Next Year's Referendums Will Pit The Church Against The People Of New Zealand

Next Year’s Referendums Will Pit The Church Against The People Of New Zealand

At the time of next year’s General Election, there will be at least two referendums. One will relate to cannabis law reform, the other to euthanasia. Both of them are likely to be fairly divisive, pitting large sections of the New Zealand population against each other. One of these conflicts, as this essay will examine, will be the Church against the people of New Zealand.

The Church is commonly perceived to be conservative. This is a mistake. People make this mistake because the Church opposes all kinds of social reform. But they don’t oppose all social reform – the Church is happy to open the borders to masses of illiterate Third Worlders who cannot be integrated. They only oppose some social reform, and there is a pattern to it.

The common thread to all the Church’s actions is that they all increase the power of the Church by increasing the suffering of the New Zealand people.

Christianity has always preyed on desperation. The more desperate a person is, the more willing they will be to subject themselves to the predation of the local vicar or priest. The more pitiful and wretched the man, the more likely they are to find salvation in a book of fairy tales about a magical Jewish carpenter. And when they do, they tend to write the Church into their wills.

It has always been a maxim of Abrahamism that misery will cause people to turn to the God of Abraham out of desperation. Happy people don’t need the God of Abraham – ample evidence comes from the declining rates of Christianity among the wealthy nations of Europe over the past hundred years.

If you’re the Church, happiness is bad for business. Therefore, the more misery they can create, the more powerful they grow.

In the same way the Church opposed the anti-smacking law (because they know child abuse leads to suffering) and they opposed homosexual law reform (because they know persecution of homosexuals leads to suffering), so too will they oppose cannabis law reform and euthanasia law reform. Their desire is to force New Zealanders to suffer, in the hope that our suffering causes us to give up on the material world and turn to Jesus.

The Church has never liked cannabis, for multiple reasons. This is strange if one considers that the Christian Bible states that God put cannabis here for our benefit (see Genesis 1:29). It’s not strange, however, if one understands that the Church is really a political entity and not really a spiritual one. Their primary objective is to grow in Earthly power, not to alleviate the spiritual suffering of New Zealanders.

One reason the Church has always supported the persecution of cannabis users is because cannabis is a spiritual sacrament that connects people to God, and the Church can’t earn money if people are connected to God by their own actions. The Church can only earn money by acting as an intermediary, and to that end they foster the need for an intermediary. This is why they have made such an effort, historically, to destroy all genuine spiritual and magical traditions.

Another reason is because cannabis is a medicine. As mentioned above, the Church gains power from people’s suffering and misery. Opposing cannabis law reform is the same thing as promoting anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress. All of those things create the kind of desperation that drives people into the arms of the Church or a particular congregation.

It’s for these reasons that cannabis is opposed by the Church and by Christians such as Bob McCoskrie.

The Church has never liked euthanasia either, as evidenced by the upset shown by Christian fundamentalist Alfred Ngaro at New Zealand First’s unwillingness to block the referendum on the issue. They have always known that the immense suffering that usually precedes death makes the dying person vulnerable to all kinds of trickery – in particular, a person is most likely to change their will to bequeath something to the Church when dying.

From the Church’s perspective, then, it’s best for the suffering of dying people to be drawn out as long as possible.

Fundamentally, what the Church wants is control. They don’t want us to have control over our lives – they want themselves to have control over our lives. They want to decide what we’re allowed to call a spiritual sacrament and when we’re allowed to die, much like they used to decide who we were allowed to love and when we were allowed to drink alcohol.

To this end, they will oppose both referendums because both offer to return control back to the people of New Zealand.

It’s clear to every thinking New Zealander that there would be less suffering if we had legal cannabis and euthanasia. Therefore, the Church is promoting the misery of the New Zealand people. They’re not doing it out of conservatism, or backwardness – they’re doing it because the Abrahamic cults are predatory ideologies of hate that gorge themselves on human misery.

Make no mistake – the Church is the enemy of the New Zealand people. They consider our suffering to be to their benefit, knowing that it will turn some of us, in desperation, to their arms. Anyone who opposes the evil that is Abrahamic religion and the political interference that the Abrahamic cults make in our lives is all but obliged to stick it to them next year.

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.

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy’?

Some psychiatric conditions are inherited, despite not being genetic

Of all the weird and rare psychiatric conditions, one of the strangest is Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. This is a particularly malicious kind of disorder that involves a parent or guardian deliberately abusing their child for the sake of getting attention for themselves. As this article will examine, Munchausen by Proxy may be making a comeback today.

Regular Munchausen Syndrome is fairly common. It’s the act of feigning an illness or infirmity for the sake of drawing sympathetic attention to oneself. Every schoolchild has done it at least once, usually to get off school when a particularly unfavoured event was on the day’s schedule. The trick is also often pulled when visiting the grandparents, in hope of some sweets or some money.

When adults do it, it’s considered a psychiatric disorder. Part of the reason for this is that Munchausen Syndrome can cause many thousands of dollars of money to be wasted in endless medical tests, as well as being a fraudulent attempt to manipulate.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is less common. This involves abuse of another, usually a dependent such as a child. Part of this involves a drive to create symptoms in the child, such that outside observers believe that the child is sick. The child itself may also believe it is sick, or may even genuinely be sick – the linked article above refers to a phenomenon where “a disease may actually be initiated in the child by the parent or guardian.”

All this raises a question. Given that many of the children who are supposedly realising themselves to be transgender are themselves the children of people who are transgender, it is possible that some of these cases of “trans kids” are really cases of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy?

Articles such as these create the impression that the parents of trans kids are brave warriors fighting the prejudice and bigotry of hordes of poorly educated morons. “Transphobia” is a new term that is designed to shame people into accepting the existence of trans kids, and to shame people away from asking questions about whether or not the child is being abused. Being the parent of a trans kid brings a lot of attention.

It’s very possible that many of the parents who find themselves looking after a “trans kid” are, in fact, child abusers who are initiating the idea of the child being trans. After all, there were very, very few such children back in the day before the idea became normalised, but now that the idea engenders sympathy (for both child and parent) there are many.

It’s certainly true that the parents who end up taking care of a “trans kid” end up getting a large amount of attention. Some of the individuals who have been featured in Internet articles for having trans kids have had their faces put in front of millions of people all around the world. Others have lengthy, sympathetic feature articles written about the struggles they faced with a transgender child.

Most people would dismiss all this sudden interest in being transgender as slightly narcissistic attention whoremongering, but the issue shows no sign of stopping there. It has now perhaps reached a decisive juncture thanks to the James/Luna Younger saga, in which the parents of a Texan 7-year old do not agree on whether the child is a boy or a girl.

The problem with this disagreement is that the mother wants the child, who is biologically male, to undergo hormone therapy treatment in order to “transition” into a female. This will effectively sterilise them and render them incapable of later functioning as an biological adult male. Naturally, this transitioning process is not reversible.

The father in this case is putting a lot of resources into preventing the child from undergoing this therapy. This means that a courtroom may soon have to make a ruling on whether the whole trans idea is legitimate or a mass psychosis. The father has done this under the belief that “detransitioning” is a nightmare, and an experience that any loving parent would rightly wish to guard their child from.

Is it possible that the modern media environment, with its unprecedented ability to reach new audiences faster than ever before, has also provided an unprecedented level of incentive for parents to publicly abuse their kids for the sake of seeking attention? Could this have incentivised some parents to manipulate their children into thinking they were transgender for the sake of gaining sympathy for that parent?

Some of these supposed “trans kids” may be children who have been manipulated into questioning their gender identity by a parent who is effectively subjecting them to medical abuse for the sake of attention. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy may be be making a comeback in the social media age.

It might to time to commission a study that looks into the phenomenon of transgender children in order to investigate whether it is what it claims to be. If some of these children are not genuinely transgender but are merely reflecting the ideas that one or both of their parents have pushed on them, then they might be child abuse cases rather than actual transgender cases. This might necessitate that some parents are prosecuted to stop the trend.

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

The War Criminal’s Apprentice

The great disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of the Sixth Labour Government has confused many people. Many people have been taken in by the mainstream media’s propaganda about kindness, and are therefore at a loss to explain what’s currently going on in our society. This article seeks to explain the psychology of Jacinda Ardern – the War Criminal’s Apprentice.

It was reported yesterday that New Zealand now has the highest suicide rate in its history, with 685 people taking their own lives last year. This is a figure greater than one Christchurch mosque massacre’s worth of deaths every month, and is almost double the road toll (especially if one considers that many road deaths in single-car accidents are disguised suicides).

This will surprise some, in particular those who expected the rate to go down after the 2017 General Election. After all, the mainstream media has made it very clear to us that the Sixth Labour Government is motivated by kindness, and that fixing New Zealand’s failed mental health system is a priority for them. But not only has Ardern’s Government not taken the correct measures to reduce suicide rates, they have purposefully taken measures that will raise them.

It might seem outlandish to the reader, even horrifying, to hear the claim that our politicians are literally willing to sell their own people out for personal gain. It is, however, true. Although the ideal is that politicians will represent the interests of their nation much as if they were the head of some great family, the reality is that politicians represent their own interests and consider the people and their votes much like a dairy herd and its milk output.

Some are even willing to cosy up to ideologies of hate if those individuals calculate that doing so will advance their career.

Jacinda Ardern has been willing to do this in multiple ways. Right from the beginning of her career, she demonstrated that not even a nine-figure body count was enough to make her willing to repudiate an ideology, whether that ideology be Communism or Islam. This she showed most infamously with her “Comrades” speech to the International Union of Socialist Youth in 2008, the year she was elected President.

Graduating from university in 2001 with a Communications degree, Ardern took a role as a staffer to Helen Clark. She must have been dutiful in this role, because she quickly ended up in London as a Senior Policy Adviser to Tony Blair’s Labour Government. This is presumably a role in some demand, and therefore not given lightly to people in their 20s unless they show special promise.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair committed the British Armed Forces to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This was done despite the fact that his plan to do so caused the largest protests in the history of the world – one million gathered in London to voice their disapproval, and three million gathered in Rome.

One million was also roughly the number of people killed by the invasion of Iraq, which means that Blair (alongside fellow warmongers George W Bush and John Howard) takes a position in the second tier of history’s greatest murderers. Ardern knew all this when she offered to work in his office, but it didn’t stop her. This fact is crucial to understanding her mentality.

It might seem incredible that a person supposedly committed to kindness would volunteer to work for a mass murdering war criminal – but Ardern did so in order to study his methods. She is every bit a willing apprentice to a war criminal. Anyone who considers the globalist wrecker of nations Tony Blair a model to base themselves on can only reasonably be treated with the deepest suspicion.

The reason why Ardern is opening the gates to mass Muslim immigration, as Blair did in Britain (Britain’s Muslim population increased 70% during Blair’s ten years in power), is twofold.

The first reason is that it strengthens the electoral position of the Labour Party. As Dan McGlashan showed in Understanding New Zealand, there was a significant correlation between being Muslim and voting for the Labour Party in 2017. Moreover, the average Muslim in New Zealand currently has qualified through normal immigration channels and is therefore more likely than usual to be educated and wealthy, and therefore less likely than usual to be a Labour voter.

Opening the borders to poorer and less educated Muslims than what New Zealand currently has is to all but guarantee that the majority of the newcomers will vote Labour. As has been seen in Britain, most Muslims already vote Labour, and can be relied upon to do so. Opening the borders to them, therefore, is to import a loyal voting bloc.

They also know that the more problems they can create, the more they can justify Government intervention. It’s no secret that mass Muslim immigration will bring with it widespread poverty, violence, property crime and sex crimes like child grooming gangs. This is only a drawback for the victims of those crimes. For politicians, it’s an opportunity to convince the public those politicians are needed to solve the public’s problems.

The second reason is that it promotes Ardern’s personal ambitions for future United Nations honours. Ardern is fully aware that one quarter of the world’s population is Muslim, and therefore that her desire to one day get a powerful role in the United Nations is heavily dependent on Muslim goodwill.

If Ardern’s psychology is to be understood, it has to be understood that she considers herself to be acting on the world stage, not on the New Zealand stage. This is the reason why she is dismissed, in some quarters, as the “Part-time Prime Minister.” Her audience is global, and far more important than mere Kiwis. Trivialities like running New Zealand can be delegated to Andrew Little.

Part of the reason for the brutal free speech crackdowns on New Zealand citizens (crackdowns that are in violation of existing New Zealand human rights law) is to maintain her appeal to the Muslim section of the globe. It’s also why the Sixth Labour Government doubled the refugee quota despite New Zealand’s worst ever housing crisis.

Putting followers of a foreign hate ideology above her own people is all but guaranteed to provoke immense resentment among New Zealanders. The bitter irony – that it’s precisely this kind of favouritism that leads to things like the Brenton Tarrant shooting – is lost in the hubris. So there’s every sign that New Zealand could be in for a tumultuous decade.

The desire to impress globalist interests is also why she doesn’t care about cannabis law reform, despite that there is an extremely strong desire for it among New Zealanders. There are simply no pro-cannabis blocs of voters at the United Nations, therefore no favour to be won by supporting the issue. It doesn’t matter that it would alleviate the suffering of large numbers of Kiwis.

It has to be emphasised at this point that Ardern simply doesn’t care about the human suffering that she causes through her ambition to become World Princess. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Ardern is the closest that New Zealand has ever had to a Hitler or a Stalin. The will to sacrifice any number of their own people to achieve personal goals is the common factor.

Who she most compares to is Blair himself, who was perhaps one order of monster lower than Hitler or Stalin. Nevertheless, like his fellow war criminal George W Bush, Blair is many times worse than even the most destructive serial killer. That Ardern willingly apprenticed herself to such a man, to learn his methods and strategies, speaks to an obscene degree of megalomania, perhaps exceeding anything New Zealand has ever previously produced.

The Advertising Standards Authority is Becoming the Ministry of Truth

In George Orwell’s 1984, one of the major departments of the Big Brother government is the Ministry of Truth. Ostensibly, the purpose of this division is to determine truth from falsehood, and to discourage the latter from being spoken or written. The reality, of course, is much more sinister. New Zealand is seeing the emergence of its own Ministry of Truth, in the form of the Advertising Standards Authority.

New Zealand doesn’t have a constitution, but we do have a Bill of Rights Act. Modelled on the American constitutional version, our Bill of Rights Act is meant to clearly delineate the areas in which the Government may not act to restrict our freedoms. Section 14 of this Act describes the right of every New Zealander to “freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

The right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things that aren’t true. I’m allowed to say that the world is flat. I’m allowed to say that cannabis has no medicinal value. I’m allowed to say that the Germans started World War Two. I’m allowed to say that a warlord who raped a nine-year old was the perfect man, that consciousness is extinguished when the physical body dies or that anyone who doesn’t worship Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef is going to burn in eternal hellfire.

I’m even allowed to write an entirely fictional novel about a two Anzac machine cultists and a machine that can control minds by satellite (as I did here), and present it as if were true for the sake of taking the reader for a ride.

Not only am I allowed to express any number of false ideas, but I’m allowed to express them in any form.

The first sign that alerted New Zealanders to the monster that the Advertising Standards Authority was becoming was the actions it took over the One Treaty One Nation flyers, published by the 1law4all movement. In an incredible act of arrogance, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that these flyers were not allowed to be distributed.

Incredibly, they ruled that speaking of the benefits of colonisation to the various Maori tribes “was likely to cause offence”, and was therefore verboten. Maori alt-media figure Tim Wikiriwhi wrote about how he did not find the flyer offensive, calling the Advertising Standards Authority’s move “yet another example of patent hypocrisy and pretentious arrogance against a legitimate political perspective that is calling for the abolition of treaty separatism.”

New Zealanders have the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, there is no Governmental agency that can arrogate to itself the right to decide when we’re not free to express ourselves. Unfortunately, evil individuals and groups have the free will to defy and deny these rights if we can’t stop them.

The Advertising Standards Authority shows no sign of wanting to end their power trip any time soon. Their latest effort involves forcing themselves into the political arena, by claiming the right to decide which political statements are permissible and which are not. Ominously, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that an advertisement made by the National Party “will be investigated for being potentially misleading.”

This move is in line with the wider agenda of the Sixth Labour Government to crack down on free speech by censoring everything that doesn’t suit their narrative. Megalomaniacal “Justice” Minister Andrew Little has already suggested as much. He weighed in on the issue to promote his pet project of criminalising hate speech by saying that the flyer “peddled myths” and calling its author an “ignorant fool”.

Given that it’s a fairly extreme move for a Government Minister to take to the mainstream media to insult and threaten a private citizen who is acting within his rights, many will be astonished to find out what the flyer actually claims. It’s actually a very tame document that merely asserts obvious and well-known truths, such as the fact that Maoris benefitted from colonisation.

The grim fact is that New Zealand is rapidly moving towards the point where we will only be allowed to express opinions that are on a pre-approved Government list. We are aided towards this miserable goal by entities such as the Advertising Standards Authority, who are acting exactly like 1984‘s Ministry of Truth.

The solution is to organise around the Sevenfold Conception of Inherent Human Rights. This would involve all true Kiwis agreeing that we have the God-given right to free expression, and that this right cannot be abrogated by arrogant shitheads in Parliament, no matter how narcissistic they are.

This would necessitate that all Kiwis agree to what is known as the Right of Silver, which is that all of us have the right to free expression, and that no Kiwi shall act to abrogate the right of any other Kiwi’s free expression. This means we agree that anyone acting to abrogate this right is an enemy of the New Zealand people on account of that they cause us suffering.