The Government, Media and Police Work Together To Suppress The Kiwi People

Many New Zealanders were shocked yesterday by the news that Right Minds columnist Dieuwe de Boer had been raided by Police, ostensibly to look for a now-banned magazine for a .22 rifle. As this essay will show, the true reason for the Police raid was as part of a wider effort to suppress dissent – an effort carried out in co-ordination with the Government and the mainstream media.

The New Zealand Government knows what it wants to do to the New Zealand people, and it’s going to do it to them whether they like it or not.

Like all authorities throughout history, the New Zealand Government has a number of people who oppose it, and a number of arse-licking slaves who support it. Those who oppose it are the New Zealand people, whose natural will is to live freely. Those who support it are the soulless hordes of weaklings who have always fallen in line behind authority figures.

That the Government works together with the Police is obvious. In theory, the Police are supposed to be politically independent. The reality is that most Kiwi alternative media commentators have now received Police harassment visits. Vinny Eastwood, VJM Publishing, Cross the Rubicon and now de Boer have all been targeted in recent months – all selected for harassment on account of their outspoken criticism of the Government.

What is less known is that the Government and Police also work hand-in-hand with the mainstream media. The media plays an essential role in this suppression by manufacturing consent for the crackdowns. They present pro-Government propaganda, and attack the reputations of anti-Government speakers.

Radio New Zealand did their bit by smearing de Boer as a “far-right extremist” who is involved with illegal firearms. In the minds of the Establishment and its loyal sycophants in the Police and mainstream media, anyone who isn’t part of the Establishment is a dangerous extremist. Thanks to propaganda such as the linked RNZ piece, people are more likely to see the Police actions as fair and proportionate.

The Radio New Zealand article was written to stir hysteria about wrong-thinkers, with the implication that there are legions of far-right wingers out there hoarding firearms in the hope of some future opportunity to massacre some Muslims. Anyone who questions the Government, it is implied, stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Brenton Tarrant and may well be a future mass murderer themselves.

The mainstream media, in its capacity as a propaganda machine, works hard to link people like Dieuwe de Boer and VJM Publishing with white nationalism, and thereby to white supremacism, and thereby to Nazism. As mentioned above, their goal is to get the New Zealand public to see the shadow of Brenton Tarrant behind every criticism of the Government, or of the Government’s globalist agenda.

Fall in line or stand with Tarrant, the authorities bark.

The mainstream media does this not only out of sycophancy. They also know that the alternative media is their greatest threat. In America, mainstream media outlets are getting destroyed by alternative media. The alternative media on YouTube, liberated from the problems of scaling that kept new entrants out of television, now gets more viewers than the mainstream media gets on cable.

Thus, the mainstream media plays the major role in making sure that the New Zealand public, in their sheep-like naivety, see the targets of the Government attacks as evil people. Anyone the Government decrees to be a wrongthinker will have their reputations sullied by mainstream journalists working to link them to terrorism.

The New Zealand Government has already compiled a list of wrong-thinkers. VJM Publishing is on it – this we know thanks to having faced a Police harassment visit already as part of Operation Whakahumanu. The New Zealand Police leaked this list to the mainstream media, who dutifully informed the public that they were being watched.

These wrong-thinkers are being targeted in order to suppress their voices of dissent. The point of the Operation Whakahumanu harassment campaign, as with the targeting of de Boer, is to make people think twice before they take action to criticise or oppose the Government. It is to make people think that they better keep their mouths shut in case the Police target them next.

De Boer is no friend of VJM Publishing. It is his brand of Abrahamic conservatism that VJM Publishing was formed to oppose. Like his fellow Bible-thumper Bob McCoskrie, de Boer couldn’t give two shits about the Police raids on medicinal cannabis growers. Users of psychedelic sacraments, in the eyes of Abrahamic conservatives, are just the kind of “degenerates” that would improve society if they were locked behind bars.

However, when the Government sets its attack dogs on the people on spurious grounds, it attacks all of us. They specifically target people like de Boer first because they know that the mainstream media will paint him as an extremist, and that this smearing will discourage people from standing up for him – or for the next victim.

The grim reality is that the New Zealand Government works hand-in-hand with the Police and the mainstream media to manufacture consent for neoliberal objectives. The people who own the New Zealand political class have directed that class to open the country up for the mass importation of cheap labour with the intent of driving wages to the floor and house prices to the roof. Because much of the surplus cheap labour is Muslim, anti-Muslim attitudes have to be smashed.

Whether admitted or not, that is the fundamental reason for the Police attack on de Boer.

Pictured: a propaganda victim

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

VJMP Predicts The 2020s

Earlier this week, VJM Publishing paid homage to science fiction author J R Mooneyham and his outstanding website. Because Mooneyham’s website relates to science fiction and to predictions of the future, we at VJM Publishing decided to pay more homage by imitating it. Here are our predictions for the 2020s.

We predict that the current movement across the West towards right-wing populism will increase. This was foretold as early as 2012, when Vince McLeod wrote about a Great Right Shift in his cyberpunk novel The Verity Key. We are seeing the Great Right Shift come into play now, and it will continue for several decades.

Western capitalist economies are built on the belief that all human beings are the same, and therefore that it’s possible to boost economic growth indefinitely through immigration. The reality is that human groups are almost as different to each other as dog breeds are, and so our system is doomed to collapse. This is the fate of all systems built on falsehoods.

It’s possible to predict, then, that social cohesion will continue to decrease across the West. Diversity will continue to increase, and this will eat into solidarity like an acid. This decrease in solidarity will be the immediate cause of most of the phenomena listed below.

It’s hard to tell if Trump will win next year, on account of the vagaries of the Electoral College system. If he loses, America will continue to fracture culturally. Even if he wins, the demographic trends will force a sharp increase in white identity. By the end of the decade, it won’t be unusual for people to openly identify as white nationalists.

The Sweden Democrats are currently polling at around 25% – we predict that they will be close to 50% by the end of the decade. Other nationalist movements in Europe will also gain ground. Marine Le Pen will win in 2022, leading to change across Europe.

There is ample space for a similar nationalist movement in New Zealand, and the lure of power will pull someone into that space. Already it has become apparent that National and Labour are two wings of the Establishment Party, and ten years from now someone will have taken advantage of the sentiments this evokes. By 2030 they will be polling at 25% and the Establishment parties will refuse to work with them.

In the realm of religion, the 2020s will be marked by the further collapse of the Abrahamic cults. Islamic apostasy in particular will be extremely strong, driven by Internet exposure to other cultures and by a reaction to the horrific scriptures. By 2030, organised ex-Muslims will be powerful forces in many countries, including Western ones. This process will lead many Westerners to Satanism.

Nearing the end of the 2020s we will start to see the rise of an esoteric form of Luciferianism. In the same way that Buddha acted to reform Hinduism and Jesus acted to reform Judaism, so too will the common Western religion of Satanism get reformed into an advanced form of Luciferianism. This movement may or may not have a great leader, but an original literature will be composed.

Related to this is an end to the suppression of psychedelic spiritual sacraments. Both cannabis and the major psychedelics will be fully legal everywhere by the end of the 2020s. The War on Drugs will be widely seen as an embarrassment akin to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The suppression of psychedelic science has done 1,600 years worth of damage, but much of this will be repaired by 2030.

Popular intellectual culture will continue to decline in the West as the public discourse drifts ever-closer to its lowest common denominator. This will be exacerbated by Western leftists moving even further away from common sense. By the end of the 2020s, Western leftists will be openly agitating in favour of pedophila, and people who claim that pedophilia harms children will be branded as bigots.

Despite this, small pockets of extremely high intellectual culture will come into existence, guided by the Internet. Because the Internet makes it possible to overcome the tyranny of geography, it can bring together people who are interested in a particular topic from all over the world.

This will lead to extremely immersive online communities relating to all kinds of topics rising up. On the topic of politics, communities like /pol/ on the various chans will grow ever stronger as authoritarian crackdowns on free speech intensify. The Establishment will be aware that it is losing control of the narrative and will therefore crack down hard on alternative sources of propaganda.

The 2020s will see a pronounced rise in the number of hikikomoris and incels. Already the trend towards dropping out of society is worrisome, partially thanks to economic conditions that make it all but impossible to own a home while earning the average wage. In the 2020s it will become extreme. By 2030, many people will have come to see sex as a crude instinct best suppressed.

Interest rates will remain low, bordering on subterranean, until they don’t. The point at which they don’t will mark the point when the shit hits the fan for real. Once they start to rise, many enterprises will fall into bankruptcy. This will lead to panic, and the measures that Governments take to prop up the banking system will be ruthlessly authoritarian.

It’s uncertain what the climate will do over the next 10 years. What we can predict, however, is that climate hysteria will continue to increase. It’s never admitted, but one of the reasons why climate hysteria is pushed so hard is that it induces people to think globally, and to ignore local issues. Hence, climate hysteria is an integral part of manufacturing consent for United Nations dictates, and this will intensify.

The impact of technology on the organisation of human life will become ever stronger. Ted Kaczynski will continue to be vindicated. Some countries will ban personal ownership of motor vehicles as the entire fleet moves to self-driving cars and trucks. Others will force Internet users to declare their identity every time they use the Internet. Mass surveillance will become normalised, and anyone who objects to it will be dismissed as paranoid.

Another phenomenon that will reach fever pitch is spree killings and random murders, whether carried out by firearm or by blade. Mass shootings are already becoming common on account of the general social malaise, and mass stabbings/machete attacks aren’t far behind. In some places, stretches of the 2020s will be like the film Battle Royale. This will cause some very strange alliances and feuds.

By the end of the 2020s, the majority of the population will be on some kind of psychiatric medicine. The idea that people need it because we evolved to live in a different world will become normalised. Social pressures will become so intense that it will be hard to function without sedatives. Related to this, cannabis will replace alcohol as the first choice recreational drug among Western youth.

Culturally speaking, we agree with Rick Giles that the 2020s ought to see a return of physical Honour Culture. The increasing paranoia and worsening economic conditions will cause many to realise that a social collapse is eminently possible. Many have already taken measures to prepare for this by hoarding firearms and precious metals, but there will be a surge in those who prepare by getting fit.

In summary, the 2020s will be worse in most ways, and better in a small number of other ways. It will get worse in terms of society, which will become ever shittier and more soulless and authoritarian. It will get better in the sense that it become possible to reject the system and to carve one’s own niche in cyberspace or in the counterculture that will dominate this decade.

*

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.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Has Firearms Confiscation Failed Like Cannabis Prohibition?

The amnesty period for the recent firearms confiscation in New Zealand has just ended. Early estimates suggest that fewer than half of the recently-banned firearms have been handed in, which means that some 100,000 Kiwis are now criminals. This essay asks: if the New Zealand people aren’t going to obey the new firearms law because they don’t consider it legitimate, is enforcing it even feasible?

No people are obliged to obey immoral laws.

Intuitive recognition of this natural law of morality is why cannabis prohibition has failed in New Zealand. The people of New Zealand feel that they have the inherent right to use cannabis, and therefore they don’t care about the manmade laws prohibiting it. The people who follow and enforce these laws, not the ones that break them, are the ones who shall incur the karmic debt.

This widespread refusal to submit to cannabis prohibition has made the law unenforceable. Not only do Kiwis continue to use cannabis, but they regularly collaborate to help each other evade law enforcement. Although people getting ratted out for cannabis offences is still very common, it’s not routine like it is for offences that actually harm people. So for every cannabis user arrested, a hundred more people become cannabis users.

In a system such as ours, our politicians are supposed to be representatives of the public will. Therefore, the New Zealand people feel that politicians who do not follow the public will are acting in bad faith, and that these politicians do not need to be respected. Overseas, such sentiments regularly lead to violence and civil unrest. Consequently, our politicians try to make sure that they’re seen respecting the public will.

This is part of the unwritten contract that prevents we, the people, from killing them. We have the right to kill anyone trying to enslave us, as per the Iron Tenet of anarcho-homicidalism, and anyone refusing to accept our legitimate will is trying to enslave us. The ruling class understand this, which is why they are now giving way on the question of cannabis prohibition.

The problem is that it’s starting to look as if the public will is against the new firearms prohibitions. The New Zealand Council of Licenced Firearms Owners estimates that, although some 56,000 weapons have been surrendered, there are still 100,000 that have not been. There are also suggestions that, of the 56,000 rifles surrendered, many were effectively useless anyway.

The question raised by the refusal to hand in the now-prohibited firearms is this: if the New Zealand people refuse to submit to the new firearms prohibitions, are these laws any more enforceable than the cannabis laws? In other words, is it possible that widespread defiance of the new firearms prohibitions could lead to their withdrawal in the future?

There are already counter-movements to the firearms crackdowns.

The New Conservatives have promised to repeal the recent changes to the firearms laws. VJM Publishing has declared the ownership of weapons to be an inherent human right granted by God, as part of the Sevenfold Conception of Human Rights. Predictably, a large proportion of rural dwellers are against tightening firearms prohibition, with many having stashed weapons away.

There is one major difference between the cannabis laws and the firearms laws. It’s much harder to prohibit something that grows in the ground from a seed than it is to prohibit precision instruments that have to be manufactured overseas in a dedicated factory and then imported.

The New Zealand Police might calculate, therefore, that if they smash a few Kiwis in high-profile firearms raids, and co-ordinate this with a mainstream media propaganda campaign calling the targets “white supremacists,” the remainder will submit.

After all, it took ninety years of utter futility, wasting billions of dollars and many millions of manhours, before it was admitted that cannabis prohibition was a failure. So there’s no reason to think that the New Zealand ruling class will lightly give up their ambitions to render the population harmless through firearms prohibition. Even if it has failed, they will not readily admit it.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what laws are forced on us by our ruling classes. The Police will attack any Kiwi that the ruling class tells them to attack, but if repeated attacks don’t change the people’s behaviour, then there’s good reason to think that it won’t ever change. This has already been proven true with the failed attempts to prohibit homosexuality, prostitution and cannabis use.

The next few years will see a battle between the will of the ruling class, expressed through the actions of the New Zealand Police, and the will of the Kiwi nation who will be targeted by those actions. If the New Zealand people utterly refuse to co-operate with the new firearms prohibitions, then the ruling class might be forced to concede that those prohibitions are unenforceable.

*

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.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Young People Voting For Left-Wing Parties Is Not Evidence Of Marxist Brainwashing Camps

A popular meme going around at the moment shows an electoral map of Britain if only 18-24 year olds had voted in the General Election earlier this month. The map is almost completely red, leading many to conclude that these young people have all been brainwashed into voting Labour, but this conclusion does not follow evidentially. Demographer Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, explains.

Most adults are intelligent enough to know that people don’t cast their votes depending on which set of policies best serve the nation, or even depending on which set of politicians appears to be the most competent. The reality is that politics is pure, naked self-interest, and people cast their vote based on that.

One of the basic rules of democratic elections is that the less resources a person controls, the more they will want resources to be redistributed. This isn’t merely a law of politics, or even a law of psychology, but a law of ethology, brought about by evolution.

It can be observed in primate troops that the primates with the weakest capacity for gathering resources from nature are the same ones that are the most strongly in favour of sharing. This is not surprising, because the weaker one’s capacity for gathering resources, the more reliant one becomes on the gathering capacity of others.

When a person is aged between 18 and 24, it’s almost inevitable that they are poor, at least as an individual. At the absolute most they will have earned a postgraduate degree, and even if they managed to avoid a student loan they will not have had enough time to earn any real money. Assuming they haven’t inherited a fortune already, the best of them will be working an entry-level position and renting, with little real savings.

People in this age bracket find that it’s older people who own everything already. In New Zealand, the correlation between living in a freehold house and being aged between 20 and 29 was -0.60. If one considers that many people in this age bracket will be living in a freehold house owned by a family member, it suggests that very few of them will own their own homes.

Not owning your own home means that you will get extorted out of rent money in order to not die of exposure. Because it’s the old who own most of the homes, society is therefore structured in a way that funnels wealth away from the young workers and into the pockets of the old owners. Because society is set up this way, young people are always likely to vote for the party that promises to give workers a bigger share.

This is no more surprising or immoral than the old voting to not redistribute wealth owing to the fact that they already own everything. Voting for a Conservative party is the same as voting to uphold the Police and their enforcement of property claims, and this is almost always done when a person charges rent. In other words, it’s also voting purely in one’s self-interest.

Further evidence for the statement that young people don’t vote for left-wing parties because of Marxist indoctrination comes from observing young university students. Young people who go to university are more likely to vote for a right-wing party than those who did not go to university. If young people voted for left-wing parties because of Marxist brainwashing camps, then those not exposed to the camps would vote for right-wing parties more often.

The opposite is the case. This is because young people who go to university are more likely to come from the middle class than those who do not, and are therefore wealthier than the average of their age cohort, despite that their age cohort is relatively poor. Consequently, they are more likely to vote Conservative out of self-interest.

On the other hand, it is true that our university system has been reduced to a network of Marxist indoctrination camps. Evidence for this doesn’t come from the voting patterns of young people, though – it comes from the movements against free speech, the promulgation of anti-white philosophies and the distorted views of history and of human nature that are promoted for political reasons and not because of a love of truth.

The voting pattern of young people voting for left-wing parties that promise to redistribute wealth is not because these young people have been brainwashed – it’s because they’re poor. The kind of low-IQ person susceptible to Marxist brainwashing would usually vote left anyway on account of that they were poor.

*

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

British Labour Lost The White Working Class – And New Zealand Labour Is Making The Same Mistake

The British General Election this week produced a crushing defeat for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, their worst since World War II. Analysis of voting patterns showed that the genesis of the Labour loss came in their low polling among the British working class. This result has ominous overtones for New Zealand Labour, Dan McGlashan will argue, because they are repeating the same mistakes that their British counterparts did.

Modern Britain was built by the white working class.

The white working class ploughed most of the fields, dug most of the ditches, cleared most of the scrub, laid most of the drains, paved most of the roads – and took most of the artillery fire. For every endeavour carried out by the British Empire and its descendants for hundreds of years, the white working class was the spearhead, the tool with which British will worked the Earth.

Today, the white working class man is excoriated for being a racist. He is expected to crawl into his hovel and die as he is replaced by cheap labour from foreign nations. He voted for Brexit, mostly because he understands that globalism only serves those with the ability to operate globally, i.e. the rich. For this he was called racist, backwards, bigoted, stupid, short-sighted and incapable of acting in his own best interests.

The same Establishment that oppressed him for centuries abandoned him the moment they could find someone more profitable to oppress. Since then, the white working class has rapidly lost ground. Predictably, there are many bad sentiments held by the white working class towards the Establishment and towards the people who give it power.

Jeremy Corbyn came to represent that Establishment. Not only did Corbyn oppose Brexit, which had become emblematic as a rare and long-awaited win for British workers, but he also favoured other things the Establishment favoured. One of these things was woke politics.

Every working-class person hates woke politics.

The working class is about honesty. It has to be, because if you’re working with your hands and getting dirty you can’t also wear a costume. Therefore, you can’t pretend to be anything other than what you are. The working class doesn’t care about your illustrious ancestor that was the Baron of somewhere, only what you’re capable of right here and now. What you see is what you get – dishonesty is for criminals (both poor and rich ones).

Therefore, there is little that is less working-class than woke politics. The whole idea of puffing one’s chest out and pretending to care deeply about great swathes of people, when in reality you don’t give two shits about them, is anathema. The whole idea of continually posturing to demonstrate one’s moral superiority seems ridiculously fake. It’s a preoccupation for middle-class dandies.

When the Labour Party comes out and announces that it has secured more mental health funding for Maori and Pacific Island people, the white working class in New Zealand can only interpret that as a slap in the face. Betrayal is the only word to describe the Labour Party lifting up one group of people, whose ancestors have been here at most 60 years, and leaving another group of people, whose ancestors have been here for 160 years, in the shit.

As this magazine has argued previously, the New Zealand working class is destined to turn to fascism in the long term. This is because they are being, and will continue to be, abandoned by the social democrats in favour of virtue signalling, globalist obligations to the Third World and woke politics.

Much like Britain, there is no fascist option in New Zealand at the moment (New Zealand First does not realistically fulfill that role). In other European countries, some sort of neo-Nazi movement exists to absorb the dissenting working-class voters. But these countries all run on a Mixed Member Proportional electoral system – the British First-Past-The-Post system prevents any such movement from gaining traction.

In Britain, these dissenting working-class voters switched to the Conservatives. This was deduced from calculating the correlation between the size of the swing towards the Conservatives in an electorate and other variables. The strongest correlations with the size of the swing towards the Conservatives were in white, working-class areas.

Few want to admit it, but the fact that the white proportion of Anglo countries is inexorably shrinking means that white voters are all but guaranteed to end up circling the wagons. They will do this under the auspices of the conservative movements, whether liberal or authoritarian. Many white people who identify strongly with being white see men like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson as avatars of their interests.

The New Zealand Labour Party is making all the same mistakes the British Labour Party did. They don’t have a centrepiece betrayal such as Brexit, but they have a number of smaller ones, such as raising the refugee quota, signing the TPPA, tightening the gun law, cracking down on free speech and the Operation Whakahumanu Police harassment campaign of social media free thinkers.

If the New Zealand Labour Party likewise gets abandoned by the white working class, those voters may follow the now established trend in other Anglo countries of switching loyalties to the conservatives. This will likely see an ever higher proportion of white people vote for National, and an ever lower proportion of white people vote for Labour.

Because white people are forecast to remain a majority in New Zealand until at least 2083, this process will work to shift the balance of Parliamentary power in National’s favour. The Sixth Labour Government already has a very weak grip on power, and even a small shift in loyalties among the white working class could see them lose power in 2020.

The British Labour Party made a fatal strategic error by abandoning the white working class in favour of woke politics of all kinds. The natural resistance of the working class to such pretentious dishonesty cost them this week’s General Election. The New Zealand Labour Party follows closely in the footsteps of their British counterparts, and they look all but certain to make the same strategic error. Will it cost them next year?

*

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Who Are The Forces Of Evil In The Cannabis Referendum Debate?

Now that the cannabis referendum question has been announced, the real battlelines have finally been drawn. Every decent person understands that the forces of evil are lined up against the Cannabis Legalisation And Control Bill, but the question remains: who are they? Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, describes the opponents to cannabis law reform in New Zealand.

The easy way to tell who is for and who is against cannabis is by looking at the correlations between various demographics and their support for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the 2017 General Election.

This can be done by importing the demographic data from the Electoral Profiles on the Parliamentary website into a statistics program such as Statistica, and then calculating a correlation matrix. Such an approach was the basis of my analysis in Understanding New Zealand, in which I calculated the correlations between all demographics and voting preferences and every other.

The strongest correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and being in any demographic is the one between voting ALCP in 2017 and being Maori. This was a gigantic 0.91, which suggests that the vast bulk of Maori people are in favour of cannabis law reform. The strength of this relationship can be seen from looking at the ALCP vote in the Maori electorates, which is around twice as high as the ALCP vote in general electorates.

Maoris are strong supporters of cannabis law reform for several reasons. The primary reason is because cannabis suits them better than alcohol, to which they have little genetic resistance. The fact that white people have thousands of years of genetic resistance to alcohol, and Maoris don’t, mean that the normalisation of alcohol culture is grossly unfair.

The other super-powerful correlation with voting ALCP in 2017 was with regular tobacco smokers. This was 0.89, suggesting that if a person is a regular tobacco smoker they are all but certain to be a supporter of cannabis law reform.

The reason for this correlation is that it’s mostly only people with mental problems who smoke tobacco, and these same people smoke cannabis for its medicinal effects. If a person has PTSD or anxiety, it’s often the case that tobacco and cannabis both have a similar medicinal effect.

One less strong, but still powerful, correlation was between supporting the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and being New Zealand born – this was 0.73. It will come as a surprise to many, but cannabis use is an implicit part of the New Zealand identity. It’s as much a part of who we are as rugby, beaches, barbeques and ethnic confusion. Therefore, people who are born and raised in New Zealand are much more likely to support cannabis law reform than those born elsewhere.

These correlations suggest that the average cannabis user is the salt-of-the-earth working-class Kiwi. This is proven by the correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and being employed in working-class professions, such as community or personal service worker (0.77), labourer (0.71), machinery operators and drivers (0.70) or technicians and trades workers (0.43).

The pro-cannabis forces, then, are basically the people who are at the coal face of the tough jobs in New Zealand. People who work repetitive jobs or jobs with heavy social contact are the ones who tend to have the strongest need to destress at the end of the day, and it’s for them that cannabis law reform would be the most beneficial.

This gives us a good idea of who the forces of evil are.

Many of the opponents to cannabis law reform are old people. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and median age was -0.57. It’s necessary to note, however, that the correlation between voting ALCP and being on the pension was only -0.18, i.e. not statistically significant. This means that the relation to age and support for cannabis law reform is not linear – it rebounds among pensioners.

This replicates a pattern seen overseas. People tend to be anti-cannabis the older they are, up until the point where they are so old that their life starts to revolve around medicines and doctors. At this point it’s common for people to get exposed to cannabis and to come to appreciate its medicinal effects. So the brainwashing only lasts until there’s an element of personal interest in it, at which point it’s discarded.

Christians make up another strong anti-cannabis bloc. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and being Christian was -0.37. Christians have always hated cannabis users, in particular because cannabis is the natural spiritual sacrament of the Eurasian people. This is why Bob McCoskrie, funded by Church money, is taking the leading role in the anti-cannabis campaign.

Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are all significantly opposed to cannabis law reform as well. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and belonging to any of these religious groups was at least -0.30. As mentioned above, this is because cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, and therefore its use is directly against the interests of organised religion.

Predictably, then, there is a strong negative correlation between voting National and voting ALCP. Interestingly, the correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and voting National in 2017 (-0.70) is more strongly negative than the correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and voting Conservative in 2017 (-0.40). This underlines the degree to which National voters are not motivated by conservatism so much as actual malice.

The forces of evil, then, in the cannabis law reform debate are the same old, religious bigots who have opposed every other attempt at making society better. They’re essentially the same people who opposed homosexual, smacking and prostitution law reform, and they’ll oppose everything in the future too, because any change makes them piss their pants.

*

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.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

The Cannabis Legalisation And Control Bill: A Weak But Realistic Compromise

The Government released news this week about the exact form of the cannabis referendum question at next year’s General Election. The Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, currently in draft form, will serve as the basis for next year’s referendum question. Long-time cannabis law reform campaigner Vince McLeod, author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, gives his thoughts on the proposal.

The proposed law is weak, but it’s a realistic compromise with the forces of evil.

Most importantly, it makes the possession of up to 14 grams of cannabis, a small homegrow and licensed retail cannabis sales all legal. As far as the cannabis-using community is concerned, this achieves most of the long-stated goals of cannabis legalisation. It’s broadly in line with what other states and territories in North America have introduced.

Section 18 of the Cannabis Control Bill will allow up to 14 grams of cannabis to be possessed in a public place, and for cannabis to be smoked at home. People are allowed to possess more than this if they are transporting it from one person’s home to another. There appears to be no limit on how much cannabis one is allowed to possess at home.

This will mean that it will no longer matter if a Police officer smells cannabis on you in public or while during a visit to your house. Evidence of cannabis will no longer, by itself, be a sufficient cause for the Police to attack you. Even if the case of smoking cannabis in public, which will still be illegal, the punishment is only a $200 infringement fee.

Section 15 of the Bill will allow for two plants to be grown at home per person, and up to four plants to be grown per household.

Two plants is not a lot. However, if you grew four plants in a small grow tent under a 600W light you could get ten or twelve ounces per grow. Assuming that you’re able to get hold of clones, this would mean ten or twelve ounces every eight to ten weeks. In other words, a household could meet its demands for recreational cannabis easily enough by growing it themselves.

Moreover, there is no proposed restriction on the size of the two plants, as has been the case in some North American jurisdictions. This suggests that people will be allowed to put down a couple of honking sativas in an outdoors greenhouse and get them both up to ten feet tall. Such an arrangement would make it legal to grow a year’s worth of cannabis in one season, sparing the need for the environmentally-unfriendly grow tents.

Section 19 of the Bill allows for recreational cannabis sales. Purchases will be limited to 14 grams per day, but this is at least two weeks’ worth by any reasonable measure. Aside from this, it appears the proposed model will be fairly similar to the cannabis cafe model that has existed in the Netherlands since the 1970s.

In other words, it appears that the proposed model is intended to allow for recreational cannabis sales in cafes in a similar fashion to how alcohol is already sold in pubs. Section 49 of the Bill makes reference to “consumption licences” which will allow certain premises to allow people to consume cannabis in public. Such premises will not be allowed to also sell alcohol, and will therefore follow closely to the Daktory model that Dakta Green has already established in New Zealand.

Despite these major wins, the Bill has a number of flaws from the perspective of the average member of the cannabis-using community.

Nowhere in the Bill has provision been made for running a mother plant that clones can be taken from. If one household can only have four plants, it makes having a mother plant that one can take clones off difficult. Against this criticism, however, is that it appears the Bill will allow for retail sale of feminised seeds.

It’s also a mistake to set the legal limit at 20. For one thing, it implies that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol, which is entirely false. For another, it means two years where young Kiwis will be legally allowed to drink booze but not smoke weed, which will mean two years of exposure to the more destructive of the two drugs. Legal cannabis has been shown to lower rates of alcohol use overseas, and the sooner an alternative to alcohol was available the better.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Bill doesn’t address our right to use cannabis for spiritual purposes. Absolutely zero acknowledgement is made of the fact that cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, but this is not unexpected if one considers that New Zealand has been ruled by completely godless people since the turn of the century, and that for their sort spirituality is mental illness.

Also predictably, there is no provision for an official Government apology for conducting a war against them without their consent. The War on Drugs has been the worst human rights violation to occur in the West since World War II. The Government’s role in this war has involved decades of lying to the public about the effects of cannabis and putting people who defy them in cages. Their conduct has been obscene, and an apology should be part of legalisation – but it won’t be.

Perhaps worst of all, the Government is still committed to minimising cannabis use from the standpoint of cannabis use being inherently harmful. It’s possible that they have calculated that legalising cannabis would make it possible to strangle cannabis culture through ever-increasing taxes and red tape, as they have almost successfully done for tobacco. More likely, however, is that they have shifted thinking so that cannabis is now (rightly) grouped with alcohol and tobacco and not heroin and methamphetamine.

There are many possible criticisms of the Bill, but ultimately it is definitely worth supporting. All of the legitimate criticisms relate to aspects of cannabis law that could best be fine-tuned after the referendum has been passed.

Realistically, what the proposed Cannabis Leglisation And Control Bill means is an end to the fear. It would be taking away that dark, nauseating feeling that comes with being marked as a criminal. People smoking or growing cannabis at home will no longer have to fear saying the wrong thing or inviting the wrong person to their house, and the net result will be a reduction in the suffering of the New Zealand people.

*

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.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Hard Eugenics And Soft Eugenics

In the aftermath of World War II, certain ideas came to be blamed for the war, and so became extremely unfashionable. Anti-Semitism, supremacist nationalism and eugenics were among the foremost of these ideas. However, much like slavery after the American Civil War, some of these ideas just changed form rather than disappear.

When the Industrial Revolution swept over the Western World, it brought with it a godless kind of materialism. It taught us that the way to wealth and power was mastery of the material world and its laws, and that spirituality was merely a distraction. In the wake of this came an entirely new set of moral values that had not previously existed.

One of these new moral values was the idea of productivity. This meant that the people who did more work for their masters were prized higher than those who did less. This idea of productivity meant that the world became divided into the deserving productive and the undeserving unproductive. The idea of getting rid of people who weren’t productive enough followed in short order.

Within a few hundred years, this latter idea had evolved into what was called eugenics. This is the deliberate effort to improve the genetic stock of the nation by encouraging the breeding of those considered to have good genes, and discouraging the breeding of those considered to have bad genes. The idea is that the lazy, dumb, infirm etc. will become fewer in number if those likely to produce them are coerced into breeding less.

The breeding restrictions that come with eugenics are motivated by a variety of reasons, but what those reasons boil down to is an appeal to the greater good. Usually this means that the continued existence of the person killed would have been a detriment to the greater good because of the waste of the resources necessary to keep them alive. Sometimes it is suggested that it’s cruel to keep people alive when they appear to be suffering.

Although the idea of eugenics is most typically associated with the Rassenhygiene of Germany before and during World War II, the idea was first popularised in America just after World War I. Adolf Hitler even referenced the work of Americans such as Margaret Sanger as an example of how Germany ought to carry out eugenics programs against their own population.

In Germany, the Aktion T4 program saw the sterilisation, and then the extermination, of several hundred thousand people who were deemed to be either physically or mentally defective. This occurred in a variety of ways, from lethal injection to gas chambers (the idea of exterminating people in gas chambers was first thought up for use on schizophrenics).

This approach can be described as hard eugenics. This is when the Government kills you outright.

As mentioned above, hard eugenics became extremely unfashionable thanks to the German loss in World War II. But the desire of the ruling classes to commit eugenics on their populations did not go away. The fundamental desire to be in charge of a productive population, rather than an unproductive one, didn’t change.

It was observed, after hard eugenics became unfashionable, that the people who had been slated for extermination all had one quality in common: they were poor. Being mentally or physically infirm makes it all but impossible for one to trade one’s labour for a decent wage. In all but the most exceptional cases, it guarantees a life of impoverishment on society’s fringes.

Therefore, it was possible to institute measures that didn’t directly kill people, but which made their lives so miserable that they killed themselves. All that was necessary was to institute measures that made it hard to be poor. The modern way to do this is by applying constant stress over housing, healthcare and job security.

Soft eugenics, then, is when the Government makes your life so shit that you either kill yourself or withdraw from attempting to reproduce.

Like hard eugenics, this is also achieved in a variety of ways, although the fundamental element to it is the weaponisation of despair. Life is made to appear so hopeless, so meaningless and so pointless, that withdrawal from it seems like the only reasonable option. Despair is used as a weapon, to drive people whose survival is already marginal to suicide.

This has the same eugenic effect as hard eugenics without all the drama.

Soft eugenics has become so fashionable today that average life expectancy is now starting to decrease in America. This decrease is because of the sharp increase in what are called “deaths of despair”. Many of these deaths are suicides by gunshot, and many are quasi-suicides in the form of opiate overdoses. Their common factor is a person who gave up on life.

Making people give up on life is how soft eugenics works. This is primarily achieved by paying shitty wages, so that workers are always in a state of financial precarity. It’s also achieved by destroying communities through mass immigration, so that no-one knows their neighbours. A further tactic is a democratic political system that transparently doesn’t give a fuck about anything other than lobbyist dollars.

The tendency to give up on life is accelerated by a popular culture that only permits discussion of the lowest common denominator of thought. In our current society, anyone who thinks for themselves will be ostracised to such a degree that proper human function becomes very difficult. It’s only permissible to march in lockstep with the hordes of morons – the alternative is to get bullied towards suicide.

Political correctness plays its part in soft eugenics, especially nowadays. The more politically correct a society becomes, the greater the cognitive resources that each individual member of it must devote to self-policing. This means fewer cognitive resources left over for actually living. Therefore, the more politically correct a society is, the more heavily it practises soft eugenics.

Cannabis prohibition has been a central plank in governmental efforts to get the more vulnerable elements of their populations to kill themselves. Many people on the margins have found that cannabis is an essential tool for dealing with the depression that comes with a tough life. Making it harder to get hold of this medicine only serves to push vulnerable people towards suicide. This is the plan.

In the case of New Zealand, we do not practice hard eugenics but the practice of soft eugenics is very strong. New Zealand is a paradise for the wealthy, but a hell for the poor. Our practice of soft eugenics is taken to an extreme degree here, which is why we have the highest youth mortality rate in the entire OECD, even ahead of places like Mexico and Turkey.

We no longer kill the mentally and physically infirm – now we just make their lives so shit that they kill themselves. Because we’re not directly responsible for the suicides, we can claim that it isn’t a form of eugenics. But it is – it’s just a softer form of what the Nazis did.

*

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.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

How Long Until White People Become A Minority in New Zealand?

The recent release of the final statistics from the 2018 New Zealand Census has kept stats nerds across the country busy. One of the busiest has been VJM Publishing numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, who is compiling the data for a third edition of his demographic masterpiece. In this analysis he asks: how long until white people become a minority in New Zealand?

The New Zealand Stats website is a treasure trove of demographic data. There are thousands of tables of information on this page, many of which are customisable. This makes it easy to compare data between groups or between time frames. Often, the data is extrapolated into the future.

The white proportion of the New Zealand population has been falling for some time, as is true of all Western countries.

At the time of the 1991 Census (around when the average VJMP reader was born), there were 2,783,028 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 3,373,929. This means that New Zealand was 82.5% white at this time. Neo-liberalism had all but completed its stranglehold over the New Zealand mindset by 1991, and it was at that point that the mass importation of cheap labour began in earnest.

The New Zealand ruling class had figured out, by this time, that labour costs were their primary expense. The mass importation of foreign cheap labour not only lowered labour costs directly, by introducing what was effectively scab labour into the workplace, but it also lowered labour costs indirectly by destroying the solidarity of the native working class and thereby making it harder for them to organise to negotiate fair wages.

Although the New Zealand people were never asked for their consent to it, the advent of the mass importation of cheap labour would set in motion a course of events that would lead to the Brazilianisation of New Zealand.

At the time of the 2013 Census, there were 3,312,100 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 4,442,100. This means that New Zealand was 74.6% white at that time.

At the time of the 2018 Census, there were 3,357,744 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 4,793,358. This means that New Zealand was 71.7% white at the time of the most recent Census, a fall of 10.9% over the 27 years since the 1991 Census.

According to the NZ Stats national ethnic population projections, there should be 3,781,500 white people in New Zealand at the time of the 2038 Census, out of a total population of 5,769,800. This will mean that it will be 65.5% white one generation from now.

Over the 25 years from 2013-38, we are expected to see a decline in the white proportion of the New Zealand population, from 74.6% to 65.5%. This is a total decline of 9.1% over 25 years, or 0.36% per year.

So, over the 47 years from 1991-2038, we are expected to see a decline in the white proportion of the New Zealand population from 81.5% to 65.5%. This would be a total decline of 16%, or 0.34% per year.

Thus, the white proportion of the New Zealand population has fallen by about 0.35% per year since the advent of neoliberalism. So extrapolating forwards from 2038, when the white proportion of the population is expected to be 65.5%, the white population would need to fall a further 15.6% before white people become a minority in New Zealand.

At the current rate of falling 0.35% a year, this suggests a further 45 years from the end of 2038.

In other words, white people ought to become a minority in New Zealand sometime in the early 2080s. That means that the bulk of people reading this article should be dead. This prediction is line with when other Western countries are predicted to end up with white minorities, which exposes the fact that the imposition of neoliberalism was a globalist endeavour.

Of course, all of these projections assume that the current rulers of New Zealand – the international banking and finance class – see fit to keep importing cheap labour at roughly the same rate they are currently doing. This importation of cheap labour will likely continue to be profitable because it drives up house prices and causes demand for mortgages. Therefore, the bankers and financiers will keep pushing it on us until they are stopped.

Although it seems unlikely today, a future nativist movement could come to power in New Zealand and turn the cheap labour taps off. In Sweden we have seen the rise of the Sweden Democrats from 3% 12 years ago to 25% today, where they are now the largest polling party. This is despite the fact that some Sweden Democrats are openly neo-Nazi.

This reasoning also ignores the fact that many Pacific Islanders and Asians, and in principle all of the Maoris, will be at least part white, with some of them being more white than anything else. The average Maori is only 80% as Maori as they were the generation previously, owing to heavy interbreeding with other Kiwis. By the 2080s there may no longer be a distinct Maori race.

At the moment though, with current trends the way they are, the idea of a Great Replacement of white people in New Zealand isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s apparent from the statistics on the New Zealand Government’s own statistics page that white people ought to become a minority in New Zealand some time around 2083.

However, Brenton Tarrant was wrong when he said it was all about the birthrates (at least in New Zealand’s case).

The NZ.Stat website also tells us the projected fertility rates of the various ethnic groups in New Zealand. The Asian fertility rate was 1.61 in 2018, compared to the white fertility rate of 1.82. The Maori fertility rate was 2.36 and the Pacific Island fertility rate 2.4. This Asian fertility rate is well below replacement level, and the Maori and Pacific Islander rates are barely above it.

The Asian fertility rate is expected to fall further, to 1.55, by 2038, whereas the white fertility rate is expected to remain at around 1.8 by this time. By this time the Maori and Pacific Island fertility rates will have fallen to sub-replacement level, at 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. Considering the higher death rate among the Maori and Pacific Island populations, this is hardly a demographic threat.

It’s not about the birthrates – it’s about border control.

There probably isn’t a plan among New Zealand’s ruling elites to commit white genocide, but there doesn’t need to be. White New Zealanders are capable of selling the country out from under their grandchildrens’ feet for the sake of a fat pension. The bankers and finance interests that control the mainstream media, for their part, are more than happy to encourage this short-sighted greed for the sake of the mortgage profits it brings.

*

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Is It Time For An Asian Quota In The All Blacks?

Japanese player Daisuke Ohata is history’s top international rugby union try scorer, proving that being Asian is no hindrance to rugby excellence

By the time of the 2019 Rugby World Cup, over 1,000 men had represented the All Blacks throughout history. Although the All Blacks are famous for being a successful multicultural operation, not a single one of those thousand plus All Blacks has been Asian. This essay asks whether it’s time for an Asian quota in the All Blacks.

At the time of the 2018 Census, some 15.3% of the New Zealand population were Asians, around 750,000 people. About a quarter million of those are Chinese, another quarter million Indian, and the rest a mix of Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Filipino and a few others. It’s similar to the total number of Maoris and greater than the total number of Pacific Islanders.

Most of those Asians are relative newcomers to New Zealand, and therefore a historic lack of Asian representation is not hard to explain. However, 15% of the current population is a large number of people. On the face of it, it seems extremely improbable that none of these people would have gone on to be an All Black today. Indeed, there are very few Asians among professional rugby players full stop.

The conventional explanation for this disparity is a supposed inherent genetic disadvantage possessed by Asians.

Because rugby is an extremely physical game, the more effective rugby players tend to also be the more muscular ones. For the forwards, muscle power gives the wrestling strength to win possession of the ball; for the backs, muscle power gives the explosiveness to break tackles and to hit gaps. According to the common explanation, Asians lack this muscle power because they don’t have the right genes.

The idea that Polynesians and white people are genetically larger than Asians is part of a school of thought called scientific racism. This school of thought is the rhetoric of dressing up racism in scientific-sounding statements to give it legitimacy. People who adhere to this school of thought like to draw jargon from evolutionary psychology and genetics to create the appearance of support for their case.

Scientific racists will say that, when a people becomes civilised, the set of selection pressures in favour of big muscles are no longer as strong among that people. A capacity for violence gives way to a capacity to co-operate. Hence, the longer a people has been civilised, the smaller they will become. This is the reason why Indians have the least lean muscle mass in the world – they have been civilised the longest.

Scientific racists go on to say that, because Northern Europeans and Polynesians were the last to become civilised, that they have the most lean muscle mass, this being the inevitable consequence of selective pressures that rewarded the most violent and aggressive males with mates and social status. This lean muscle mass makes them better rugby players, and therefore the low level of Asian representation can be explained by Asian inferiority.

In reality, this is merely a “just so” story used to justify racist oppression of Asians.

The truth is that Asians have been discouraged from playing rugby because of the racism they have encountered from Polynesians and white people. Unfortunately, Asians have been stereotyped as small, weedy nerds who are only good at maths and computer science. This has led to an extreme amount of racist bullying from Polynesians and white people, which has discouraged Asians from pursuing higher honours in the game.

Further proof for this contention comes from the observation that all of the Japanese national rugby side’s players are much better at rugby than the average Polynesian or white man. It follows from this that excellence at rugby is primarily a question of dedication to training and not genetics. This proves that the over-representation of Polynesians and whites in the All Blacks cannot be because of inherent racial superiority.

If there is no inherent racial superiority, then anti-Asian racism is the only possible explanation for the lack of Asian representation in the All Blacks. This means that the existing New Zealand rugby structure is obliged to do something about their racism and the historical advantage it has given Polynesian and white players.

One way of rectifying this would be to use the South African solution of racial quotas.

There are 15 players in a starting rugby union team, and 23 players in a match-day team (which includes the bench). This means that fair and equal representation for Asians in the All Blacks (based on their proportion of the New Zealand population) would be something like two starting players and one on the bench.

This doesn’t mean that there should be a quota of three places for Asian players in the All Blacks straight away. A better way to do transformation, following the South African example, would be to have one quota place for Asians in the All Blacks but three quota places for Asians in all Super Rugby teams (at least to start with).

Until New Zealand Rugby can rectify their horrific failure to include Asians in the top levels of professional rugby culture, they will continue to be a racist organisation. They show no willingness to change their attitudes on their own, however. Therefore, a quota for Asian players in the All Blacks is necessary before the All Blacks can be considered, for the first time, a fully representative team.

*

Note: this article is a pisstake. If you got trolled, the joke’s on you!

*

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.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.