It should be obvious, but it probably is not

New Zealand PM shuts down news conference because she didn't like the question.

CTH writes about this event just recently, in which someone who is not an "accredited" news person, asks a valid question about the effectiveness of the "vaccine".

The subtlety of it is what caught my eye. It should be noted that it isn't a "news" conference if valid and fair questions are not allowed to be asked. The person asked a fair question involving other nations experiences with the vaccine. That seems fair and reasonable, but the reaction definitely was NOT. The person asking the question was treated as if he was unreasonable, but that is not so. Note also the requirement that only approved people are allowed to ask questions. The "news" conference was a sham event. It was no news conference if you cannot ask valid and reasonable questions.

The subtlety of it is that the PM doesn't appear all that "flustered" or anything like that. It seemed like a very slick and well-executed diversion to regain control of the message that was being pumped out to a likely uninformed citizenry. Perhaps the citizens of New Zealand DON'T KNOW and aren't allowed to know certain things that are inconvenient to the ruling class. The citizens are UNINFORMED if they aren't allowed to know all facts relating to government policy. The idea that you can have a DEMOCRATIC type of government without free speech is counter to much of the experience of the world in the last century. The first thing a tyranny does is to shut down free speech. Not only that, but to also confiscate firearms.

All of it is being done under the radar, it seems. It is made to appear to be so natural and reasonable, but it is not. I've seen that before on a blog called Mahablog. The Mahablog is a left-wing site. Once upon a time, I read that blog and commented there. I was banned from making any further comments just because I asked a question that the blogger didn't like. It wasn't rude. It wasn't unreasonable. It was a valid question, as I recall. It took me by complete surprise. This blogger at that point seemed like a reasonable person, but that was not a reasonable way of behaving. It is a lot like the New Zealand PM.

What's the point of the discussion then, if fair and valid questions are not permitted? It is just plain and simple propaganda. Not a free exchange of information, which is what you would expect in a FREE society. The conclusion should be obvious.