You Can Never Win Freedoms Back; You Can Only Trade Them

Although the accepted narrative is that we are moving into a time of greater freedom, in many ways we are in fact becoming less free – and these losses are not necessarily easy to notice

Many young Kiwis have felt a sense of relief after Julie Anne Genter and The Opportunities Party decided to champion cannabis law reform. Finally it seemed like the political class were going to grant the New Zealand people some of their rights back. But, as this essay will examine, dealing with politicians is never that simple.

Both Genter and TOP broke with the New Zealand political convention of treating cannabis law reform as a taboo subject earlier this year as the foreshadow of the General Election loomed, incentivising new policy directions that attracted media attention.

Both of them also broke with convention by bringing logic and evidence to this discussion, instead of the usual fear-mongering and hysteria. As has long been argued by this company (most notably in the Cannabis Activist’s Handbook), once the narrative on cannabis shifted from lies to truth, the days of prohibition were numbered.

Once the sheeple of New Zealand came to realise that cannabis was a medicine and not really the devil’s lettuce, it didn’t seem right to put people in cages for it anymore, and that led directly to the need for law reform being taken seriously by everyone today.

So does this mean that New Zealand is moving out of the Puritanical mindset when it comes to psychoactive substances and will now be discussing the issue sensibly?

Of course not! Morgan wants to put the drinking age back up to 20.

Even though his entire message is that prohibition of cannabis isn’t working, and even though it’s widely understood that prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, voting for cannabis law reform through TOP is also going to be a vote for some Kiwis to lose the freedom to consume alcohol.

Some people might not think too much of this, but Morgan’s actions here reveal the strategy that politicians have used to seize control of the plebs throughout all times and places.

Politicians do this by offering you some of your freedoms back at the cost of others. Their trick is to always take away more freedoms than they offer, but to present it in a way that tricks the plebs into thinking that it’s the other way around.

Another example of it also pertains to cannabis: the fact that almost every cannabis user in the country who has a driver’s licence is also a criminal, because it is a crime to drive with any amount of THC in the system, and anyone who has smoked cannabis within the last six weeks will have THC in their system – even if they are not at all impaired.

If the politicians decided to legalise cannabis tomorrow they could simply bring in more punitive consequences for driving a motor vehicle, such as regular checkpoints with saliva swabs to detect for THC in the system.

Enough checkpoints and saliva swabs and it simply wouldn’t matter that cannabis was technically fully legal – the degree of damage done to the population by the state would remain the same. It could potentially even be increased.

And then we’d end up like the states of Australia and America that have “decriminalised cannabis” but made it criminal to drive with THC in the system, impaired or otherwise.

Either that, or we’ll lose our rights to speak freely on the Internet. It’s possible that the wholesale criminalisation of the young that came about as a consequence of the cannabis laws will be replicated with criminal trials for “hate speech” and “harmful digital communication”.

In any case, we can guarantee that the freedom of politicians to lie to the nation – and to cause them great suffering as a consequence of the despair and confusion – will not be impeded by anything.

Apologising For Anti-Gay Oppression Means Nothing If The Government Still Oppresses

Thirty years after the New Zealand Government stopped violating the rights of Kiwi homosexuals, New Zealand politicians have finally worked up the courage to crawl out of their holes and apologise – but are they sincere?

The House of Representatives today took the extraordinary measure of apologising to Kiwis with historical criminal convictions for engaging in homosexual activity. The move was broadly welcomed, the general attitude suggesting that putting someone in a cage for an act that harmed no-one was, in hindsight, wrong.

Let’s be honest. What the New Zealand Government did to gay people wasn’t just wrong – it was a human rights abuse.

The reason why it qualifies as a human rights abuse is that humans have the inherent, inviolable right to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

Engaging in consensual homosexual activity did not harm anyone else, therefore it wasn’t a crime. Therefore, putting gay people in cages for doing it was a human rights abuse.

After some decades of pressure from reasonable people, the New Zealand Parliament appears to have finally accepted this logic and apologised.

But the truly obscene thing about this whole affair isn’t men sticking their cocks up each other’s arses.

The truly obscene thing is how our current crop of gutless politicians, safely separated by thirty years of history, happily stick the boot into their forebears of a previous generation, while paying no mind to the fact that they are still oppressing cannabis users with the same total absence of justification as they once oppressed homosexuals.

So how can we take the Government’s apology for violating the human rights of homosexuals seriously when it continues to do exactly the same thing to cannabis users?

Marama Davidson, who never misses an opportunity to shamelessly grandstand, spoke in Parliament today about the deaths caused by the anti-homosexual prejudice engendered by the law criminalising homosexual activity.

But regarding the fact that prejudice and discrimination against medicinal cannabis users is still taking lives today, she (like everyone in Parliament apart from Julie Anne Genter) remains completely silent.

The cowards in Parliament won’t be making apologetic speeches about the damage caused by cannabis prohibition for another thirty years, not until most of the current lot are dead.

Grant Robertson stood up in Parliament today and said, on the subject of homosexuality being illegal, that “the arrests, the imprisonments and the fear of that happening did not just ruin lives and destroy potential – it killed people. Hundreds, possibly thousands of lives have been lost because men could not bear the shame, the stigma, and the hurt caused by this Parliament.”

Exactly the same words could be said about cannabis prohibition – but our politicians lack the courage to say them.

Justice Minister Amy Adams said “this apology is a symbolic but important act that we hope will help address the harm and right this historic wrong.”

If the New Zealand House of Representatives is serious about being apologetic for violating the human rights of Kiwi homosexuals, why are they continuing to violate the human rights of Kiwi medicinal cannabis users?

The prejudice against cannabis users – one that is enforced by the New Zealand Parliament to this very day – has taken ten times as many lives as the law against homosexuality and continues to take them.

Until the current Parliament takes the general issue of human rights seriously – not just rights for favoured, fashionable minorities – this apology can be dismissed as an exhibition of crocodile tears.

Latest Frontiers in the War on Free Speech in the West

Free speech is the foundation of civilisation. Without it, it’s not possible for a person to express their discontent with the way things are, and without an outlet for discontent it will inevitably turn into violence. As John F Kennedy told us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

There are powerful political movements in the world today who have calculated that criminalising free speech benefits their agenda, despite this risk. These movements usually have a kind of feminine logic at their core, in that they consider themselves to be righteously resisting masculine excesses like discrimination.

Most are predicated on the moral assumption that, in any conflict between two forces, the weakest force must automatically be the morally correct one, on the grounds that the weaker side would not start a conflict that they would lose.

After some decades of percolating away in sick heads disconnected from reality, this assumption has led the social justice warriors to now believe in the moral imperative of destroying all hierarchy on the grounds that it is necessarily masculine and therefore inherently evil.

No consideration is given to the concept of correct hierarchy that leads to good order – such a thing is simply axiomatically defined as impossible. All order is bad, therefore all must be destroyed.

Such a morality naturally leads to the idea that all weakness is inherently good – hence the resurgence of what Nietzsche would have called “slave morality” in the West.

This explains why so many are bleating the catchphrase of the modern moron: “Hate speech is not free speech” – where hate speech is defined as the promulgation of facts that, despite being true, are politically inconvenient to those who are anti-hierarchy.

In particular, any fact which suggests that a particular hierarchy might be natural and inevitable has to be the most strenuously opposed. As Nietzsche pointed out, the reason for this is the resentment that these weaklings have towards those strong enough to impose good order upon themselves, for it is good order imposed upon oneself that leads to rising in worldly hierarchies.

For instance, the proposition that the text of the Koran will lead inevitably to violence is vociferously opposed by those who want to propagate the impression that the wars in the Middle East are caused primarily by Western interference.

Likewise, the proposition that Islamic terrorism in Europe is a natural consequence of the text of the Koran is opposed by those who want to propagate the impression that the terrorism is blowback for Western interference.

Unsurprisingly, such propositions – entirely independent of any historical or logical validity they might have – are increasingly lumped under the general rubric of “Islamophobia.”

They join propositions such as statements about racial differences in intelligence, or about gender differences in propensity towards certain patterns of behaviour, as politically incorrect ones.

The latest frontier in the war on free speech is attempts to criminalise the free expression of such propositions.

Already there is a concerted movement that means to make it illegal to point out the obvious connection between Koranic verses calling for violence and Islamic expressions of violence, or the obvious connection between the belief that a paedophile was the perfect man and culturally lax attitudes to paedophilia.

The tragedy is, the only reason why the West is no longer an oppressive shithole like the Islamic World is that we have spent the last four centuries using our freedom of speech and expression to destroy the evil of Abrahamism in its manifestation of Christianity.

And, in much the same way that the West was an oppressive, miserable shithole when it was illegal to criticise Christianity, so too will it be an oppressive, miserable shithole when it is illegal to criticise Islam.

What has to happen is a cultural shift where screaming “Racist!” or “Bigot!” at someone is no longer socially sanctioned as legitimate discourse. There needs to be a mass awakening to the fact that this strategy of political manipulation has the overall effect of suppressing honest discussion, and therefore is detrimental to everyone in society, and to society as a whole.

This will require sane people uniting around the spirit of genuine inquiry into the nature of reality, and in opposition to the egomaniacs who are trying to remake the world in their image by force.

And that means uniting around a shared appreciation that free speech keeps us safe from all kinds of excesses, even politically correct ones.

After all, it’s not a coincidence that the Anglosphere, with the strongest cultural appreciation of the value of free speech, has kept itself safe from totalitarianism for the longest time.

Why Globalists Love Refugees

The biggest opposition to globalism is for people to have solidarity with the people around them, with those who grew up alongside them, with their neighbours, blood relatives and childhood friends. Having solidarity with those closest to you makes it more difficult for someone further away, like a foreign bank, to exercise influence over you.

Solidarity is what trades union depend on if they are to get fair compensation for their labour from capital interests. Without solidarity, any group of people who do not hold a monopoly on legal violence can be divided and conquered by those who do.

Solidarity is also what all political justice movements depend on if they are to change the law. Without solidarity, political justice movements also get divided and conquered because all members of any movement will, to some degree, have divided loyalties, and any divided loyalty is a flashpoint for conflict.

Having solidarity with those closest to you makes it difficult for an outside influence to come in and offer you money to work against them, or to offer them money to work against you. This means that solidarity induces those around you to work in concert instead of disharmony or opposition, making your life much easier.

Globalists, therefore, have to destroy solidarity in a territory or nation before it can be conquered. The greater the destruction of this solidarity, the greater the vulnerability of the people to predatory outside interests, and the greater the degree that those interests can exploit them before they are able to organise any resistance.

If humanity is to be dominated by an international elite loyal only to themselves, all localist sentiments have to be destroyed. Men have to be set against their wives; couples have to be set against their parents and their children; families have to be set against their neighbours.

People have to be induced to hate their neighbours in order to look to politicians for answers. Therefore, they need to fear their neighbours so that this fear might stagnate into hatred.

In any time and in any place, having large numbers of foreigners turn up in your area usually meant that you were being conquered. If those foreigners were Muslim, traditionally that meant you were about to be slaughtered and your women raped.

So Muslims naturally bring an entirely understandable fear to the neighbourhoods they arrive in, especially when they arrive in large numbers, and doubly especially if the flood shows no sign of stopping.

The face of a Muslim is for the political class much the same thing that a pit bull straining on a leash is for a working-class tough: a weapon that can be used to intimidate one’s enemies, so that this intimidation can render them submissive.

This fear has very predictable effects – know that the rulers of this Earth are master psychologists and have been refining their tricks since Babylon.

One of the predictable effects of mass Muslim immigration is for non-Muslims to form greater bonds of solidarity with each other. For example, in the face of a reinvigorated Muslim attempt to conquer the European continent, the differences between Catholic and Protestant, or Nordic and Mediterranean, suddenly don’t seem so large.

If the leaders of Europe wanted to replace the various national consciousnesses with a European one, the way to do it would be by calling all of the European peoples into an existential conflict against an outside enemy.

As it stands today, almost every native person in Europe, from Spain to Russia, from Britain to Sweden to Greece, has a shared interest in dealing with the continent-wide “Muslim problem.”

So by allowing Muslim “refugees” to flood over the whole continent, the leaders of Europe create a pan-continental consciousness that they control through their dominance of pan-continental media.

It’s much harder to control localist consciousness because this is a function of people getting together and talking and figuring out the truth for themselves. It’s far easier to control a pan-European consciousness because people at this level have to rely on the corporate media, instead of their neighbours, for information – and the globalists own the corporate media.

Because Muslim “refugees” do not get placed in the same neighbourhoods that wealthy globalists live in, the globalists escape the chaos that is wrought on the working-class neighbourhoods that are forced to accept the Muslims.

Every new person in a working-class or middle-class community that does not speak a language that allows them to communicate with their neighbours represents the destruction of the solidarity of that community. Each new entrant forces the level of consciousness away from the level of the street and the neighbourhood to the level of the globe.

For globalist politicians, therefore, opening the doors to refugees helps those globalists to bring chaos into the lives of their enemies in working-class neighbourhoods, crippling their capacity to resist other globalist measures like forcing the working and middle classes to compete with offshore labour.

This column has previously raised the possibility that many of the young liberals supporting mass resettlement of Muslims into Western working-class communities are actually crypto-conservatives deliberately acting to further right-wing class interests.

Perhaps in modern democracies there is only ever a candidate of the bankers and a candidate of the people. In any case, the battle lines are clearly being drawn for anyone with the wit to see them.