How Individualism Defends the Anglosphere

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, a couple of extremely virulent and aggressive political movements swept the Western world – communism and national socialism – eventually leading to the deaths of some 50 million people. How did the Anglosphere avoid getting sucked up in these murderous, psychopathic insanities?

The soul-grinding deprivation of the Great Depression caused horrific trauma all around the world. Perhaps on account of an absence of historical guidance and precedent, a number of countries voted extremists, demagogues or lunatics into power on the grounds that desperate times called for desperate measures.

But none of the core Anglosphere nations of Britain, America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand came close to voting a totalitarian into power before World War Two, and none of them have since.

As the European Theatre of World War Two dawned, there seemed to be three major forces. The central powers, represented by Germany, Italy, Austria and Romania, were fascist; the eastern powers, represented by Russia, were communist; and the western powers, represented by the British Empire, America, France, Holland and Scandinavia, were liberal democracies.

The liberal democracies won, and won an opportunity to reshape the world in their image in the coming decades – which they mostly seized.

But ninety years after the streets of Europe were once filled with running battles between communists and national socialists, it looks like they’re going back to the same stupidity.

So why didn’t the Anglosphere put a totalitarian in power before World War Two, and why aren’t we going to put one in power in the coming decade, as the inexorable laws of demography push Europe closer to civil war?

There is a different culture in the Anglosphere. Namely: we are not a slave race, and so we do not tremble in worship before power. In fact, almost uniquely in the world (along with Holland and Scandinavia), we openly express contempt for those who wield it.

Because of this, we don’t get swept up in mass movements and personality cults like the Europeans. There is no concept in the Anglosphere of awaiting some great leader to free us from a terrible and unfortunate state of disgrace, such as which put Hitler in power. Neither is there the kind of entrenched, systematic corruption that leads to the mass resentment of the wealthy that puts Marxists in power.

In fact, if anyone stands up with even vaguely Hitler-like rhetoric, that person is immediately shut down for being a crackpot. There’s no way that you can stand on a street corner and rant about Jews without getting jeered at or having garbage thrown at you.

The trajectory of the British Union of Fascists was much different to that of the Nazi Party: “As the party became increasingly radical, however, support declined. The Olympia Rally of 1934, in which a number of anti-Fascist protestors were attacked, isolated the party from much of its following.”

Even at the apogee of British fascism, The Battle of Cable Street, a maximum of 3,000 fascists were met by 20,000 counter-demonstrators. They were even outnumbered two to one by the Metropolitan Police, which made them, at peak strength, orders of magnitude weaker than the Sturmabteilung in Germany.

And no fascist movement in America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand became anywhere near as strong as the BUF.

There seems to be an inherent wisdom in the Anglosphere consciousness that is capable of recognising massively dangerous egos and imposing a kind of order upon them before they become capable of doing too much damage. It is not in our nature to grovel before a big man; our nature is pulling the fingers, flipping the bird, saying “fuck you”.

It seems to be the natural gift of the Anglo people to keep order without the need for totalitarianism – perhaps a function of having the right amount (not too much, not too little) of diversity of thought, much like the Swedes with their lagom or the Dutch with their famous tolerance, care is taken to act with the correct proportionality.

This is probably a combination of the concept of fair play, which prevent anyone from falling too far down, and the concept of the tall poppy syndrome (Swedish: Jantelagen), which prevents anyone from developing a disruptively large ego.

Anglos generally don’t brook shadowy, sinister conspiracies like other Westerners, and are prone to instantly reject ideologies that require that human nature fundamentally be reshaped, believing in almost all cases that such a thing is simply not possible.

This column has long predicted that natural demographic laws will force Europe into a kind of civil war when Muslims in Europe realise they have the numbers to enforce their religious proscriptions on the natives. This will probably lead to the coming to power of another tyrant, because it is the nature of Europeans to swing from one extreme to another.

Whether the Anglosphere will shed the blood of its young men another time to put the European continent to order is another consideration.

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.

When Politicians Start Competing For Cannabis Voters, Prohibition Is Over

Gareth Morgan showed that he is a cut above the rest of the megalomaniacs who would be king by actually changing his stance on cannabis law reform in response to the wishes of his supporters. This by itself is curious (some are calling the phenomenon “democracy”), but not as curious as the reaction.

The Greens’ health spokeswoman, Julie Anne Genter, responded to the news of Morgan’s intrusion into her political niche like a mother cat protecting her litter.

She made a social media post belittling the capacity of The Opportunity Party to enact reform, calling it “some tiny new political party”, and accused them of planning to be “working with National”.

This marks the first time, ever, that politicians in New Zealand have acted like medicinal cannabis users were normal people whose rights were worth defending.

The usual approach, the English-Little-Peters-Shaw approach, is to stand aside and let medicinal cannabis users die for fear of losing votes from people who want to kill them.

If the politicians, the shallowest of shallow whores, are competing for cannabis law reform votes, then it’s fair to say that the cracks in the dam are appearing and that it’s time for those downstream to evacuate.

The next move will be a leader of a big four party stating on the record that cannabis prohibition is unjust. Any consideration of compensation will be out of the question, because to raise the point suggests that politicians can be held accountable for their crimes against the people, but someone might suggest that medicinal cannabis even be subsidised like other medicines.

Maybe one day a politician will do a medicinal cannabis user the honour of having a photo taken with them.

The ridiculous thing will be that, when all of this happens, the politiwhore in question will try to give the impression that they are bravely leading the charge, even though the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party was saying what Julie Anne Genter is now saying since 1996 – 21 years ago.

It’s taken 21 years to even get this far, where there are so many as two second-tier politicians calling for cannabis law reform. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 21 for a leader of one of the big four parties to find the courage to say something.

Probably the next advance for cannabis law reform in New Zealand will be for someone in the ACT or Labour parties to champion the issue. Damian O’Connor has already dipped a nervous toe in the water, and if he sees the centrist Morgan take up the issue he could well interpret that as a green light to go further.

The Lesson of ANZAC Day is to Not Follow Leaders

The reason why ANZAC Day is so important to the nations of Australia and New Zealand was that it was the day we became aware of exactly how little regard we were held by the British commanders. It was therefore the day we decided to look to ourselves for self-regard: the birth of the national consciousness.

This is why ANZAC Day is celebrated to the degree that it is in both New Zealand and Australia even today, a century after the landings at ANZAC Cove.

The day marks the moment that we decided we were good enough to stand on our own merits as New Zealand and Australia, and not merely as colonies of Britain, because the British did not hold us in the regard we deserved.

The difficulty is this – a century later, our own leaders, despite being elected from among ourselves, treat us with equally little regard. In fact, our own leaders treat us so poorly that we’re now doing worse than many of the countries we have defeated in war within the past century.

Germany and Japan today both have a higher standard of living than the Anglosphere – their defeat in World War Two made it possible to clean out the entrenched corruption in the political systems of these countries, laying the foundation for socio-economic success.

Contrast that to the West, where the victory of World War Two was taken as a sign that God had blessed us. Not only were we correct, but our entire social order was perfect, right down to the degree to which labour relations favoured capital interests.

The symbol of ANZAC Day is the poppy, the reason being that the poppy is used to make morphine, and morphine was raised to an almost holy status after World War One because for an injured soldier its administration was like a gift from heaven.

For the soldiers who risked so much to bring freedom to people, and who felt first-hand the degree to which medicine can prevent human misery, it must be a bitter pill to swallow that the governments they fought for are putting their descendants in cages for exercising their right to use medicinal plants.

In much the same way that morphine brought relief to those whose bodies had been shattered by bullets and shrapnel, other plant medicines bring relief to those whose minds have been shattered by abuse and neglect.

Cannabis is now legal in 29 American states as a recognised medicine, including for post-traumatic stress disorder, the mental illness that the ANZACs would have called shellshock. But the New Zealand Government will not even discuss changing the cannabis laws here.

MDMA is also being currently trialled after showing promise in treating PTSD, psilocybin is currently being trialled after showing promise in treating death anxiety, ibogaine is currently being trialled after showing promise in treating drug addiction and ayahuasca is currently being trialled after showing promise in treating depression. But anyone using any of these plant medicines in New Zealand risks getting put in a cage for many years by the Government.

It’s hardly plausible that the men that signed up to fight Hitler did so to protect a political system that would put their grandchildren in cages for using medicinal cannabis. Yet, here we are. We would have more freedom today if the ANZACs had shot a few of their own politicians.

The lesson of ANZAC Day is this. Never, ever follow the dictates of people who claim to rule you and who claim to be in charge of you, no matter how urgent the need is claimed to be, no matter how many flags they wave, no matter what authority they claim to be speaking with, no matter how malicious the enemy is claimed to be, no matter how much jeering, threatening, mocking, insulting and coercing they do.

Anyone who is not willing to treat you as an equal is your enemy.

Is It Time For Drug Licenses?

It’s obvious by now that New Zealand politicians have completely lost all control of the drug laws. From the legal highs circus to the disaster that was the Psychoactive Substances Act to the obstinate refusal to even discuss medicinal cannabis, we all know that they’ve lost the plot.

So when we get rid of them, we might as well get rid of their whole rotten system (founded on lies) and start from scratch, basing our drug policy on scientific evidence instead of the hysteria, primitive superstition and vicious envy that has characterised the standard approach until now.

If we start from scratch, what would our system of drug laws, restrictions and prohibitions look like?

This article suggests that the best model would be to have a system of different classes of license to purchase different classes of drugs.

This would operate much like the current system for licensing of motor vehicles. In the same way that anyone wishing to operate a motorcycle must demonstrate competence in a different set of skills to someone wishing to operate a regular car, so too does anyone wishing to use a drug safely need to understand various sets of skills relating to the class of drug.

For example, tobacco is a very safe drug in terms of how difficult it is to overdose (basically impossible) and how long it takes heavy use to kill you (several decades on average). So getting a license to buy tobacco would be very simple. Probably little more than demonstrating an awareness of the effects of tobacco and how to get help if they feel they are addicted.

Methamphetamine, on the other hand, is not so safe. It is very easy to use methamphetamine in a way that inadvertently leads to health problems.

So getting a license to use recreational methamphetamine might be more like getting a helicopter license – it may take a few years, it may require character references, it may require an absence of prior criminal convictions, it may require that the individual’s methamphetamine use is accounted for by a pharmacist who would notice a creeping addiction etc.

If anything, requiring a license to drink alcohol would make more sense than anything else. For one thing, people already have to prove that they are 18 years of age or older before they can buy alcohol, so having to have an alcohol license would not be an extra hassle.

For another – and this is the major advantage – an alcohol license would make it much easier for the justice system to deal with alcohol-related misbehaviour: simply take the alcohol license away.

Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle? Loss of alcohol license and driver’s license. Drunk and bash someone over the head for a laugh? Loss of alcohol license and a fine or imprisonment. Drinking yourself to death and your GP knows he’s watching you die? Loss of alcohol license and the option of an addiction management course.

As it stands currently, you can get drunk, bash someone, get a suspended sentence because prison for common assault is considered a bit heavy, and then be back on the piss that afternoon.

Curiously, there is already an example of such a thing in Polynesia: alcohol licenses in Tonga.

If one imagines a system in which a person could use basically whatever drug they wanted as long as they could complete a reasonable, objective, intelligently-designed series of tasks that demonstrated competency to use it with a minimum of negative externalities on society, it seems so much better than the stupidity we now have.

It would also bring some respect back for the mental health services, as it is currently impossible to have any when they lie to their patients about the medicinal value of various drugs: it would be impossible to get away with telling such lies under an evidence-based system.

This would also circumvent other problems, such as the potential for drug tourism. People who come on short visits to New Zealand won’t have drug licenses, and Kiwis will be reluctant to use their licenses to buy drugs because, if caught, they would lose them.

Such a system of licensing would make it much easier to correctly respond to societal health and crime problems than the current “destroy the drug user” model.

The Polish Intelligence Defence and VJM Publishing

The Polish Intelligence Defence, as described by Ben C. Vidgen in State Secrets [Second Edition now available for purchase!], is based around the idea of explicitly not keeping secrets. The concept is mentioned in the introduction of book but, cryptically, is not explained until the last chapter.

The essence of it is, as Vidgen puts it, “The Polish collected secrets pretty much off everyone, which they then promptly turned around and pretty much well gave away to everyone.”

Note that this does not involve being selective about telling some secrets and keeping others, otherwise known as the tendency to employ half-truths. The Polish Intelligence Defence relies on keeping no secrets, no matter whose.

If you don’t have secrets, then no-one has secrets!

VJM Publishing operates on a similar principle. Our objective is to bring knowledge to those who have seen beyond – and neither do we benefit from keeping secrets.

An eternal war exists between the force of truth and the force of lies: and VJM Publishing stands ready to serve as armourer. Understand, however, that we have no interest in telling you what the truth is. We are merely offering tools that can be used to distinguish truth from lies, and instructions on how to use them.

As Vidgen writes, “This modern interpretation of the term intelligence, with its obsession for secrecy, has taken over the entire purpose with which a nation has/or should have an intelligence service in the first place.”

After all, the purpose of a national intelligence service should not be to keep from the people the secrets of the Government (and this is what State Secrets is about). If anything, it is about keeping the people safe from all enemies, without or within.

Likewise, the purpose of a publishing company should not be to act as a mouthpiece for any special interest that wants to shove their propaganda into the mainstream consciousness, as immensely profitable as that may be.

The purpose of a publishing company should be to bring knowledge to people – if a person is willing to pay money for a book then making the trade a fair one necessitates that they are given a useful piece of knowledge in exchange.

VJM Publishing is proud to release a second, revised edition of State Secrets, for the reason that it is a book that tells a story New Zealand needs to hear. As described in the Second Edition Foreword, State Secrets was (and is) a very insightful book, not just for the details of what was happening on the ground but also for the noted trends that continued.

We believe that, if presented with the right information honesty and without a slant or agenda, people are naturally intelligent enough to make correct decisions. As a result, we agree with the spirit of the Polish Intelligence Service. Indeed, as an underground publisher, it is in our interests to.

The hope is that publication of the second edition of State Secrets will increase the standard of political discussion and debate in this country – something which is terribly and tragically lacking.

Indeed, it could be argued that the abysmal quality of political debate and analysis in New Zealand is the result of a deliberate attempt by certain forces to destroy our political culture and to retard our intellectual development through any and all forms of media.