Home > Issues
> Fake News > Leftists Using Cameras
to Tell Lies
Leftists Using Cameras to Tell
Peter Zohrab 2017
As many people are aware, the news media are
biased as regards what topics they choose to cover, how they choose to cover
them and whose views they allow their viewers/listeners/readers to know about.
For examples of this phenomenon, see the following pages:
However, it is important to realise, also, that the media use cameras to
tell lies, as well as directly telling lies in verbal or written language.
Here are some examples of how this is done:
When Don Brash
was prominent in right-wing New Zealand politics, the single most common
photograph of him that I saw on television was one where he had unpleasant
expression on his face. It appeared that he was looking at a group of
journalists. One or more of them had presumably decided to do something
to provoke him, so that they could then snap an unflattering photograph
of him to show to the public. Irrespective of how this photograph had
come about, the fact that television kept showing this shot of him was
proof of media bias and of the usual media determination to pervert
the democratic process.
I have been interviewed by the media a few times, although I have never
been allowed by them to debate Feminism or Men's Rights with Feminists in
a live broadcast.1
One time I was interviewed for a TVNZ current affairs programme and the
female interviewer and I were sitting on chairs a couple of metres apart,
facing each other. During the interview, the woman was leaning forward and
staring fixedly into my eyes. This stare, combined with the fact that I
was saying things that I knew that she, as a Feminist, would disagree with,
caused me to close my eyes -- at least some of the time. This, of course,
would have conveyed a negative impression of me to the average viewer. After
I had written and published (on the Web) the article The
Treaty of Waitangi has no Principles, in which I had criticised
him, Court of Appeal President Cooke (later
Lord Cooke of Thorndon), was interviewed on (as I recall) a news
programme and he did the interview with his eyes shut! Apparently I was
the only person who had criticised his judgment with cogent arguments up
till that time.
On 13th October 2017, walking through Wellington, New Zealand, I was subjected
to racial harassment from Samoan males installing
fibre broadband for the company Chorus under the footpaths. Later, one young
Black female sneered at me when I looked at her, and smiled happily when
I spat on the ground in response. I noticed some rapid movement behind the
tinted windscreen of a car parked just next to us, although I couldn't see
what was happening there, because of the tinted glass. Later on, I came
across a young Black male wearing a hoody, behaving quite normally. But
behind him was a young White woman, who had been hiding behind him, camera
poised, and ready to take my photo if I reacted negatively to this inoffensive
Black man. She had a huge grin on her face. It is obvious to me that there
had earlier been someone (probably the same woman) in the car, taking my
photo when I reacted to being sneered at by the Black woman!
I am often subjected to psychological pressure when in public. The reason
for this is that my sort of views are systematically censored and actively campaigned
about by the Fake News Media and the Fake Education Sysytem. That makes my views
appear to be "extreme" and rare and allows me to be targetted in conspiracies.
In fact, I think that the reason why the Court of Appeal reached the decision
referred to above is ultimately because of this kind of pseudo-moral pressure
being exerted upon judges, politicians etc., so that they end up making decisons
on the basis of nothing more than an internalised maxim such as "Duh! Women
good, Maoris good; men bad, Whites bad!" Since I have been threatened,
I expect that judges and other prominent people have been threatened by Leftists
as well, so that the combination of threats, pseudo-moral
pressure and the implied promise of honours causes such people to make the right
-- i.e. the Left -- decisions.
1.The then Nine-to-Noon
radio show presenter, Kim
Hill, was a partial exception, since she is a Feminist herself and debated
with me live on air. However, that was a mistake on her part, since she only
interviewed me because she thought she could slaughter me in any debate on
Feminism. She had heard that I was the Secretary of the New Zealand Men for
Equal Rights Association, so she told me (sarcastically) that she thought
that Feminism was about equality. I said that it wasn't -- it was only about
selective equality, with Feminists determining
which issues to apply "equality" to and how to define "equality"
with respect to those issues. She did not have any answer to that, but she
has not ceased to call herself a Feminist, as far as I am aware! That would
involve honesty and integrity on her part, which are totally out of the question!
Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.
12 November 2017