Many were stunned by the news this week that Daniel Havili, who killed Fau Vake with a coward’s punch in Auckland, was sentenced to a mere 33 months’ imprisonment. Havili will, in all likelihood, be released after serving a little over a year. Considering the historical severity of sentences for killing people, this is very close to getting away scot free.
This incredibly light touch comes in the wake of other soft sentences for violent assaults. In one notorious recent case, Mongrel Mob chapter president Terry Berryman was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment for an 18-man gang home invasion that stomped on a man’s head in front of his children. Most of the gang members involved were not prosecuted.
This has prompted many to ask: why such light sentences for such barbaric crimes?
These sentences seem incongruous with the fact that cannabis growers such as Harley Brown get a similar amount of time in prison for growing medicinal cannabis. Brown was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for a piddling amount of cannabis – at most $100,000 worth. This is for an “offence” that not even 51% of the New Zealand population believes should be an offence.
Other working-class whites, like Philip Arps, don’t even have to grow cannabis. Arps was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for sharing the Christchurch mosque shooting video.
So why do violent criminals almost get a free ride from the courts, when peaceful people get smashed? Why would sharing a video attract a similar sentence to a gang leader doing a home invasion in which children are subjected to the sight of their father getting his head stomped?
The answer lies in understanding the motivations, intentions and aspirations of the ruling class.
Everyone who knows anything about psychology knows that violent criminals cheer at such weak sentences as the ones listed above. For professional criminals, arrests and prison time are just part of the cost of doing business. The lighter the sentencing, the lower the expenses. Therefore, the lighter the sentencing, the more crime pays.
These weak sentences mean that criminals can freely intimidate other people with threats of violence, knowing that the judicial consequences will be minimal. When sentences are as weak as they are in the West today, violent criminals get to reign in terror over the vulnerable (usually working-class) communities in which they reside. Even if the Police deal to them, they’ll be out again soon enough, and in most cases barely inconvenienced.
This end result – widespread terror – is not accidental. It is, in fact, the entire goal of having a justice system in which violent criminals are left to run rampant. In a state of terror, both individuals and populations are unusually willing to forfeit their rights, needs and desires. As such, it’s easier to rule over a terrorised population than a free one.
The Government allows violent criminals to run rampant in New Zealand for one simple reason: to terrorise the rest of us into submission.
VJM Publishing wrote in a previous article why the Government lets in terrorists like the New Lynn supermarket stabber Ahamed Samsudeen. The reason is the same. They let violent criminals run loose for the same reason that they let terrorists run loose: to maximise the degree of fear the average person feels.
Widespread fear makes the population submissive, and is necessary for any authoritarian government to maintain control. Without the fear, the population would rise up against authoritarianism and overthrow it. The fear beats them down and makes them suspicious of their neighbours and workmates, so that no-one organises any resistance.
The control system has many ways of spreading fear through the populace – the foremost of which is the mainstream media – but violent criminals serve this purpose as well as terrorists do.
The surge of adrenaline people get from seeing a patched gang member in public, and the adrenaline fatigue that inevitably follows it, primes people’s minds to submit. Engendering this submission, as George Orwell showed us, is the end goal of all political action and is the ultimate aspiration of the control system.
Edward Bernays wrote about the need to manipulate the perceptions of others if we are to shape human behaviour in our favour. But, because different people have different ideas about how society ought to be run, there is conflict over who gets to manipulate perceptions, who gets their perceptions manipulated and to what degree. As such, we live in a state of informational warfare, which could be said to constitute a Third World War.
The ranks of this information war relate to the amount of influence a person has in shaping the perceptions of others. This essay describes a simple base-4 logarithmic scale that ranges from the most passive and receptive consumer of media to the most influential producer of media.
To act as someone’s main source of information means that a media channel sets the agenda for that person, shaping their basic reality. It tells them what to worry about, who to hate, and what to talk about with their peers. If it’s quality media, it will also tell them what will happen in the future or give them hidden insights into the nature of either the physical or metaphysical world.
As a basic rule of thumb, a media will be the main source of information for a number of people equal to the number of subscribers to that media divided by the average total number of media those subscribers are subscribed to. So a FaceBook channel with 1,000 subscribers, and to which the average subscriber is also subscribed to about 50 other media, will control the perceptions of about 20 people.
Another way of looking at it is that the average person consumes media for between 300 and 500 minutes every day. Taking 400 minutes as an average, that means that controlling 400 minutes of eyeball time is the equivalent of controlling the perceptions of one person. Therefore, a content creator whose content is viewed for 8,000 minutes per day will control the perceptions of about 20 people.
Yet another way of looking at it is in terms of votes. How many people’s voting decisions does this media control? After all, the main benefit of controlling a person’s voting choice is that it means you can destroy your enemies with the arms of the State, namely the Police and the other security services. As such, you have a strong incentive to try to climb as high as possible in the hierarchy of information warriors.
0. Cannon fodder/Civilian.
People at this level don’t even know there’s a war on. For them, war is something fought with bombs and machine guns, and those aren’t killing people right now, therefore there’s no war on. Any talk about informational warfare is “conspiracy theory”. People in this category range from the borderline skeptical at one end to those who believe 100% of what the television says at the other.
The cannon fodder in the information wars are those who watch the television news, listen to the radio or mindlessly click through YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter. They are the receptive principle that is battled for by the ranking officers of the information war: the middle-aged soap opera-watching housewives of the digital age.
1. Corporal (control 1-4 viewers)
This level is when a person controls the perceptions of a handful of other people as well as themselves. It corresponds to Aristotle’s idea that the head of a household was the basic unit of political structure. It’s roughly the amount of influence wielded by a part-time op-ed writer for a small town newspaper – just enough to tip the balance for a few people.
Someone at this level will control up to 1,600 minutes of eyeball time every day. This is like having one article of 800 words read 320 times, roughly the rate of a high-quality post on a decent-sized Internet forum. It might be equal to the ability to make a handful of sales per day.
2. Sergeant (control 5-16 viewers)
This level is equivalent to a person who has moderatorship of one medium FaceBook page or Telegram channel, or ownership of one small FaceBook page or Telegram channel. Someone at this level will control up to 6,400 minutes of eyeball time every day. This is like having 1,280 reads on one’s articles.
A person at the sergeant rank of information warrior should be able to influence others to further propaganda from the sergeant on their own initiative. This means that at least some other people will seek out the sergeant for information, and will repeat that information to others.
3. Lieutenant (control 17-64 viewers)
Someone at this level will control up to 25,600 minutes of eyeball time every day. Assuming two minutes of reading time per page, this is like having 12,800 pages of one’s material read in book form per day. If all this reading was done on Amazon under the Kindle program, it would pay some $US80 per day.
It’s a level of influence roughly equivalent to the amount wielded by a clan representative at a council meeting of village leaders, i.e. someone who represented half a dozen or so families. Someone at this rank will be expected to create original content and disseminate it to followers.
4. Captain (control 65-256 viewers)
Someone at this level will control up to 100,000 minutes of eyeball time every day. This is the equivalent of someone’s 800-word article being read by 20,000 people, or someone’s 10-minute-long video being seen by 10,000 people. It’s enough influence to rile several dozen people up into action.
It’s roughly equivalent to having up to 50,000 pages of your material read on the Amazon Kindle program per day, which would easily pay enough money to live on in most parts of the West. This is a significant amount of influence, because it means that someone at this rank can work as a full-time propagandist (or information warrior).
5. Major (control 257-1,000 viewers)
To rank as a major in the information war means to be the main source of information for between 257 and 1,000 people. This is about the amount of influence wielded by one news anchor or chief journalist at a regional (i.e. subnational) television station, or by a YouTuber at the top of a small niche.
The larger bloggers are at this level, those getting at least 100,000 hits a day. They are comparable to majors because they will direct the perceptions of dozens of people who will themselves go on to direct the perceptions of dozens of others each. To fully control the perceptions of around 1,000 people is the equivalent of partially controlling the perceptions of a few tens of thousands.
6. Brigadier (control 1,001-4,000 viewers)
Such a person would be the main source of information for between 1,001 and 4,000 viewers. This equals roughly a million minutes of daily eyeball time, like holding the attention of a small city for long enough to recite a civil defence broadcast.
Being a contributor to the single most-received media in a major city or minor country would qualify a person for this rank. It reflects a significant level of responsibility, as someone at this rank will themselves control the equivalent of half a dozen full-time information warriors. A brigadier ought to be able to summon enough warriors to significantly alter public perception on minor topics.
7. Colonel (control 4,001 to 16,000 viewers)
A colonel in the information war controls several millions of hours of eyeball time per day. This means that their content either has a minor global presence or a major presence in a major country. Such a person will have many tens of thousands of other people discussing them and their propaganda on a daily basis, all around the world.
Information warriors at the rank of colonel will heavily influence those who themselves have significant media influence. Legions of people will come to them directly every day to hear what the agenda is, or what to think about certain major issues.
Examples of colonels in the information war would be Alex Jones or Jordan Peterson.
8. General (control 16,001+ viewers)
A general is the highest rank of the information war. The perceptions of the whole world are effectively under the control of people at this rank. Such a person would either be a global celebrity reknown for their opinions, or in charge of a major global media channel, such as chief editors of the most influential global magazines, or chief directors of major 24/7 television news channels.
Some might argue that controlling the perceptions of 20,000 people isn’t really very many, but most people’s perceptions are already tightly controlled by previous influences over the course of their lives and, as such, can only be influenced to a limited degree. So a person who ultimately controls the decisions made by 20,000 or more people is extremely powerful. It’s the equivalent of partial control over the perceptions of millions.
An example of someone at this level would be Joe Rogan.
The main network television news in New Zealand gets 750,000 viewers a day for a 60-minute program. Assuming that 30 minutes is watched of that program on average, that equals 22,500,ooo eyeball-minutes, or perceptual control over more than 50,000 people. The hundreds of people who work on these broadcasts would reflect the efforts of several colonels working together with their many underlings.
After decades of waging the War on Drugs against us, the reputation of the New Zealand Police in the eyes of the New Zealand people was already low, but this month it took a crash dive into depths never before plumbed. The actions of the New Zealand Police this month showed clearly that they are the enemies of the New Zealand people, willing to follow any order to harm Kiwis in the service of the authorities.
The first disgrace was when the Police flew a helicopter over a property in Coromandel to spray poison on a dying cancer sufferer’s medicinal cannabis plants. The unnamed cancer sufferer had been given pharmaceuticals for their suffering, but found them ineffective in comparison to cannabis, so began growing cannabis to produce a medicine that would help them overcome the cancer pain.
It’s hard to imagine a lower dog act than to destroy a sick person’s medicine. Only the most wretched of authoritarians would think that was justifiable. But the New Zealand Police will happily follow orders to destroy the medicine of other Kiwis. All they require is for an authority figure to say that the medicine is actually a dangerous drug, and they go on the attack.
The second disgrace was their use of violence against peaceful protesters on the Wellington Parliamentary lawn during the ongoing anti-mandate protests. At one point, officers went in and dragged a woman out by her hair. At another point, a Maori youth got his head squeezed by a full weight press from another officer. While not necessarily disgraceful by the standards of Anglo countries, it certainly was by the standards of anyone who expects a K-selected quality of policing.
As this video shows, New Zealand Police officers feel no shame at what they do. This is partly because police officers in all countries deal with the scum of society, and sometimes inadvertently generalise those experiences to the population at large. But it’s also at least partly because some of those officers are malicious and sadistic inside their own hearts, and enjoy the opportunities their job gives them to abuse people and get away with it.
The officer in the above video is representative of the New Zealand Police. Most New Zealand Police officers have similar sentiments towards the New Zealand public, as proven by the fact that no officer is willing to speak out against the abuses they commit. Like the staff of concentration camps, New Zealand Police officers just go along with the crimes committed by their fellows.
The New Zealand Police have demonstrated that they’re willing to cause any amount of suffering to Kiwis if they are given the order to do so. They have no concept of “fellow citizens”. There is no solidarity towards us, the New Zealand people, on behalf of the New Zealand Police. The New Zealand people are, as the officer put it in the clip linked above, The Great Unwashed.
If they were given orders to mow us down like dogs, Tiananmen Square-style, they would obey those orders.
Ultimately, however, it’s not their fault. As the Police say themselves, “the job is fucked.” It need not be, but it is. The Police should be taking orders from wise and benevolent leaders, but such people are not in power. Those in power are globalist authoritarians like World Economic Forum lackeys Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron. These authoritarians are at war with their people – at war with us – and the Police are just tools at their disposal.
The Police, deep down, know that their actions place them in the same moral category as the criminals they claim to be protecting us from. So we must help them heal. The strategy must be to win in the same way Gandhi defeated the British – through good vibes and good cheer. The Camp Freedom protesters on the Parliament lawn are already showing how this can be achieved – with music, singing and dancing.
Part of reconciling the Police with the people must be ending the obviously failed and sadistic War on Drugs, which has already ended in many American states. It’s insane for Police to be spraying poison on people’s cannabis plants when states such as Washington and Oregon have already advanced beyond medicinal cannabis to medicinal psychedelics. Even Thailand, whose cannabis laws were infamously much harsher than New Zealand’s 20 years ago, has now legalised growing cannabis at home.
Colorado legalised cannabis in 2014, and they now have a $US 2.2 billion annual cannabis market. The anti-mandate protests aren’t about cannabis, even though a lot of it has been smoked in Camp Freedom. But the cannabis issue is one of several contributing to the frustration and rage that have fuelled these protests. That Ardern’s Government hasn’t taken the simple and easy measure of legalising cannabis, when all the evidence supports the idea, has convinced many that our ruling class aren’t interested in our well-being.
Until some kind of reconciliation occurs, the New Zealand Police need to be considered an occupying army, acting to bring the New Zealand people into a state of subjugation on behalf of the international banking and finance interests who own the governments of the world.
Although New Woke dogma has it that all of the different human racial groups are precisely identical on all measures of psychological ability and aptitude, the VJM Publishing reader knows this to be crap. A proper understanding of human biodiversity demands that the unique nature of each of the various racial groups is understood individually. This essay explains.
White people are from the northern reaches of human civilisation. Near the Earth’s poles, sunlight strikes the surface at an sharp angle, resulting in much weaker sunbeams than near the equator. Also near the Earth’s poles, the seasonal variation is much more extreme, leading to extremely long and harsh winters.
The combination of weak and sometimes non-existent sunlight means that the skin of the inhabitants of the northern reaches evolved to be white. Light-coloured skin is an advantage in polar regions because it is more sensitive to sunlight. This makes it possible for light-skinned people to absorb enough sunlight to generate their Vitamin D requirements, something that dark-skinned immigrants to Northern Europe struggle with.
The polar climate not only explains the physical expression of white people, but also our psychological expression.
Psychologically speaking, the closer one comes to the poles the more autistic people become, and the closer one comes to the Equator the more psychotic people become. This is most clearly expressed by the polar populations behaving in a more orderly fashion, and the equatorial populations behaving in a more disorderly fashion.
The manifestations of this distinction are obvious. Polar societies are clean, tidy and regimented, with a strong rule of law, and the houses of people who live in these societies tend to also be clean and tidy. Equatorial societies, by contrast, are dirty, shabby and chaotic, and so are the everyday lives of the inhabitants of those societies.
This increased propensity for order in polar societies is mostly an adaptation to the cold climate. Cold weather punishes disorderly behaviour. Anyone who goes outside without the right clothing soon becomes sick. Anyone who doesn’t maintain their house to a high standard freezes. Anyone who fails to chop enough wood or store enough food for the winter dies. In the cold North, an inability to impose order upon one’s physical environment means death.
Following from this naturally high level of orderliness, white people are great at any cultural expression dependent on order. Anglo-Saxon legal culture has created many of the world’s most peaceful and least corrupt jurisdictions. Northern European science is responsible for most of humanity’s technological and medical advancements. The combination of Anglo-Saxon and German engineering built spacecraft that took men to the Moon.
However, there’s a flipside, and it’s why we cannot simply say that more orderly cultures are superior to less orderly ones.
White people are terrible at spirituality. No white person has ever founded a mainstream religion (although we’ve tried with Elementalism). The founders of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism were all from equatorial climates, and this is even true of the founders of the Abrahamic death cults. For most white people, spiritual talk is mental illness, and spiritual people are insane.
This lack of spiritual aptitude is our great weakness – so great that it has destroyed us and any chance we had of living happily.
Most religious white people superstitiously worship Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, believing this ancient rabbi to be God in human form. This mindless adulation of a long-dead rabbi would be laughable were it not for the fact that white people will happily kill other whites who refuse to bow the knee. Events such as the Thirty Years War saw some six million whites killed by their fellows over different interpretations of Abrahamism.
Truly spiritual white people, such as the users of traditional spiritual sacraments like cannabis and psilocybin, are shunned by their societies. White autism has rendered the average white person incapable of understanding or appreciating true spiritual insight when presented with it. As such, most white people are entirely cut off from the divine.
This spiritual weakness has had a range of devastating effects. Worshipping Rabbi Yeshua does nothing to alleviate one’s natural fear of death. As a result, our prodigious intellects are chained to animalistic desires. We use our minds for little other than acquiring wealth in the mistaken belief that our unhappiness comes not from spiritual poverty, but from not owning enough stuff.
White people take enormous amounts of psychiatric medication because we are deeply unhappy. However, we are not unhappy because our outer worlds are disorderly, but because our inner worlds are disorderly. Our hearts are not in tune with God, as the hearts of psychotics are. Understanding this godlessness is the key to understanding white people.
In the same way that blacks ought to become more autistic, and thereby more capable of imposing order upon the physical, white people ought to become more psychotic, and more capable of imposing order upon the metaphysical. The way forward for whites is for us to overcome our natural autism and learn to connect more deeply to the world behind the appearance of the physical.
