The U.S. MAGA far right's playbook enters New Zealand politics out in the open.
When I made a straightforward fact-based statement that Charlie Kirk is a white supremacist far-right activist, I did not anticipate it being the target of an organized disinformation campaign. But what followed revealed something quite sinister about how far-right tactics have entered New Zealand's mainstream politics.
Let me set clearly what actually happened—and why it concerns us all. In the rest of the post, I will analyze the anatomy of far-right disinformation and its networks of travel from the Trump MAGA ecosystem to Aotearoa New Zealand.
What I Actually Said
My initial tweet was straightforward: "Charlie Kirk is a white supremacist far right figure" and that attempting to pay homage to him in New Zealand's Parliament revealed "who is backing the far right in NZ mainstream politics."
This was not hyperbole. This was based on documented fact from such trusted sources as the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Guardian, and mainstream American media that extensively documented Kirk's work as an organizer for the far-right and extremist talking-points advocate.
When ACT party leader David Seymour and his party openly shared their condolences and requested that Parliament record Kirk's death, my rebuke was pointing to a discernible trend of mainstreaming far-right figures.
Enter Joseph Mooney
The tweet and an associated video I posted became the targets of a stochastic campaign, led by far-right figures such as Elliot Ikilei, a core node in spreading conspiratorial disinformation and hate, linked with the Steve Bannon media ecosystem.
National Party MP Joseph Mooney decided to add to the pile-on with a considered reply that should worry anyone who has an interest in democratic discussion. His statement was: "In the tradition of the very same free speech you're exercising to state your view, my view is that New Zealand doesn't need a 'Professor of Communication' at one of its universities peddling this kind of divisive and hyper-politicised rhetoric after what appears to be the politicized killing of a ordinary citizen who was participating in an exchange of ideas on the grounds of a university in the United States, and you should be seeking alternative employment."
Mooney is absolutely free to express his opinion.
What however he is also doing here is threatening my livelihood for enacting my free speech and academic freedom. Let me analyze in the rest of the blogpost precisely what Mooney did here—because this is the textbook model of how disinformation spreads in the digital age.
The Anatomy of Disinformation
Mooney's retweet of my tweet, mis-framing my argument to then call for me to "find another job" is an excellent example of the Trojan Horse technique used by the far-right that uses the cloak of civility to peddle in extreme demands that fundamentally threaten our democratic institutions and processes. Let's unpack what Mooney is doing here.
Step 1: Omit the Facts
Mooney completely ignored the fact-based aspect of my criticism. He failed to address the fact-based evidence of Kirk's association with far-right groups or the disturbing trend of New Zealand politicians celebrating such persons. Rather, he resurfaced my evidence-based commentary as "divisive rhetoric."
Step 2: Weaponize Tragedy
Mooney staged Kirk's assassination to delegitimate criticism. My tweet was about political alliances and institutional structures—it did not glorify violence or promote it. But Mooney staged the violent context to depict me as somehow accomplice to it, employing classic "guilt-by-association" techniques, which communication scholars recognize as a form of moral panic used to censor opposition.
Step 3: Call for Punishment
The below-the-belt stuff: Mooney personally requested my dismissal from the university. This isn't a disagreement—this is an attempt at using political pressure to stifle voices of dissent against mainstreaming the far-right.
Why This Violates More Than Just Decency
Mooney's attack is a clear contravention of the New Zealand Education and Training Act 2020, which protects academic freedom and maintains the function of universities as "critic and conscience of society." If an elected member of parliament openly calls for the dismissal of an academic for evidence-based political analysis, they're undermining the very legislative protections in place preventing the political repression of democratic debate.
But. That's only the beginning.
What Mooney did falls within a trend that we've seen across the globe in far-right movements: elite support of campaigns of harassment.
The Predictable Consequences
Research shows that when political elites criticize academics, it mobilizes partisan crowds to punitive behavior. Sure enough, within hours of Mooney's tweet, social media were flooded with calls to deport me and get me fired.
The tabloid Daily Telegraph NZ had a story with these calls. Not by chance—this is the set pattern of how elite criticism of scholars leads to organized campaigns of harassment.
I've witnessed it myself. The racist and anti-immigrant reaction that followed wasn't spontaneous online trolling—it was the predictable result of Mooney's calculated provocations.
When a sitting MP hints that "punitive measures" against an academic are in play, it sends a silent permission for mob rule.
The Global Context
This is not a lone incident. Mooney's rhetoric is sounding like methods used by the American far-right sphere—the very same circles that brought Charlie Kirk in the first place. The framing of Kirk as merely a "private citizen discussing ideas," the speculation regarding "politicized assassination," the condemnation of scholarly "elites"—these are party lines straight out of the transnational far-right playbook.
We're seeing live coordination between New Zealand's right-wing leaders and global far-right rhetoric.
Mooney's response came in 48 hours of similar rhetoric from Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Fox News pundits who blamed Kirk's murder on "radical left rhetoric."
What's Really at Stake
This is not just a question of one tweet or one outrageous instance of political wrongdoing. It's whether New Zealand will stand firm or fall for the authoritarian tactics that have corrupted democratic discourse elsewhere.
When academics can't invoke settled patterns of far-right mainstreaming without hitting up against coordinated harassment campaigns sanctioned by elected officials, we've already lost something important. When politicians are able to use violence to suppress scholarly critique, we're abandoning the norms that enable democratic discussion.
The chilling effect exists. Published scholarship shows that repeated harassment makes scholars self-censor, lose interest in public discussion, or even quit their profession. Each time this happens, democratic discussion loses a little more.
The Choice Ahead
Mooney's campaign of disinformation shows a stark decision for New Zealand: Do we desire a political tradition in which criticism supported by evidence is defended and promoted, or one in which far-right methods of intimidation and silencing become the norm?
The response is not to defend the academics so much as it is to defend space for hard truths that democratic societies need to hear. When we can't name white supremacist leaders by what they are without threat of coordinated attacks, when politicians can deploy violence to delegitimate critique, when naming far-right mainstreaming gets you threats to job security, then we've already lost too much ground.
I am not going to be intimidated by these methods. The truth regarding Charlie Kirk's far-right organizing remains unchanged. The grim trend among New Zealand politicians to celebrate such figures remains name-deserving. And the need to respond to authoritarian methods of intimidation has only grown stronger.
This is why universities are as critics, and as society's conscience—to tell it like it is, even when it hurts, even when it provokes vengeance. That's not hate rhetoric. That's democratic responsibility.
The question now is if enough New Zealanders will call these tactics out for what they are and not let them take root here. Because if we don't, Mooney's playbook will be the new normal—and our democracy will be the loser.
