. Her speech was halted by people power because she’s promoting hatred towards an at risk group who’re tired of suffering the type of abuse and stigmatisation that Parker and her fanatics are promoting.

Posie Parker knows this, but instead of letting that understanding govern her actions, she attempted to manipulate the narrative again by playing the victim card.

A local group supporting her visit, Speak Up For Women NZ, had already announced the scheduled rally today in Wellington had been cancelled due to security concerns.

Auckland Pride rejected the idea the activist had abandoned her Wellington plans due to threats of violence.

During a series of Tweets, she said a mob "had assaulted women standing up for their rights".

In reality Parker had some Watties Tomato Sauce poured on her head, an instance that will likely be viewed by Police as unworthy of an arrest. Another anti-transgender activist fell over while trying to push her way through a crowd of counter-protesters. She was lucky to not get arrested by police herself.

Most people will realise that Parker's claims are entirelly ludicrous, being that the main incident of violence was against Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, who got knocked over on a pedestrian crossing by a Destiny Church motorcyclist. He stupidly failed to stop, which is a crime punishable by up to three months in jail.

Last Sunday, RNZ reported:

Marama Davidson hit by motorcyclist after Posie Parker protest

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson was knocked to the ground by a motorcyclist who appeared to fail to stop at a pedestrian crossing after today's counter-protest against British anti-transgender activist Posie Parker.

In images published by other media, Davidson was seen waving a 'Trans Solidarity' sign just before she was struck.

So, tell me again who was being violent?

Marama Davidson didn’t let that injurious incident stop her from giving a speech to the overall peaceful protesters, unlike the coward Posie Parker who obviously cannot handle the jandal.  

The manipulative TERF has in fact received the response she intended to provoke. Her deluded followers are now more likely to donate because they've had their defunct belief systems entrenched. You could tell this by the look of glee on Parker's face as she was led away by Police, which clearly showed that her intentions were anything but wholesome.

What we don't want in New Zealand is more grifter's like Posie Parker promoting hatred towards minority groups to illicit donations. Instead we, and our politicians, should be fostering an inclusive society that helps everybody reach their full potential irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation people are born with.