Why Beneficiaries Are Morally Superior to Workers

It’s a nearly universal assumption nowadays that people who work are morally superior to people on welfare. People on welfare, we are told, are essentially parasites that do nothing but suck wealth out of the system, and we’d all be better off without them. As this essay will explain, this is almost the exact opposite of reality. People on welfare are, in fact, morally superior to those who work.

The vast majority of human history has been one of deprivation and toil. Having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, the primary survival challenge facing our species for almost the entirety of its existence was finding enough food to meet the metabolic needs of our bodies. For the most part, this was a brutal and bloody struggle against the world – and each other.

This had a powerful effect on the evolution of human behaviour – and our morality.

Because resources are scarce, and the metabolic clock is ticking, humans have always needed to be active. We have always needed to work, whether that be hunting, gathering, fishing or working the land in the form of agriculture. This was how we gathered enough resources to survive. The alternative to activity was death.

Because working was necessary for survival, we have always praised those who did it, and always excoriated those who did not. It was probably necessary to do this, because, had we not done so, the lazy would have dragged all of society down with them. Our culture, especially Northern European culture, came to consider work something almost holy, as if the meaning of life.

Working more and harder is how wealth is built, but as can be seen in the graph at the top of this essay, the planet cannot support the level of consumption that humans are currently subjecting it to. There simply aren’t enough of the necessary resources. The resources that do exist are being depleted at such a pace that we can see hard physical limits approaching, and there’s no escaping it.

The fact is that a profound paradigm shift has taken place over the past few hundred years, and we’ve barely even noticed it, let alone adapted to it.

American agricultural productivity increased 1200% between 1950 and 2000. This was thanks to something called the Green Revolution, which increased agricultural productivity severalfold all across the world. What this means is that it requires far, far fewer people to feed society today than what it took in the past. Therefore, most people are now surplus labour.

We have adapted to this by setting the now-redundant agricultural workers to work in other industries. First was manufacturing, then service industries. This worked out great for a long time, because all of these non-essential workers were able to produce things that raised the human standard of living, even if those things weren’t necessary.

This was pretty awesome for a few decades, and arguably continues to be. However, we are now aware of some things that we once didn’t know. In particular, we are now aware of the pressure we’re putting on the natural environment through shifting those surplus workers into manufacturing all sorts of things. We now know that we can’t keep doing this.

The world doesn’t need hard work and production any more. Those days are over. What the world now needs are people who can restrict their consumption to a level that the world can sustain. As seen on the graph above, that level is about half that of the average Chinese level of consumption, some $15,000 of resources every year.

In other words, a First World standard of living will, necessarily, become a thing of the past sooner or later.

For the average Westerner, restricting one’s consumption to about $15,000 worth of goods and services a year will not be easy. This will demand an extremely sharp curtailment of material desire. It will mean that far fewer international trips can be taken, and far fewer new cars or big screen televisions can be bought. It may require vegetarianism or something like it. It will require great sacrifice.

Without such a great sacrifice, our planet cannot survive, or at least not in a form that can sustain human life. Therefore, doing so is a moral imperative.

The average Western beneficiary has already achieved this. Considering that the average Western beneficiary already survives without the excessive consumption displayed by almost everyone in a job, they are in fact showing the way forward for the rest of the Western World. They are the pioneers of the future, demonstrating the correct way for the rest of us to behave. They are the Men of Gold.

Like the holy ascetic men of the great Eastern religions, the Western beneficiary class has liberated themselves from materialism. They are therefore showing the way forward for the rest of humanity, and ought to be praised as spiritual masters. The rest of us need to follow the path of the beneficiary, and stop following the path of the worker/consumer. The first step is recognising the moral superiority of the welfare recipient.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Racism Is The Original Sin Of White People

Christian guilt-trippers like to emotionally abuse anyone they can with a concept called Original Sin. According to Christian dogma, all human beings are inherently guilty of sin as soon as they are born, and are obliged to take action to make up for this. As this essay will explain, this concept has mutated, in recent decades, into the concept of racism.

Otherwise known as “ancestral sin”, Christian dogma has it that humans have been afflicted ever since Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This is why it is said that “All have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.”

The idea is that all humans are automatically guilty of this Original Sin, by virtue of being descended from Adam and Eve. This state of guilt exists until they bow the knee to Jesus Christ. The concept of Original Sin means that any person, how matter how righteous, can have a guilt trip laid on them about how they haven’t done enough.

Guilt-tripping people about being sinners has long been proven an excellent way to manipulate and swindle them, as cashed-up priests have known for millennia. If you can convince a person that your approval is necessary to avoid punishment in the afterlife, you have effectively enslaved them. They will do whatever you tell them, and give you whatever you want from them, out of a fear of being condemned to Hell.

In today’s world of near-total atheistic degeneracy, this idea of Original Sin is no longer convincing enough to manipulate people. However, the basic human brain circuitry that makes us vulnerable to guilt trips still exists, and our rulers still exploit that vulnerability. The difference is that, now, our rulers have replaced Original Sin with racism, and the fear of punishment in Hell with the fear of ostracisation.

According to those doing the manipulating and swindling today, all white people are guilty of racism from the moment they are born. It doesn’t matter if one has no racist attitudes and never disrespect non-white people. All white people are guilty, and all non-whites are innocent.

If you are white, all of your wealth, all your joy, everything good in your life comes from racism and the racist abuse of non-whites.

If you have a roof over your head, it was because your ancestors stole it. If you have a good job, it’s because a non-white was unfairly looked over for the position. If a white nation is wealthy, it’s because of exploitation of either natives, refugees or non-white trading partners. Everything good in a white person’s life is the fruit of racist evil.

Being educated is no justification for wealth, either.

If you have an education, it’s because your Government racistly educated you while leaving non-whites to stagnate. If your parents educated you, that was only possible because their exploitation of non-whites gave them the time in which to do so. If you educated yourself, it’s because your teachers racistly favoured you at school and gave you more attention.

Fundamentally, if you are white, you are the beneficiary of racism and have to make amends. It doesn’t matter if you are working class, and it doesn’t matter if the average non-white is wealthier than you. Even if you’re a homeless schizophrenic you’re the beneficiary of “white privilege”.

To be white is to be guilty of racism, as surely as being a Nazi is to be guilty of the crimes of the Third Reich.

Racism is not only the fundamental explanation for every white person who is doing well, but it is also the fundamental explanatory principle of all sociology. The simplest and most accurate explanation for any difference in outcomes between whites and another group is racism.

If Maoris are poorer than white New Zealanders, or blacks are poorer than white Americans, or Aborigines poorer than white Australians, it’s all because of racism. Had white people not been as racist as they are, and oppressed and exploited these people, they would all be precisely as wealthy as whites. Disagreeing with this contention is racism, and you’re not allowed to ask why Japanese and Koreans are rich.

Wealth doesn’t come from hard work or education – it only comes from exploiting the oppressed. Therefore, the only way to solve the problem of racism and the economic inequality it has created is to give non-whites the opportunity to exploit whites. All non-white exploitation of white people is therefore justified, as reparations for past oppression. A white person would only complain about it if they were racist.

In the same way that one can only be absolved of Original Sin by converting to Christianity, white people can only be absolved of racism by becoming Communists. Only the complete repudiation of one’s family, nation and race is enough.

By way of laying this massive guilt trip on white people, modern leftists have been able to assume vast control over Western society. Westerners have been so beaten down with shame for their Original Sin of racism that the mere accusation of it is often enough to make someone persona non grata. Speech, writing and thought is now heavily policed to make sure it doesn’t fall foul of those who have appointed themselves our moral guardians.

Defeating these manipulations requires the same strategy that defeated the manipulations of Christianity, i.e. a combination of cold reason and genuine spirituality. This will lead to the healthy self-esteem that is necessary to defend oneself against guilt-tripping and emotional abuse.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The Asylum At The Top of The Mountain

This world is a crazy place, and getting respite is all but impossible. We are bombarded with lies from all directions, all the time. The newspaper lies, the radio lies, the television lies, and now the Internet is lying to us. Living in this whirlwind of untruth is enough to drive the most disciplined man to insanity. The good news is that a place of respite exists.

Who are VJM Publishing? You can’t be leftists, because you are against mass Muslim and African immigration, believe in the right to own firearms and believe in God. You can’t be rightists, because you promote comprehensive drug law reform, a universal basic income and strengthening the negotiating position of workers. You can’t be centrists, because you’re not pathetic and mealy-mouthed.

So who are you?

In the real world, there are many topics that one cannot speak about, at least not with full openness. One may not speak of how psychedelics and cannabis are spiritual sacraments, or of the inherently violent nature of Abrahamic religion, or of the etiology of homosexuality, or of the correlation between race and intelligence, or of the unsustainable nature of capitalism, or of the well-documented structural brain difference between men and women. All of these subjects are taboo – only the television may speak of them.

At the Asylum at the Top of the Mountain, all those taboos are left behind. Here, it doesn’t matter what your political views are, not in the least! Every political ideology is considered both a work of brilliance and idiocy. Every political activist is considered both a genius and an imbecile. Alt-centrism is the overriding philosophy, and we follow the Five Rejections and the Five Acceptances.

At the Asylum at the Top of the Mountain, anyone who wants to bring politics into an intelligent discussion about science, philosophy or spirituality can go fuck themselves!

Here, the highest moral imperative is to see reality accurately. If you can’t deal with the biological reality of human existence, or the transitory nature of the human experience, you will be ripped down. The Asylum at the Top of the Mountain is not a place for virtue signallers. It is a place for truthseekers, even if those truths should cause suffering to those who bear them.

There will never, ever be public awards bestowed on VJM Publishing. No Government will ever hail us as the honest men and women that this benighted world so desperately needs. No media will ever honour us as speakers of truth, no priest, rabbi or imam will ever praise us. Any person who desires such accolades best turn away now, lest they waste their energy climbing to us!

We can only ever be the Asylum at the Top of the Mountain. We can only ever be a tiny space, walled off from the madness, inside which a small number of exceptional people can find like-minded company. Entry to the Asylum is not difficult, but finding it is. Its light may burn eternal, but it is equally subtle.

It’s obvious that civil war is coming to the West. The population is already divided into intractably opposed groups. Anyone trying to make a right-wing argument on Reddit gets banned; anyone trying to make a left-wing argument on 4chan gets ridiculed. Not only is the middle ground vanishing, but neither side appears willing to restore it.

The Asylum at the Top of the Mountain is for those who are before and after this great impending conflict. We know the education system is fucked – merely a drone factory. We know the media is fucked – merely propaganda for corporate interests. We know religion is fucked – all spiritual knowledge was lost centuries ago. The Asylum is for those outside of time.

We know all this is not going to blow over, but rather come crashing down in a maelstrom of fire and blood. Our entire societies and economies are built on a unsustainable Ponzi scheme that demands new people be stuffed into them like so much coal into a furnace. The cracks have been showing for decades, and the bursting is inevitable.

Very well. We wait for it here in the Asylum, and then we will return to the World.

When the inmates of the Asylum at the Top of the Mountain return to the scorched earth of tomorrow, we will do so with the intent of bringing the light of God to a devastated people. Therefore, those we seek now are those who carry that light within themselves. We are not interested in religious people, who look for that light in the outside world. Such people belong in the valleys below.

In the New Century, it will no longer be possible to speak of Magic Jews on sticks and fiery pits of eternal torment for freethinkers. Spirituality will return to the world, and with it will come genuine knowledge about eternity and its laws, and the true, infinite nature of the human condition. Although such things cannot be spoken of now, their time will come, as the apocalypse burns away all falsehoods.

When this time comes, the men and women from the Asylum at the Top of the Mountain will be there. We will be ready to transmute the light of God into actions that alleviate the suffering of other sentient beings. New life will form from the ashes, and new order will form from the rubble. As it does, we will be there.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Why New Zealand Is So Fucked Up

A lot of thought has seemingly gone into answering the question of why this country is so fucked up. Most of it coalesces around ideologies, with liberal capitalism, globohomo, ethnonationalism and anarcho-nihilism being the foremost. None of these theories have as much explanatory power as the psychohistory model, as this essay will show.

The British Empire found itself with some severe problems in the 18th century. Because of industrialisation and modern science leading to advances in medicine and sanitation, there was a population explosion in Britain. This led to overcrowding, a problem that was alleviated by emigration. In some cases this was voluntary, in the form of gentleman settlers; in other cases it was involuntary, in the form of penal transportation and indentured servitude.

Like Australia, New Zealand came into being as a place for the rapidly expanding British Empire to dump some of its surplus cannon fodder, in case it needed to be called upon later. With the American Revolution of 1776, it became a lot harder for them to dispose of their convicts in North America, which is why, 12 years later, the First Fleet landed in Sydney Harbour to begin the colonisation of Australasia.

Within a few decades, the strategic imperative of colonising New Zealand had become apparent to the commanders of Empire back in London. Not only would it facilitate the projection of British military force into Asia, but it would also prevent the French from getting hold of it (as they later would New Caledonia).

To that end, Britain resolved to populate this new territory with some of its surplus people. This was not done with convicts, as Australia, but with free settlers exclusively, many of who were victims of the Highland Clearances (a little-known truth about New Zealand history is that many of its early settlers were people who were “encouraged” to emigrate to New Zealand because of unusual sexual proclivities that weren’t technically illegal in Britain, but which made the others want to get rid of them, such as homosexuality and pederasty).

This means that New Zealand is not, and never has been, a nation. Right from the very beginning it was nothing more than an artificial construct – a company. Indeed, the people chiefly responsible for the early settlement of New Zealand were called The New Zealand Company. Like Australia, and America before it, the people it initially attracted were Britain’s expendables.

Real nations don’t know who settled them or why, or where their name comes from. In a real nation, the people have been there since the beginning of time as far as they are concerned, and the stories of their ancestors are not hard historical facts but myths. Their founders are demigods, not Colonial Secretaries.

A nation is a group of people who are united by ties of kinhood, and who therefore all share a common goal (the perpetuation of their kin). Nation refers not to a geographical space (as does country) but to the people who populate that space. Consequently, one speaks of France and the French nation.

The beautiful thing about nations is that, being based on extended kinhood, each one is like one large family. Consequently, the ties that bind each citizen to each other are strong. In places like Japan and Sweden this leads to an unwillingness to commit violent and property crimes against other people, and a willingness to pay taxes for the sake of other people getting proper healthcare and a proper education.

In a place like New Zealand, the ties that bind are weak. As a result, people don’t care very much about the suffering of the other members of the collective. Although bullying exists in all other countries, it’s rare that it’s quite as vicious as what is tolerated in New Zealand, one reason why we have the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world, and the second-highest rate of workplace bullying in the world.

The other reason why our suicide rates are poor is because we don’t have a mental health system. In 2016, our mental health funding was a pitiful $1.3 billion – for the entire country. This is why many New Zealanders who present to the mental health authorities are just told to fuck off and die. When you’re a company and not a nation, the death of an unproductive person is preferable to paying out a long-term benefit to them.

Simply put, being expendable, it’s not considered important if we suffer and die – and it never has been.

This is why New Zealand troops went to Europe to fight the German Empire in World War II, instead of fighting against the Japanese Empire in the Pacific. Had New Zealand been a nation, we would have defended ourselves, and dealt to the main threat to us, which was Japan. It’s also why we fought in World War I and the Boer War, instead of staying at home, which would have been far better.

Because we are a company and not a nation, we do what our shareholders tell us to do, which was to attack who they tell us to attack. It doesn’t matter if its the Boers, the Ottomans, the Germans, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Afghanistanis or the Iraqis – if it serves the interests of global financial capital, we’re ready to pick up our rifles and die for it.

Australia and New Zealand lost around 1.5% of our entire population in World War I, almost as much as Belgium, where many of the battles took place. Australia suffered more combat deaths than Belgium, despite a smaller population and despite being 20,000 kilometres distant from the fighting. 42% of all New Zealand men of military age served with the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces in World War One, meaning that experience of mortal combat was almost normal for an entire generation of men.

The reason for all this was that our men were conscripted into battle by ruling classes that served imperial interests, and not national ones. This national history of being used as cannon fodder for imperial military adventures (despite it being the reason for us being brought into existence in the first place) is the main reason why Aussies and Kiwis have so many psychiatric problems.

The immensely heavy exposure to combat fucked up our country in two major ways.

The first is obvious: the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Called “shellshock” in World War I and “battlefield fatigue” in World War II, this refers to the dissociation that can arise from the trauma of combat. It is because of the heavy incidence of PTSD that we developed a culture of drinking ourselves to oblivion and indifference to domestic violence. Unfortunately for us, this is the sort of trauma that gets passed on down through the generations.

The second was that it created our infamous “harden up” culture. The deprivations of war are no place for preciousness. Any man who expressed grief at what he had seen or done had to be made to shut the fuck up in no uncertain terms, lest the morale of the unit become affected. The battlefield is no time to talk about one’s feelings. While in the realm of iron, the ability to suppress emotions is often the difference between life and death.

This is all well and good if there is a war that needs to be won, but our cultures seem to have made permanent what should have been a temporary indifference to the suffering of our fellows. Genuine nations don’t do this. Because New Zealand isn’t a proper nation, however, the New Zealand Government doesn’t take this into account when it makes decisions.

If we had a proper nation, we would have spent the money to fix our psychiatric casualties. As it is, we have a nation where crying children are as likely to be bashed or sworn at as comforted. Young people seeking mental healthcare are excoriated for being weak. This is brilliant for raising a country of warriors, but it isn’t how a nation naturally raises its next generation, which is with firm, but relentless, compassion.

Not having a proper nation to keep check on them and to inspire their will, the New Zealand Government runs the country according to the will of foreign moneyed interests. These are essentially the same interests that own the New Zealand media, and just about everything else.

The New Zealand people never, ever wanted to double the refugee quota, and especially not when the number of New Zealand families on the housing waitlist already exceeds 12,000. The New Zealand people also wanted cannabis law reform decades ago. The New Zealand people wanted a sharp cut to our immigration intake. None of it matters.

The fact is that, not being a nation, Kiwis have very little solidarity with each other, and so we don’t stand up for each other. This is why it’s so easy for politicians like the Sixth Labour Government to strip away our rights to free expression and to firearms ownership. Because we don’t stand together, we have no way to resist aggression, whether from outside or inside the country. Thus, we remain divided and conquered.

There is only one way to unfuck New Zealand, and that is for us to come to operate as a nation. This is impossible as long as multiculturalism and mass immigration exists, and stopping those things are all but impossible as long as an industrial society with an economy based around eternal growth exists. But if we can come together as an extended kin group, we can develop the solidarity necessary to make ending each other’s suffering a primary goal.

The reality is that this will take several hundred years, and will not begin until after the collapse of the current economic paradigm. Some hundred years after this, both Kupe and Captain Cook will be mythological figures, and most of the rest of the world, Britain included, will be forgotten. At that point, a great race of bronze and copper will arise, and the nature of their influence will be to move inwards, towards the centre of the world.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

What is A ‘Dhimmi’?

With a world being thrown into upheaval, many concepts once thought forgotten are making a resurgence. This is often a good thing, as VJM Publishing has tried to show with our work on alchemy, elementalism and esotericism, but it can also be a bad thing. As this essay will explain, one of the concepts we will again have to familiarise ourselves with is that of the dhimmi.

Growing up with stories about World War II, an idea of what constituted an awful person arose. It wasn’t good to be a coward, and it wasn’t good to be the sort of person who shot prisoners, but the worst sort of person was the kind that collaborated with the enemy. These collaborators were a particular kind of traitor, but of the lowest possible sort.

The actions of men such as Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian who collaborated willingly with the Nazis during the Norwegian Occupation, became infamous. When Germany invaded Norway in 1940, Quisling volunteered to lead a local version of the Nazi Party, with him as head. This was considered such an obscenity that Quisling was executed as soon as the Nazis were expelled.

Warfare has always had collaborators, a consequence of the depravities that it inflicts upon soldier and civilian alike. The first enemy of warfare may be the truth, but the second might be common decency, as people are flung into situations where they are forced to do terrible things or die. The conditions of warfare mean extreme shortages of food, medicine and safety, and that means desperation.

Sometimes there is so much warfare and so many collaborators that a specialist vocabulary arises to describe them. During the Islamic conquests, collaborators were so common that they were given the title dhimmis (“protected person”). A dhimmi was given certain rights, such as exemption from persecution, as long as they paid the jizyah, or special tax. This was a form of protection money and therefore a sign of submission.

A dhimmi, then, is one who collaborates with an invading Islamic force to secure personal benefits at the expense of their people as a whole. Because the Islamic conquests were so vast, there are many stories of dhimmis in different cultures, but all of them share the quality of being considered execrable cowards.

Becoming a dhimmi isn’t necessarily a dumb move, even if it’s a morally deficient one. As many of the Norwegian women who hooked up with Wehrmacht soldiers during the Norwegian Occupation discovered, collaboration can secure food and other resources if the enemy ends up being triumphant.

Dhimmitude could be considered a kind of prostitution. As can be seen by the image above, anyone who becomes a dhimmi can expect to be praised in the most effusive of terms. The most gratifying thing a jihadist can experience is to see an infidel submit to the will of Islam, whether that be conversion or paying tribute. It’s the same sort of gratification a man feels watching a woman suck his cock.

A lot of Westerners feel that they can already see the writing on the wall, and believe that some form of Islamic conquest is inevitable. It was being seriously asked 15 years ago if France was on its way to becoming a Islamic state; now people just shrug their shoulders and await the inevitable.

A dhimmi in a modern context would be someone who actively supports Islamic interests ahead of those of her own people, in exchange for the hope of goodwill from Muslims as a whole. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as votes from the Muslim voting bloc within the country or support from Muslim countries when it comes to fulfilling future United Nations ambitions.

British Member of Parliament Jo Cox was a classic example of a dhimmi. Elected to serve the Batley and Spen constituency of West Yorkshire, she instead spent most of her time campaigning for refugees and ethnic diversity. Many considered her assassination a predictable response to her support of foreigners over her own people.

Jacinda Ardern is another example of a dhimmi. Ardern could be said to be “The world’s favourite dhimmi” on account of her response to the Christchurch mosque shootings, which was to excoriate white men in general while opening the door to further Muslim immigration. Her crackdowns on the rights of New Zealanders to possess firearms and to free expression made every jihadist in the world grin from ear to ear.

These young women have calculated that Islam will be much more influential, perhaps even dominant, in a few decades, and therefore the time to ingratiate oneself with them is now. They want to show themselves to be great friends of Islam, in the hope that Muslims will treat them more favourably when they assume power. They have deeply internalised a sense of dhimmitude, the condition of accepting being a dhimmi.

The left-wingers who prioritise Muslim refugees over their own homeless are deep into dhimmitude. As is often the case with slaves, dhimmitude can become so deeply internalised that the dhimmi thinks their behaviour is natural, even admirable. But the actions of women like Cox and Ardern are little different to those of the women who prostituted themselves to the victorious Nazi armies. After all, human nature hasn’t changed in many thousands of years.

In any case, the West is likely to see a lot more dhimmitude in coming decades, as the Muslim population – and therefore their militancy – continues to increase. Soon it will become important to identify dhimmi politicians like Cox, Ardern and Angela Merkel, so that they can be counteracted before they destroy our societies from the inside.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Is New Zealand Now A Police State?

The Great New Zealand Chimpout appears to now be a permanent state of affairs, as the Sixth Labour Government has doubled down on its suppression of free speech. Far from once having been the world’s leader in human rights, things are now worse than anyone could have thought possible. This essay asks – is New Zealand now a Police state?

The term “Police state” is used to describe a political regime that employs the Police to intimidate or destroy their political enemies. This is widely considered a moral obscenity for the reason that the Police are supposed to be there to keep the peace in a morally neutral fashion.

One definining characteristic of a Police state is “The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions […] on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.”

The home of VJM Publishing Vice President Vince McLeod was visited by two Police officers on Friday. Although they were asked to leave the property immediately on the grounds that they didn’t have a warrant, one of the officers had the time to mention something about “concerning posts made on the VJM Publishing FaceBook page”.

VJM Publishing is far from only one to have been targeted in this manner. Many Kiwis are aware of the current ongoing campaign of Police harassment targeting the alternative media and outspoken freethinkers. Alt-media mogul Vinny Eastwood has been targeted five times already, and a video of one particular harassment attempt has been viewed over 100,000 times on YouTube.

The purpose of these visits is, and can only be, to intimidate certain sections of the citizenry into silence.

Ideally, the targeted citizen will feel such an unpleasant sense of fear at armed Police coming to their house that they will begin to censor themselves, and no longer express views critical of the Government. The knowledge that they are being monitored is supposed to cause the citizen to think twice about which opinions they express, lest the Police come back.

This logic has underpinned all Police states and dictatorships throughout time. It’s the basic abuser logic of punishing any and all displeasing behaviour. Dissenters must be punished so that dissent is quelled.

New Zealanders are generally happy to glibly declare themselves a free people. After all we have such a thing as a Bill of Rights, and in that Bill of Rights it says in Section 14 that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

However, if New Zealand Police officers are visiting members of the media for the purposes of intimidation, then New Zealand qualifies as a Police state. There’s no other way to describe a country in which the Government sends Police officers to intimidate people for expressing their opinions, when their right to express those opinions is enshrined in law.

Perhaps even more concerning is the willingness of the mainstream media to go along with this repression. Not only are the mainstream media happy to distract the people from this mass human rights violation, but they work hand-in-hand with the Government to manufacture public consent for the Police harassment campaign.

Indeed, Stuff admits that the Police have shared the secret watchlist with them, which is tantamount to an admission that the Government, the Police and the mainstream media are all working together. If that’s not a sign that the New Zealand Establishment is rotten with corruption, then no such sign is possible.

Some will be asking: where to from here?

New Zealand is likely to proceed along the lines of the East German Stasi model. This version of a Police state emphasises building a massive network of informants who are motivated to rat out wrongthinkers. Thanks to FaceBook, such a thing is trivial to achieve – it’s only necessary to appeal to the public to dob people in.

Much like New Zealand, the East German censorship system was applied despite the freedom of expression being enshrined in law. East German censorship was applied so that “Content which was considered harmful to the regime, or to communist ideologies in general, was strictly forbidden.”

The content that is and will be suppressed under the Ardern regime is content that criticises left-wing globalism.

It can be predicted that in coming years the Government will try to censor reports about the state of homelessness in New Zealand, because they want to import as many refugees as they can, and awareness of the housing crisis reduces the people’s will to do this. They will also want the media to not report on crimes such as Muslim grooming gangs or gang rapes, because this also affects public sentiment towards globalism.

New Zealand now effectively has the same thing as the Stasi, because Kiwis who share content considered harmful to the Ardern regime are getting Police visits. New Zealand doesn’t have a gulag system yet, but it could be argued that we have political prisoners. There are individuals sitting in prison for sharing a video of the mosque shooting, even though the video was shared before it was declared objectionable (and therefore the sentence is retrospective and not legal).

Philip Arps is not a very nice person, according to a number of accounts, but that’s specifically why the Government targets people like him first. They want to create the idea that everyone else they target belongs in a similar category. If they can manufacture the impression that independent media outlets like VJM Publishing belong in the same category of person as Arps, half the job of suppressing dissent is done.

There are also reports that Police have visited schools to intimidate pupils who have joked about the shooting or about sharing footage. This intimidation campaign amounts to an attempt to socially engineer the population into a more submissive and compliant state.

It can be seen that the Sixth Labour Government has introduced a Police state along the lines of Socialist East Germany. Expression of political opinions that the Ardern regime wants suppressed may well result in an intimidatory visit from the Police. The only way out is to ensure the coming to power of a force that respects the inherent rights of every New Zealander.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The Alt-Centrist Response To Increasing Polarisation

No-one is in any doubt that political polarisation is increasing all across the Western World. The centre seems to be collapsing in every Western country, with the extremes of both the left and the right gaining in power. This essay describes the alt-centrist response to this increasingly apparent phenomenon.

Although America is usually given as the example of polarisation, with Donald Trump on one wing and Trump Derangement Syndrome on the other, they are still relatively civil compared to Europe.

In Germany, alt movements now have the support of at least 36% of the population. This is only including the alt-left Greens at 24% and the alt-right Alternative for Germany at 12%. If one adds the Left Party at 8%, then the alt movements are now getting more support than the Establishment.

In Sweden, the neo-Nazi Sweden Democrats are now the second biggest party outright, with the mainstream Moderate (Conservative) Party continuing to fall away. The Sweden Democrats have been so successful that even more hardline neo-Nazi movements have started up to compete for that voting bloc.

In Britain, support for the mainstream Conservative and Labour Parties have collapsed in the space of one year, with both now polling below 25%, and the newly-founded Brexit Party coming from nowhere to poll 20%+. With four completely different movements all polling around 20%, it looks like the next General Election will render Britain all but ungovernable.

In France, the Socialist Party that ruled the country for decades has disintegrated. Their candidate now has a meagre 4% support ahead of the next French Presidential election in 2022. Marine Le Pen’s far-right nationalist movement the National Rally, by contrast, is polling at 28%. This is just barely behind the Establishment’s golden boy Emmanuel Macron, at 30%.

What it looks like, all over the West, is that the centre is collapsing and the extremes are growing. This pattern is easily recognisable as the terminal one that precedes almost every war, ever. This is to say, the West is headed for full-scale civil war. This is not because of any ill will on the part of any faction of actors – it’s simply a function of the growth rate of the various forces that underpin social cohesion (or the lack of it).

The Western World can be compared to a running washing machine, where someone chucked a brick called ‘neoliberalism’ inside the main chamber about 20-30 years ago and things are just starting to fall apart. This newspaper has already pointed out how similar the social and economic situation is to the 1920s in Central Europe. It will get worse.

Everyday rhetoric reflects this. Many people now feel that either the left wing has gone off the deep end and are calling everyone Nazis, or the right wing has gone off the deep end and are calling everyone Communists. It’s almost impossible to stake out a position in the centre, because the more polarised the environment is, the more likely either side is to see centrists as the enemy.

This is where the alt-centre comes in. A time of collapse and chaos actually benefits the alt-centrists, because it is then that we come into our glory.

The original right, left and centre represent a stable system, or one that’s at peace. The alt-left and the alt-right, by contrast, don’t care about peace – they want war. The alt-left want to smash down all borders by force; the alt-right wants to expel anyone who doesn’t fit in by force. In the eyes of the new positions, peace has failed, and the fault lies squarely on “them”.

The presence of the alt-right and the alt-left is a sign that the broader system is disintegrating. The presence of the alt-centre is a sign that this disintegration has passed the point of no return. We must now get used to living in a new paradigm. But first, we’re going to have to go through some pain.

When the broader system disintegrates, there are no longer any forces holding the victorious alt-left or alt-right factions to task, no matter which of the two wins. Whoever gains the ascendancy can all but wipe out their enemy. Those are extremely dangerous times, and we’re heading towards them.

The alt-centre, therefore, acts as a moderating effect in a time of increasing disorder. This is a rare quality, and and it is achieved by appealing to universal values such as truth. The intent of this moderation is not to help one side or the other to win, because the alt-centrist knows that the excesses of one age lead directly to the excesses of the next.

We’re not here to help one side or the other to victory. We’re not even the peacekeepers. What has to happen will happen, and we know that we’ll be there to rebuild on the other side.

The intent is to make the crash landing as soft as possible.

This makes the alt-centrist position a very interesting one to take. The alt-centrist must serve as a kind of undertaker to the remnants of the last age. The point of this, however, is so that the new age can begin in the right way. It falls upon us to understand how and why this collapse is happening so that we can organise things to resist collapse the next time.

The alt-centre, then, is the unwobbling pivot at the very centre of the taijitu. The right and the left will come and go, and will periodically destroy the entire world, but we in the alt-centre are the seed of a new philosophical order that will arise in the aftermath, one that promises less suffering than the one before it.

After the crash landing, the survivors will stumble out of the wreckage and ask “Now WTF do we do?” The pilot will be morally obliged to take command then, even if only for long enough to establish a new right and a new left.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

What Is ‘Brown Communism’?

A new political alliance is forming out of the spatterings of gutter vomit that is globalism. This motley crew of grifters, race-baiters, religious fundamentalists, social justice warriors and other shit-stirrers are united by little apart from their hatred of the white man, but they are united under one ideology. This article describes what will become one of the foremost hate ideologies of the 21st century – Brown Communism.

Original Communism began in Europe after the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This short tract summarised the basic tenets of Communism. Among others, this includes the ideas that history is the story of class struggle, that private property should be abolished and that Communism is explicitly a globalist movement.

Like all other hate ideologies, Communism needed an enemy. In the case of the original European Communism, the enemy was the bourgeoisie – the men of silver, or what we would today call the middle class.

The original Communism appealed explicitly to the men of iron, or the working class whose labour built the factories and railways of the Industrial Revolution. It told a story about how the men of silver had stolen the rightful wealth of the men of iron, who were fortunate that the men of gold (Communists) had enlightened them as to who the true enemy was.

After uniting under the wise and benevolent guidance of the Communists, the working-class would come to reclaim their rightful property and rightful position in society.

Brown Communism is a very similar memeplex. The difference is that, instead of appealing to the Western working class, it appeals to non-whites as a quasi-racial bloc. Its major proponents are usually young/youngish women such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar in America, and Golriz Ghahraman and Marama Davidson in New Zealand.

In the case of Brown Communism, the enemy is the white man. The basic story is the same as regular Communism – evil, intelligent people have tricked the good-natured but naive worker out of his wealth – but the white man has replaced the bourgeoisie, and the non-white has replaced the proletariat. All of the honest labour is done by non-white people, according to this mindset, while whites cheat and swindle unearned income.

The means of production have been replaced here by land. ‘Seizing the means of production’ now means the same thing as opening the borders (this leads to one major point of disagreement between Brown Communism and non-white nativist movements). Jumping the border is equated to a revolutionary act, like occupying a Police station, the border being a delineation of property and therefore bourgeois.

Brown Communists have no time for the argument that mass immigration of cheap labour should be restricted to shore up working-class wages. As long as a brown person wins and a white person loses, it’s all good. The irony, of course, is that holding this position causes Brown Communists to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the same capitalists that the original Communists rejected.

In Brown Communism, white people are the kulaks. The greater wealth of white people has nothing to do with valuing education or working hard – it’s simply been stolen from the non-whites (Asian people are also kulaks, but as of yet there is no mass immigration into Asian countries. With Chinese involvement in Africa now imperial in all but name, chances are good that Brown Communism will come to China in the future).

This means that the property of white people, being the neo-bourgeoisie, can fairly be expropriated. This is achieved in two major ways: immigration (as mentioned above), which serves to share the social capital of Western societies, and taxation, which serves to share the financial capital.

Much of the electoral appeal of Brown Communists comes from their promises to tax “the rich” (i.e. the kulaks) and to redistribute this windfall to non-whites. This is achieved by means of a long march through the institutions – in other words, to strive for high positions in government, academia and media and to use those positions to benefit the ideology and its supporters.

Brown Communists try to get into Government and use their influence there to agitate for open borders and shifting the tax burden to rural areas (where white people live). Opening the borders also has the ancillary effect of increasing the voter base. Because the sort of person who votes for a communist movement very seldom has the initiative to get a degree and go through regular immigration channels, Brown Communists consider raising the refugee quota to be of utmost importance.

A central tenet of Brown Communism is that all of the ills of the world can be traced back to white people. The white man replaces the devil as the font of all evil. His pale hand lies behind all suffering on Earth. This means that the ultimate origins of all underachievement by non-white people can be traced back to the malicious actions of whites at some point.

If Africans score poorly on IQ tests, this is because the tests are biased to favour whites on account of white racism. And if Japanese people score higher than whites, thus proving the tests are not biased, then the lower performance of Africans is due to the poverty inflicted upon them by whites. And if poverty can be accounted for by an analysis of variance that proves most of the difference comes from genetic causes, then you are a racist.

Another central tenet of Brown Communism is that any of the property of white people can be fairly expropriated by non-whites at any time. In the same way that the kulaks were believed to be hoarding all the wealth to the detriment of the common good, and therefore that it was righteous for the masses to confiscate it, so too Brown Communists feel about the wealth of white people.

Only in Zimbabwe and South Africa (thus far) have Brown Communists achieved so much power that they were able to expropriate white people directly, but in many places they are able to do so indirectly. In almost every Western country, taxation acts to ensure a net transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites. Brown Communists who achieve government in the West inevitably seek to both raise the tax burden on whites (thus expropriating them) and to increase welfare spending on non-whites.

Essentially, Brown Communism is an anti-white movement that is every bit as much a resentment-fuelled slave morality as the original Communism. Not only does it use the same narratives as Communism, but it appeals to the same sort of rejects and misfits who cannot find a place in decent society. The only major difference is that it explicitly rejects the white working class, and embraces non-white people of all but the most egregiously aristocratic bent.

This ideology will inevitably continue to rise in the West as the West continues to become more polarised along racial lines. If the social democratic movements keep demonising white people, they will keep losing support among the white working class. Those working-class people, finding that mainstream conservatism also rejects them, may find they have no other home but fascism.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Should We Sell New Zealand to China on A 99-Year Lease?

Many Kiwis are concerned about the amount of New Zealand land being sold into overseas hands. This concern has been heightened by last week’s sale of Westland Milk to China for $588 milllion. This essay asks an extremely controversial and unpalatable question: should we sell the country to the Chinese on a 99-year lease?

Thomas Porter of the Colonial Defence Force was a famously close ally of Ngati Porou war chief Ropata Wahawaha. When a captain, he served with the Ngati Porou contingent under Wahawaha that hunted down mass murderer Te Kooti in the Uruwera ranges. From the 1870s onwards, he was involved with work as a land purchase officer, a job made easier by his fluent command of Maori and his marriage to the daughter of a chief who had once paid for Wahawaha’s release from slavery.

Porter knew that the settler thirst for land was insatiable. The British Empire was possibly the most rapacious enterprise ever created by humans, and it had its eyes set on New Zealand. The Maoris would have to give up most of their land or be annihilated, as the Aborigines had been in Australia and the Native Americans before that on the other side of the Pacific.

However, Porter had a trick up his sleeve.

He was aware of the Highland Clearances, where the relentless desire for maximum profit had led to the evictions of tens of thousands of people from communal land in Northern Scotland from the middle of the 18th century. Some of the original landholders had survived the clearances by giving up their land on 99-year leases rather than selling it. By the time 99 years were up, the original pressure to sell had gone.

A great friend of the Ngati Porou, Porter did them a great favour. Instead of arranging for the land to be sold outright, he arranged for much of it to be sold on 99-year leases. This meant that the land was returned to Ngati Porou control in the years after World War II. Hindsight would prove this to be a stroke of genius.

A 99-year lease, Porter reasoned, would give the leaseholder all the security they wanted, as well as all the freedom they needed to use the land for whatever purpose. Consequently, there would no longer be any pressure on the Ngati Porou to sell it forever. So at the end of the 99 years, much of the original Ngati Porou holdings were still in their hands – and worth a packet.

This decision is part of the reason why the Ngati Porou are doing so well today compared to many other Maori tribes. Rather than accept a windfall that was inevitably squandered, the land was effectively put into a 99-year investment account. When that account matured, the whole tribe shared in the profits.

The Chinese demand for food products to feed their population of 1,400,000,000 is as difficult to meet as the Western demand for land once was. The Chinese population might not be growing any more, as birthrates have declined sharply since 1980, but Chinese wealth has been growing strongly since then, and their demand for food products has increased commensurately. The pressure to sell our land in the coming few decades will be immense.

This was a similar situation to what the Ngati Porou faced in 1870, and the factors that apply to us were considered by Captain Porter in his decision to arrange 99-year leases. We ought to ask ourselves if we should do the same. Would it not be better, instead of selling it for good bit-by-bit, to lease the whole country to the Chinese on a 99-year contract?

We wouldn’t be the first to have the idea. The Northern Territory Government has leased Darwin Port to the Chinese on a 99-year lease. This move has been criticised severely on account of its strategic implications, but the fact remains that Australia will get the port back after 99 years, the same way that the Chinese got Hong Kong back. So there is precedent, among other places faced with Chinese expansionism, to consider this option.

Some might not like the idea of selling the country into Chinese leaseholdership. They might reason that China is a human rights abuser, a corrupt, totalitarian dictatorship that strangles honest aspirations and which is incompatible with the Western desire for personal freedom.

However, these sentiments have to be balanced with the fact that the whole country is being sold into Chinese ownership anyway. Chinese nationals purchased $1,500,000,000 of New Zealand residential real estate in 2017 alone. Eight-figure sums are not uncommon for land purchases made by Chinese interests, many of which are owned in part by the Chinese Government.

Moreover, the old Western traditions of freedom are gone. Zimbabwe has legal medicinal cannabis, and Malaysia has announced that it will decriminalise it. New Zealanders are, therefore, less free than citizens of either Zimbabwe or Malaysia in important ways. Uruguay, South Africa, Chile, Mexico and even North Korea are further examples of countries with greater cannabis freedom than New Zealand. Our time as a human rights leader is long over.

Perhaps worst of all, New Zealanders are now going to prison for years for sharing videos, or getting harassed by the Police because they might like Donald Trump. There is ample evidence that we are no longer a free people, so there’s nothing to lose on that front.

Maybe it’s time to concede that it’s better to lease the whole country to China on a 99-year term today, get them to build some proper houses and infrastructure, and then to get it back in 2118, than to have it sold piece-by-piece into Chinese hands permanently. We would probably not suffer more under Chinese leadership than we already do under our own.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Hate Speech Laws Will Lead New Zealand to Misery and Servitude

The Sixth Labour Government is in no hurry to change the cannabis laws, which has seen New Zealand fall behind Zimbabwe and South Africa in terms of personal freedom. This reluctant approach to liberty helps explain why Andrew Little is so enthused about bringing in hate speech laws. As this essay will show, hate speech laws will only increase the suffering of the New Zealand people – but that may be by design.

Last week, Danish politician Rasmus Paludan was sentenced to two weeks in prison for breaking the Danish hate speech laws. He received this conviction after speaking in a video where he said that the average IQ of South Africans was 70, and that this intelligence level was too low to properly run the country. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

The video of him saying this was available on the homepage of Paludan’s party, Stram Kurs, and someone who viewed it reported it to the Police (some readers will have already sensed a red flag here – yes, in Denmark you can rat other people out for racism, and they’ll go to prison if they’re found guilty of it).

What Paludan said about the IQ of South Africans is accurate, as shown in the table below, taken from Professor Richard Lynn’s latest book, The Intelligence of Nations. Accuracy and truth, however, will be no defence against a hate speech accusation. The case of Paludan shows that New Zealand risks losing basic freedoms to speak if we introduce hate speech laws.

The scientific facts suggest some unpalatable truths – now stating these truths is illegal in Denmark

If hate speech laws were introduced in New Zealand, we could expect to see headlines like “Don Brash/Brian Tamaki/David Seymour Convicted of Racism” as certain political statements became illegal. It might sound ridiculous, and the Government will deny it, but literal facts will become grounds to put people in prison. This is the inevitable consequence of bringing in hate speech laws.

As shown by Paludan’s example, it won’t matter if you can back up what you say with science. A bunch of politicians and their assorted arse-lickers, none of who have any background in the science of intelligence testing, will decide what you’re allowed to say and what you are not. The definition of hate will be entirely up to them, and they will choose the definition that best suits their interests.

In the judgment against Paludan, the judges decided that it was not illegal to say “neger” (c.f. ‘Negro’), as he does several times in the video. The fact that they considered the possibility, however, is telling. It exposes that such a prohibition is under consideration: there are many who would like to make it illegal to say certain words, or to state certain things.

Imagine a world where it’s a crime to say a word that your Government has forbidden you to say, or a crime to draw logical conclusions that your Government has forbidden you to draw. If you dare do either of these things, you have to go in a cage.

It sounds like the kind of law that might have been parodied by Monty Python or Comic Strip Presents as an example of cruel and unreasonable punishment. But it’s the world that we are heading towards if we let Andrew “The Ditherer” Little and his fellow short-sighted control freaks override our right to free speech.

Hate speech laws mark the death of free speech. Once they are introduced, eventually anything that goes against the Government’s agenda will be classified as “hate speech”. Saying things that are scientific facts, backed up by decades of research and by the experts in the field, will be classed as hate speech if they alert people to the failures of the Government.

The reason why the Government wants to make it a crime to point out facts – like the low IQ of Africans – is because they want to import cheap labour. They are in bed with the globalist corporations. They know that if we’re allowed to openly speak the truth about the effects of globalist immigration policy on the well-being of our nation, more and more people will come to resist that globalist policy.

Every globalist knows that a nation will sooner-or-later go down the toilet if it imports large numbers of people with an IQ of 70. But they don’t care about that. All they want is cheap labour so that they can extract a quick profit from New Zealand. Then they move on, and leave us to clean up the mess. This is parasite capitalism, and it’s the pre-eminent paradigm of our age.

Hate speech laws will lead to people getting sent to prison for pointing out scientific facts that the Government doesn’t want attention given to. They will also lead to a culture of snitching as the Government employs people to handle the complaints. The end result is an East Germany-style hell society plagued by snitches and secret police. We should resist the introduction of hate speech laws at any cost, on the grounds that they are a violation of our inherent human rights.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.