Looking at the problematic behaviour of both the President of the European Union and New Zealand’s Prime Minister, I’m struck by the comparison between two autocratic women determined to get their own way. To Ursula von der Leyen, a right-wing government in Italy is unacceptable. Apparently she is also not particularly enamoured of Hungary and Poland, largely Christian countries whose governments reject, partly or totally, the EU and its bureaucrats for disregarding the sovereignty of EU member states.

Her menacing threat – that the EU has certain ‘tools’ if the Italians chose to go in a different direction – brings home to us how the bogeyman of the far right is now constantly invoked to justify the increasingly familiar politics of oppression.

This is the voice of tyranny speaking. And regardless of all the propaganda so obligingly endorsed by our mainstream media, the worldwide attack on democracies is from the left of the political spectrum – such as New Zealand’s Labour coalition – not from the centre-right. Our old enemy, communism, reinventing itself as cultural Marxism, has finally come to fruition, dominating all our institutions. But so long and successfully has the teaching of history been removed from our schools’ curricula that many are supremely ignorant about the very real danger – in reality the basic evil of communism, dedicated not only to subvert and overthrow democracies and individual freedoms, but to target Christianity and the values it represents.

However did we progress from democratic governments being voted in to carry out the wishes of the electorate to where people are now told what they are, or are not, permitted to do or say? Ridiculous new laws against ‘hate speech’ include comments which a determinedly aggrieved person can claim to be hurtful, or to be offended by. Yet freedom of speech is the heart of democratic freedom and it is up to the public, not to governments, to challenge speech which may be genuinely offensive.

An autocracy is well on the way, particularly when, as in New Zealand, the perceivably inadequate leader of the main opposition party seems to be caught up in the politics of self-esteem and focusing exclusively on financial issues. Christopher Luxon is apparently unaware of the need to come to grips with the radicalisation fracturing this country– the deliberate promotion of racial divisiveness. He also subscribes to the non-existent, climate change emergency scenario – which the seemingly obsessed Ardern now brandishes as a political weapon. However, Ardern’s near-hysterical raising of the prospect of imminent doom is underpinning a subversive agenda, and the fact that National party is too intellectually dimwitted to challenge her nonsense is unforgivable.

Our self-willed leader is now calling for censorship, saying nations must fight disinformation and combat falsehoods. Why? Because she says so? And what is disinformation – something with which she personally disagrees? Ominously, she is targeting people who do not believe in the global-warming catastrophising which top scientists are challenging: she wants their findings suppressed. Yet the best way to arrive at the truth of issues is never by restricting free speech, but by open debate.

However, our heavily bribed mainstream media already refuse to publish any article, no matter how well-informed, challenging the computer-generated findings of many with no real right to call themselves scientists. For example, Karl Popper’s well-known invoking of falsifiability calls for evaluation of scientific theory – not the drawing of unverifiable conclusions by feeding selective data into a computer to produce foregone conclusions.

We need to ask why this is the very last thing that she wants to occur. Why is she so determined to back this cargo cult? She wants no debate about nor questioning of the ‘climate change emergency’: it is to be suppressed as disinformation – simply outlawed. Yet she must well know other countries are abandoning ill-thought net-zero targets. Given the current energy and food shortages, the use of coal worldwide is hugely increasing, with fossil fuels gaining renewed respect – while she remains committed to penalising New Zealanders – eventually even to be forbidden to drive other than electric cars with their own drawbacks.

But who has given Ardern the right to make these arbitrary decisions? Her government has not only presided over the closing down of our hugely important Marsden Point oil refinery, but over the sale of many thousands of hectares of land (taken out of food production) to overseas interests profiting from planting it in pine trees and gaining the ridiculous, but lucrative, carbon credits. Only now is concern being raised about how much highly productive land has been lost in growing these forests as part of the pointless war against carbon dioxide.

We all know full well that even if New Zealand achieved the impossible net-zero carbon emissions it would make no difference at all to global warming – little though it is, and in fact valuable. Moreover, what eminent scientists like Australian Ian Plimer point out is what Jacinda Ardern would apparently like censored, banned as misinformation: ‘Forget carbon dioxide: water vapour accounts for at least 80 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse warming. Water vapour is the third-most abundant gas in the atmosphere, whereas carbon dioxide is a trace gas with unremarkable properties.’

Her real agenda is made plain in her recent scare-mongering address to the United Nations, about the ‘crisis of climate change’, stating elsewhere that ‘in many ways the lessons of the pandemic were the lessons of climate change’. Really?

We begin to understand her illogical comparisons when we understand she supports the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda and is backing an international effort to ‘develop a new global health legal instrument, strengthen international health regulations, and a strong and empowered World Health Organisation.’ The clues are there – ‘legal… strong… regulations…empowered…’ – to surrender what’s left of our national independence. The common theme is top-down ruling by left-wing governments using the excuse of ostensibly having no choice, legally bound to do so – having signed up to the domination of these anti-democratic, supranational organisations.

Arden’s comparison of the action needed on climate change to that ‘needed’ on the pandemic should give us warning. What’s ahead – climate change lockdowns to limit CO2 emissions? Even more of her government as ‘the single source of truth’? As Jane Fonda said, ‘Covid was God’s gift to the Left.’