Category: psychology

Understanding New Zealand: Wealth and Poverty

moneymoneymoney

This is the one correlation everyone knows. In fact, this might reflect the single most fundamental division in politics: the have-nots trying to get and the haves trying to keep. Kids at primary school figure out that rich kids are more likely to be conservative than poor ones, and nothing changes at adult level. So this article looks at correlates with Net Personal Income.

A vote for National has a moderate 0.53 correlation with Net Personal Income, whereas a vote for Labour is -0.51. These two are probably of the same magnitude because they reflect mainstream, everyday people rationally voting for what suits their economic interests (the rich for less sharing, the poor for more sharing).

Perhaps the most interesting is that the correlation between voting Conservative and Net Personal Income is an insignificant 0.06. The Conservative Party may have had a wealthy backer splashing the cash, but the sort of person who votes for them is much less big money than the average National Party voter. Possibly this reflects the degree to which religious fundamentalists were attracted by Craig’s righteous message – and religious fundamentalists are known for being uneducated and thus poor.

The correlation with ACT is 0.36, which is interesting because this is not as high as it is for National. This tells us that ACT voters are actually poorer than National voters – which goes against the stereotype of ACT being a party only for big business. They are, however, significantly more wealthy than average. This could reflect a voter base of young professionals who are doing well but lack the seniority for the really big money.

With voting New Zealand First the correlation with Net Personal Income is -0.59, which means that the average New Zealand First voter is even poorer than the average Labour one. This can be explained to a large degree by the fact that New Zealand First’s support base consists mostly of Maoris and of pensioners.

Voting for the Cannabis Party and Net Personal Income had a correlation of -0.40, which suggests that the average cannabis user, while hard done by, isn’t doing quite as bad as the average Labour or New Zealand First voter.

The correlation with voting for the Maori Party and Net Personal Income was -0.35. The fact that this is weaker than the correlation between being Maori and Net Personal Income (-0.48) suggests that the Maori Party attracts a relatively wealthy section of Maoridom.

It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that people of European descent are significantly wealthier than the average Kiwi – this had a correlation of 0.35 with Net Personal Income. Some might be surprised by the fact that this is a higher correlation than that of being Asian with Net Personal Income, at 0.22. This might reflect the fact that, although Asian immigrants often come here with a considerable amount of capital, their children usually end up the same kind of pleb as the rest of us.

Maoris are also much poorer than Pacific Islanders, which might surprise some. The correlation between Net Personal Income and being Maori is -0.48, whereas for Pacific Islanders it is -0.29. This might reflect the fact that a relatively higher proportion of Islanders have immigrated to New Zealand for full time work, and therefore a relatively lower proportion of them are students, children or beneficiaries.

Another correlation that will surprise no-one is that between having a Master’s degree and Net Personal Income (0.67). This was almost as strong, in the other direction, as having no qualification and Net Personal Income (-0.68). That the correlation between having a Master’s degree and Net Personal Income is stronger than with either voting National or being white underlines the value of an advanced education in an advanced post-industrial economy like New Zealand.

There is also a correlation of 0.27 between Net Personal Income and no religion. This probably reflects the fact that the religious are less likely to become educated and therefore will have less opportunity to trade their labour for high amounts of money. The correlation with being Christian was an insignificant -0.07, probably reflecting the degree to which Christianity is mainstream. The correlation with being Buddhist was 0.32, probably reflecting that immigrants from Buddhist cultures to New Zealand historically tended to be well-educated.

A statistic that will depress some and enthuse others is that the correlation between Net Personal Income and voting in the 2014 General Election is 0.52, which reflects the degree to which the poor are disenfranchised by politics in New Zealand (this correlation cannot be explained by age alone).

*

This article is an excerpt from Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan, published by VJM Publishing in the winter of 2017.

Why Are Psychiatrists Allowed to Violate the Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand?

electroshock

Giving someone medical ‘treatment’ against their will and very arguably to their own long-term detriment is explicitly forbidden under Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Despite this, it happened on at least five occasions last year in New Zealand with electroshock therapy alone. How?

The answer lies in the Mental Health Act. Specifically Section 60, which allows a psychiatrist to override the Bill of Rights Act if they feel that it’s in the best interest of the patient.

Note that the will of the patient is considered a non-factor here.

Note also that a short few centuries ago, people were burned at the stake because authority figures decided that it was in the best interests of their immortal soul. Have we really come out of the Dark Ages? One suspects that the people getting electroshock therapy despite having explicitly refused consent may be inclined to think not.

Section 59.4 of the Mental Health Act reads: “The responsible clinician shall, wherever practicable, seek to obtain the consent of the patient to any treatment even though that treatment may be authorised by or under this Act without the patient’s consent.”

Who decides what is practicable? Certainly not the patient – and here the problem lies.

If treatment may be authorised without the patient’s consent by the Mental Health Act then the Mental Health Act overrides the Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand.

There’s only one reasonable conclusion to draw from this: mental health patients are lower than criminals in our society.

This proposition can be supported with a little thought.

It’s a common experience for a mentally ill person to come into contact with a system that refuses to help them, especially if that person’s illness makes it difficult to hold down a work schedule (or to work full stop) and so they need financial assistance.

Even worse, there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of the mental health services to make sure that the people who come to them for help are treated fairly.

Complaints against abusive mental health practitioners are usually treated with the same stonewalling as complaints against soldiers or police officers. Once a person is diagnosed with a mental illness, any allegation of abuse they make is simply written off as a delusion.

Contrast this state of affairs with what happens if a person chooses of their own free will to chop the head off another human being and rape the corpse.

In the case of such a grisly, senseless rape-murder, that murderer will be provided with a lawyer to guide them through the whole process of arrest, detention, custody, trial, sentence and aftermath, making sure that at each step they are fully aware of their rights. That lawyer, who will be provided to a murderer for free if they have no money, will ensure that nothing untoward happens to his client at any point.

If the murderer doesn’t like the punishment handed down for his act of murder he has the right to appeal to a higher court (his lawyer will naturally advise him at length here).

And if justice is still not done to the murderer’s satisfaction, there are Supreme Courts to help him, Ombudsmen, Police Complaints Authorities etc.

There is nothing like that for mental health patients in New Zealand. If you need a benefit because you are in an advanced state of psychosis and don’t want to starve to death in the meantime, you have 30 minutes with a psychiatrist and if you can’t convince them in that time it’s fuck off and die for you.

No appeal to a higher authority, no-one advising you of your options, nothing. Just out onto the street to fend for yourself, even if you’ve paid taxes for many years. The assumption seems to be, then, that you were just a parasitic malingerer trying to bludge a benefit.

In New Zealand it’s easier to find a doctor to perform electroshock therapy on a patient who has explicitly withdrawn their consent (five cases known in 2015) than it is to find one who will help their patients acquire medicinal cannabis (zero cases known in 2015).

That’s a sobering thought to anyone who believes the healthcare system is looking out for them.

If you want another, think that all the New Zealand has to do to destroy anyone deemed a thought criminal in 2016 is to find a psychiatrist who agrees and that psychiatrist will have the legal right to destroy that thought criminal’s mind with ‘medication’ or ‘treatment’ that could have any desired effect out of all the neurological reactions known to human biochemistry.

One of the best understood of which is sedation.

The thought criminal could be placed on a medication such as Olanzapine, a heavy enough dose of which will slow down the mind of the patient/victim to such a degree that stringing together ‘subversive’ thoughts would simply not be possible. This ‘chemical lobotomy’ is how people are silenced nowadays, now that physical lobotomies are illegal.

Giving someone electroshock therapy when they have explicitly refused treatment is as barbaric as the corrective rape practiced in Africa to try and ‘cure’ women of lesbianism.

It’s a very sad state of affairs when mentally ill people cannot have any confidence that the system they need to ask for help actually intends to help them. Yet, that is the state of affairs in New Zealand today.

Cannabis Use is Spiritual Hygiene

cannabishygiebne

There’s no way to avoid accumulating physical filth if one has a body. The basic demands of thermostasis require an intake of energy in the form of food, which necessitates both moving around and sweating as well as excreting waste products – both of which tend to make you smell bad. Basic hygiene, then, is to wash one’s body before the smell becomes offensive to others.

More offensive than a bad smell is a rotten spirit.

Unfortunately we live in a spiritually degenerate age and spiritual hygiene is not well practiced. The majority of people are unaware of the influence their rotten spirit has on others and have difficulty understanding how this works to their ultimate detriment.

In everyday life, our basic choices are twofold: you can meditate if you want the equivalent of a long, relaxing bath in perfumed water, or you can smoke cannabis if you want to equivalent of a quick shower under a strong blast of water.

The reason why cannabis has a spiritually cleansing effect is this. In the course of one’s everyday life, one inevitably encounters things that cause one to suffer, because life is suffering. The act of suffering causes one’s ego to develop, as the ego naturally develops to protect oneself in response to pain.

Possibly the most common kind of mental problem in the world is that caused by ego arising in response to pain and then not properly dissipating again when the pain is gone. Usually this is because the memory of the pain causes depression or dread about it happening again, or because a stimulus associated with the pain (such as a person) is still present in the environment.

This is where cannabis is so great. Using cannabis regularly has the effect of releasing the user from unconscious anxieties and neuroses brought on by too much worry. The warm, comforting and relaxing feeling brought on by the anandamide reminds one that everything is fundamentally alright, and that there is likely to be much joy in one’s future.

Rastas know this. This is why they get together in “reasoning sessions” to smoke cannabis and to discuss the nature of reality. This is done explicitly to heighten feelings of community and spirituality.

It’s sadly obvious that making cannabis illegal is evidence that we are living in a spiritually degenerate age. This could be by design, as the easiest way to enslave a people is to separate them from spiritual truth and thus incite fear in their hearts. it could be by accident, as the cumulative magnitude of our egos distracts us from facing up to the truth.

Cannabis use is spiritual because it frees people from fear, and in doing so liberates them from powerful instinctual and conditioned impulses to harm and exploit one another.

Its prohibition is a crime against the human spirit.

Reefer Makes Darkies Think They’re as Good as White Men

anslinger

When the propaganda push to make cannabis illegal began in earnest in the West during the 1930s, some utterly ludicrous things were spoken. The public’s fear of everything – murder, sexual permissiveness, black people – was associated with cannabis in an effort to condition them to think about the plant as negatively as possible.

One of the major tactics used in this propaganda war was to create the perception in the public mind that cannabis use was the rightful province only of the lesser races. Even the name ‘marijuana’ was chosen specifically so that the public would associate it with Mexican labourers and thus as the habit of a foreign culture.

Racism was so deeply entrenched in the America of the 1930s that prohibitionists knew that if they could convince the booze-soaked white masses that cannabis was a black man’s drug then the public would come to support its prohibition.

Arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger even said, when speaking to powerful figures who he wanted to convince to support prohibition, that “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

Perhaps the really crazy thing, however, is that Anslinger was, in an inadvertent way, right: cannabis does make black people think they’re as good as white people. The explanation for why this is appears simple once you ask yourself why black people didn’t already think they were as good as white people.

Black people are conditioned to thinking of themselves as lower value, because this conditioning is reinforced so frequently that it cannot be escaped unless shattered at once. It’s enforced every day by small displays of social contempt, by news about the deaths of black men in Police shootings, by seeing the neglected state of black neighbourhoods.

Cannabis has the effect of breaking a person out of their psychological conditioning. Cannabis is like a lunar caustic to all the ways a person is programmed (without their consent and usually even without their knowledge) to behave in ways detrimental to themselves (or, more to the point, in ways beneficial to their programmers).

Note that a person enslaved by their psychological conditioning is worth hard money to their programmer. The more brutalised a person is, the lower the wages they will accept working for, generally speaking. As cannabis heals psychological damage, it can easily lead to workers asking for more money. Thus, the widespread use of cannabis is a threat to the capital value of the mind controllers.

The psychological conditioning that has gone into inducing black people to accept such a poor place in society is as brutal and as overwhelming as anything the Nazis thought up. It requires thousands of what are at least small displays of contempt and disrespect, enough so that black people regularly internalise much of this hatred and start to believe themselves worthy of it.

There are multiple problems with cannabis then, from the point of the view of the ruling class.

A less obvious one is that the deconditioning effect of cannabis will make white people stop thinking they’re better than black people as well, because much white supremacy is based on the same conditioned responses to thousands of social cues that contempt for other races is.

This possibility is so frightening to the modern control freaks that they dare not so much as utter the possibility of it.