Chapter Seven in Free Speech Under Attack is ‘Banning a Political Pamphlet’ by Tim Wikiriwhi. This is a polemic against Andrew Little’s efforts to introduce hate speech legislation and to ban the 1Law4All pamphlet about the Treaty of Waitangi. Here, Wikiriwhi – himself Maori – supports the sentiments of the pamphlet by agreeing that the British settlement of New Zealand was a net positive for the Maori people.
This essay is quality in its invective, describing Peter Dunne as an “obsolete politician” and making use of the adjective “ham-fisted”. It demolishes the social justice warrior case that British colonisation lowered the quality of life in New Zealand, and makes an impassioned case for the value of free speech. The SJWs won’t be able to scream “Racist!” at Wikiriwhi, so they will likely ignore him.
The Treaty of Waitangi and British colonisation, bringing the advantages and restraints of civilised government to New Zealand for the first time, were the best things that ever happened to New Zealand and the Maoris benefitted enormously from them.
Chapter Eight is ‘Islam and Free Speech’ by Robert Stanmore. This essay discusses the various measures taken by Muslims to shut down free speech in the guise of preventing blasphemy. Stanmore recounts Muslim attacks against free speech in several Western nations, whether by using violence, intimidation or the law. He (correctly) points out that the Koran encourages Muslims to kill non-believers.
Stanmore encourages us here to learn from the example of Britain and Canada, where Muslims are numerous enough to influence the law by threat. In the vast majority of cases, Muslim immigrants show no sign of willingness to conform to the expectations of their host nations, and show every sign of willingness to force their hosts to conform. This is a danger we should be extremely wary of.
Chapter Nine continues in a similar vein. This short chapter is called ‘The Fraud of Islamophobia’. Here, Stanmore recounts the multiple admonitions to violence found in the Koran, and how Muslims are reluctant to reject these verses. Disappointingly, he ignores the violence inherent in the Bible, and the murderous way that Christianity itself has spread.
Stanmore even makes the laughable assertion that Christianity is inherently a peaceful religion akin to Buddhism or Hinduism. Despite these errors, he is able to list a number of scriptural horrors within the Koran that suggest Islam is not compatible with a modern Western way of life. A “religious hatred” law is unacceptable.
Chapter Four of Free Speech Under Attack is ‘How Speech Became Violence’ by Peter Cresswell. This essay echoes the warnings about leftist totalitarianism that VJM Publishing (among many others) has issued. Here Cresswell outlines the development of the concept of hate speech in New Zealand.
Putting hate speech on the agenda appears to be a leftist plot to introduce mass censorship. The anti-fascists have become the fascists. The modern Left is entirely in opposition to free speech. In fact, they are trying to destroy speech entirely, and with it people’s ability to communicate. Creswell concludes with an admonition to stay vigilant against those who would take freedom away.
Chapter Five is also by Cresswell, and titled ‘Identity Politics: the Threat from the “Azza” Group’. Cresswell begins by talking about the threat of identity politics and how it influenced the Christchurch mosque shootings. Identity politics is a modern tribalism that rejects the power of reason. This tribalism brings with it a savage and primitive way of thinking.
This tribalism has been specifically encouraged as a “formula for dissent, disagreement and disruption” by those who would start a revolution. Cresswell identifies the philosophy of Herbert Marcuse as instrumental in inspiring the attempts to revolutionise language. The concept of intersectionality must also take much of the blame.
Chapter Six is ‘Politicising a Massacre’ by Robert Stanmore. This refers to the Christchurch mosque shootings, after which all kinds of parties painted their enemies with being associated with Brenton Tarrant. Stanmore reflects on the hypocrisy of Jacinda Ardern wearing a hijab when it is a symbol of the subjection of women. The firearms ban was also bad legislation.
VJM Publishing gets a mention here, as one of the bloggers harassed by the New Zealand Police as part of their Operation Whakahumanu intimidation campaign. Stanmore also points out Ardern’s general hypocrisy on the subject of racism, and the danger of Andrew Little’s zeal to introduce hate speech laws. He also makes an argument that VJM Publishing has made before, that shutting down free speech will make terror attacks more likely, not less.
The term ‘abolitionism’ refers to the political movement that sought to abolish chattel slavery. It was a popular term in the 19th century, when first the British and later the Americans made it illegal to own other people. However, as this essay will examine, the battle against slavery merely shifted to a different front – the metaphysical one.
Controlling slaves physically is a major undertaking. They have to be shackled so as to not escape the plantation, and beaten or whipped so as to not shirk labour. Plantation owners in the antebellum South found themselves spending a great deal of their profits on keeping their slaves in line. Slave rebellions were common.
Eventually, the slave owners realised, it was unnecessary to keep people in chains and shackles when they could simply control their minds and their spirits. Controlling the minds and spirits of the slaves meant that the slave owners controlled all of their actions anyway, without having to physically abuse them and generate resentment or risk rebellion.
The enslavement of the mind and the spirit is linked to the Silver Right and the Golden Right of alt centrism. Simply put, a people cannot be free unless they’re both free to think for themselves and free to reconnect with God. The metaphysical abolitionist demands the removal of any obstacle preventing these two goals from being achieved.
Enslaving the mind, however, is the expertise of the Western ruling class. This they achieve through control of the popular narrative.
Ever since the publication of Edward Bernays’s Propaganda in 1928, the ruling elites have structured the education and media systems to both condition people to feel bad for questioning the popular narrative, and to feel good for enforcing that narrative on those who question it. The end product is a country of willing slaves, as submissive as any other herd animal.
The first step to inducing a population into trusting the mainstream media is to pacify them through the education system. 12 years of schooling is enough to condition most people into believing that questioning the popular narrative is an act of evil, and only by going along with it can happiness be found. It’s a simple matter of punishing those who ask questions and rewarding those who submit.
Controlling the popular narrative through the mainstream media means that Western elites control the permissible boundaries of thought. By normalising certain topics of discussion through repeated media exposure, they abnormalise others. The term ‘Overton window’ refers to that range of political positions that have been thus legitimised.
Any idea expressed in the mainstream media is legitimate; any idea not expressed in the mainstream media is illegitimate. If the elites really don’t like an idea, they simply instruct the talking heads on the television to describe supporters of that idea as ‘conspiracy theorists’. By discouraging unwanted lines of reasoning, the elites can keep people going around in circles, chasing mental phantoms like rats on a wheel.
The results of this widespread brainwashing are easily noted. The ruling elites merely have to broadcast the necessity of something over the television, and the masses will fall unquestioningly in line. If a talking head on the television says that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the masses will demand his destruction. If the talking head says to wear a mask to prevent coronavirus, the masses obey.
The metaphysical abolitionist opposes all of this. Metaphysical abolitionism demands that people be allowed to think freely. So a metaphysical abolitionist will reject the importance of mainstream schooling, will discourage the consumption of the mass media and will encourage people to consume alternative media of all kinds. Their favourite thing is people getting together, away from normies, to discuss what the truth really is.
However, even if we did manage to break the psychological conditioning that enslaves our minds, there is a greater challenge.
Our minds may have been enslaved for a hundred years, but our spirits have been enslaved for even longer – ever since Christians destroyed the Eleusinian Mysteries in the 4th Century A.D. Since then, we’ve been the slaves of those who would tell us lies about God. The metaphysical abolitionist opposes this and wishes for the spirits of all people to be free.
In the same way that the ruling elites can engender intellectual submission by restricting intellectual expression to a range of harmless ideas, they can engender spiritual submission by restricting spiritual expression to a range of pointless superstitious dogmas. The humiliation engendered by forcing people to worship an idol of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef instead of God has the effect of inducing passivity. With spiritual slavery follows slavery of every other kind.
Although humans have been using spiritual sacraments such as cannabis and psilocybin to reconnect with God for thousands of years, their use is mostly illegal in the modern West. The laws prohibiting them are explained to us as laws protecting the people’s mental health, but this is a total lie.
The truth is that cannabis and psilocybin are illegal because they are spiritual sacraments.
All spiritual people know that the truth will set you free, so those who would enslave the spirit must tell lies. Spiritual sacraments such as cannabis and psilocybin teach people the spiritual truths about reality: that consciousness is eternal and that God not only exists but also wishes the best for us. These sacraments have been made illegal so that the common people remain blind to the lies of the elites.
Spiritually speaking, the vast bulk of the population divides neatly into two halves: the slaves who follow whatever mainstream religion is pushed on them as children, and the malcontents who, recognising the mainstream dogma to be lies, reject the question of spirituality entirely. Genuine spiritual seekers – those who reject both the “Christian” label and the “atheist” label – are thus marginalised.
Metaphysical abolitionism demands that the human spirit be as free as the human body. This requires that people have free access to whatever spiritual sacrament they feel will help them reconnect with God. All spiritual sacraments must be legal and readily available: cannabis, psilocybin, LSD, DMT – the lot.
In summary, the metaphysical abolitionist advocates for free speech, free thought and for the annihilation of dogmatic religious strictures. This is to advocate for free minds and free spirits. The abolition of chattel slavery has been achieved already, at least in the West. It’s time to achieve the abolition of a much more insidious form of slavery, that of our minds and spirits.
Recent studies have shown that the frequency of race-baiting content in the mainstream media has increased sharply over the past decade. Terms such as “structural racism” and “racial inequality” have spiked in use. The lazy reason we’re all given is that this is a sign racial issues are finally being treated with due seriousness. The truth is much more sinister.
Many people have noticed that the mainstream media now pushes race issues at every opportunity. The major news shows now feature racial issues in almost every broadcast. Often, innocuous issues are spun to make it seem that black or brown people are being oppressed in situations when they really aren’t. Spokespeople for racial collectives are featured prominently.
The mainstream media has made it seem as if racial injustice is the single most pressing issue in all of society. With the hysteria around the George Floyd killing, it reached a truly religious fervour. This extreme attention paid to race issues, at the expense of class issues, is part of a deliberate divide-and-conquer strategy.
The simple story is that the mainstream media is owned by international banking and finance interests, and these interests control the loyalties of the ruling class of every Western nation.
The last thing those interests want is for the lower classes to unify, because if the lower classes did unify it would be against the international banking and finance interests and their lackeys. So those interests direct their employees in the mainstream media to promote racial narratives intended to set those lower classes against each other.
They know that a large proportion of the working class is non-white. By lifting that part up, and by pushing the white part down, they guarantee tension and conflict. Pushing racial consciousness ensures that the non-white working class takes an antagonistic attitudes towards white people, and consequently get rejected by the white working class.
As this column has previously pointed out, the corporate world has thrown itself in behind Black Lives Matter when they did the exact opposite for Occupy Wall Street. This is also deliberate. Although corporations act as if their support for Black Lives Matter is for purely altruistic reasons, the true reason for their support is that promoting racial narratives at the expense of class narratives serves their interests.
Simply put, race divides us more effectively than class does.
Although the white working class has no voice in today’s political scene, they are still some 35% of the population of the West. This means that the majority of poor people in every Western country are white. For these people, being told that they are privileged because of their skin colour – when still poor – is an outrage. But this idea is pushed because, not despite, that it is outrageous.
The primary consequence of pushing the lie that the white working class is privileged is discord between the white working class and the non-white working class. The more that the non-white working class is raised up above the white segment, the more hate is generated. This hate is amplified when the non-white working class is taught to regard the objections of the white working class as racist.
The result of pushing race consciousness in the mainstream media is that the working class has fallen apart. White working class people will not take the side of people who think they are racists, and non-white working class people will not take the side of people who they think are oppressors. This mutual antagonism prevents the working class from coalescing towards any common goal.
Meanwhile, the ruling class laughs, their opposition crippled by infighting.
The mainstream media has induced such an advanced state of race neurosis that many people are too afraid to discuss racial topics at all. Now we just meekly surrender while the mainstream media browbeats us into submission for the supposed crimes of our ancestors. Thanks to a decade of this psychological pressure, our minds have become warped into thinking through a racial lens.
This myopically race-based way of thinking means that class narratives are forgotten, and, with their loss, the opportunity for class-based resistance to the predations of our rulers becomes impossible.
The mainstream media will only very rarely discuss an issue from a working-class perspective, because that strengthens the enemies of their owners. Acknowledging the legitimacy of working-class consciousness is to acknowledge that the working class might have a legitimate grievance, or at least a legitimate reason to pull together. Much better to split them in two by promoting racial consciousness.
This divide and conquer strategy is used elsewhere. Western intelligence agencies use their control of media organs to sow discord in geopolitical rivals. For example, instead of speaking of China as a single unit, they will divide it into the oppressors who live urban and the oppressed who live rural. Then they push the rural narrative for the sake of promoting rural consciousness at the expense of national consciousness.
Occupy Wall Street terrified the international banking and finance interests that control the apparatus of propaganda. Those interests saw their class enemies pulling together under a common banner. Ever since then, the mainstream media has gone to extreme lengths to promote racial consciousness ahead of class consciousness. The rioting of 2020 suggests that they mostly succeeded.