The Real Stochastic Terrorism

The Western ruling class has invented a term – stochastic terrorism – as part of their ongoing effort to silence all dissenters. The term has been invented specifically to shut down challenges to that ruling class. Mainstream media has even defined stochastic terrorism as “when Trump or his allies encourage violence”. But this, like most things the ruling class say, is a monstrous lie.

The term is used whenever a terrorist attack occurs, to link the attack to anyone the ruling class doesn’t like. So when Christian supremacist Brenton Tarrant shot up a mosque in Christchurch, anyone who had ever spoken out against mass Muslim immigration became a stochastic terrorist.

The Western ruling class uses the term so broadly that it even covers “misinformation” and “conspiracies”. Because the ruling class is our “sole source of truth” (as per Jacinda Ardern), misinformation is defined as anything the ruling class doesn’t agree with. A conspiracy theorist is defined as anyone who suspects their government of lying about anything.

In reality, the Western ruling class are the stochastic terrorists, and they commit acts of stochastic terrorism every single day.

The most notable recent example of this was the live television broadcast of the shooting of a Donald Trump doll on the Breakfast show in New Zealand. The presenters of the show took it in turns to shoot the doll with a plastic shotgun that fires salt, a device invented to shoot flies.

The entire point of this display was to normalise violence against Donald Trump, and by extension nationalists, who are the only real enemies of the Western Establishment. Our rulers would love nothing more than for someone to murder Donald Trump. Hence, by process of “monkey see, monkey do”, they plant thoughts of killing him in people’s minds with stunts like the Breakfast show shooting.

If I had recorded a video of myself shooting a Jacinda Ardern doll, or a Joe Biden one, or a Muslim one, I would have had the Police at my doorstep by the end of the day, and I would probably appear in the global news. Probably I would face terrorism charges, and at the very least I would be arrested and interrogated. But, in the same way that Kathy Griffin faced no consequences for her Trump beheading stunt, none of the Breakfast show hosts will be so much as inconvenienced by a Police officer.

Why? Because stochastic terrorism is only a bad thing when ordinary people can be accused of doing it against their oppressors. Like all other human rights abuses, it’s considered legitimate when the rulers to do it against the people.

The blueprint for the Western Establishment’s use of stochastic terrorism to take out their political enemies is the murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002.

The Dutchman Fortuyn sent shockwaves through European politics by standing up for his own people in the face of international banking and finance pressure to open borders. He enraged the globalists by declaring that the Netherlands was “full”, and did not need any more Third Worlders. In particular, he derided Islam as a “backwards culture” and promoted closing the border to further Muslim immigration.

His most provocative move was to found a political party called the Pim Fortuyn List and run for power in the 2002 Dutch General Election. He was pilloried for this in the European media, and labelled a “far-right extremist” despite being a homosexual who campaigned for gay rights in the face of Abrahamic oppression. Those media stirred up an atmosphere of hate against Fortuyn like nothing ever seen outside of wartime.

However, reflecting the massive latent support for nationalism and anti-globalism among Western peoples, Fortuyn’s Livable Rotterdam party (the local equivalent of the Pim Fortuyn List) became the largest party in Rotterdam, Fortuyn’s home town, during the municipal elections that preceded the national one. Shortly afterwards, Fortuyn had a pie thrown at him, leading him to accuse the Dutch political establishment of fomenting violence.

Panicked at the possibility of losing power to nationalists, the globalist ruling class convinced one of their minions, a left-wing extremist named Volkert van der Graaf, to shoot Fortuyn dead on the 6th of May 2002. This murder led to the collapse of the Pim Fortuyn List, and, with it, any hopes that the Dutch had of resisting the globalist onslaught.

The murder of Pim Fortuyn is as clear-cut an example of stochastic terrorism as it’s possible to give, coming as it did after months of hysterical fearmongering. But the media never mentions the Fortuyn case when bleating about it. Like racism, stochastic terrorism is a crime that only the enemies of the Establishment can commit. When they do it, it’s fine.

The real terrorists are the mainstream media and the international banking and finance interests who own them. These people will lie about absolutely anything in order to keep the rest of us in fear and submissive. Any nationalist who stands up for their own people will be targeted with the real stochastic terrorism: the relentless campaign to demonise anyone not following the globalist agenda.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Whose Baby Is It Anyway? The Ethics Of Child Upliftment

The case of Baby Will has received international attention in recent weeks. Will needed heart surgery and his parents, quite reasonably, requested that the surgeons use blood that did not contain a Covid vaccine. The logic of Will’s parents was that the Covid vaccines have not been adequately tested, and therefore are not safe to put into an infant. The Government disagreed.

The Government’s position, as it always is, is that the Government decides what you’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. It doesn’t matter if you’re the one that ends up suffering from getting it wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got a postgraduate degree in the topic under discussion. Might makes right, and the Government has the might, therefore the Government is right.

The Government didn’t want Baby Will to be given unvaccinated blood. No official reason was given, but from unofficial statements it appears their chief concern was the logistical expense and hassle of needing to give unvaccinated blood to everyone who wanted it. As is often the case, the Government was reluctant to treat people humanely in case it set a precedent that they would be expected to live up to.

However, there was an impasse. Will’s heart surgery was urgent. Any delay waiting for official permission to use unvaccinated blood risked his death.

Rather than accede to the parents’ request, the Government uplifted Baby Will, sending Police officers in to rip him out of his mother’s arms. The surgery was performed with vaccinated blood, and Will was returned to his parents. As far as the Government is concerned, the story ends there. But questions remain.

If Baby Will had been given vaccinated blood, and if this blood turned out to have been harmful on account of that the vaccine had not been properly tested, and thereby may have had unexpected side-effects, the Government would have taken no responsibility for any of it. But Will’s parents – and Will – would be the ones who had to wear the consequences.

All the hypotheticals reduce to one question: whose baby is it anyway?

In the ancient Roman pater familias system, the fathers of the family exercised absolute control over the individual members. Not only did those fathers have the legal right to kill members of their own family, they were even obliged to in some cases, such as obvious deformities. Life was cheap in the ancient world.

Today we don’t have the same resource scarcity that Ancient Rome did. There is no longer a fear that feeding deformed children will lead to famine. So now we have a compromise position. The popular opinion today is that parents may exercise authority over their children, subject to certain exclusions that are widely agreed to cause harm.

Difficulty arises when it comes to areas where the existence of harm is not widely agreed upon. The real question is who gets to decide, in these edge cases, what constitutes harm. Like so many social issues, this question tends to break down into two sides: one authoritarian and the other libertarian.

The authoritarian position is that the Government should get to decide. In the case of Will, that means that the Government decides whether Covid-vaccinated blood is safe or not.

The libertarian position is, of course, that the parents, having the closest kinship bond with the child, ought to decide. It is the parents who will end up suffering the most if the Covid-vaccinated blood kills the child or not.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian side of social issues is in the ascendancy thanks to various recent outcomes like the cannabis referendum. With that referendum, a narrow majority of us said, yes, the Government can lock us up if we presume to decide for ourselves what goes into our own bodies. Because of outcomes like this, and others, the authoritarians within the Government have become emboldened.

As a result of the weak pro-freedom sentiments among Kiwis, the Government has seen fit to override the wishes of Will’s parents, reasoning that the New Zealand population will accept such authoritarianism. And we mostly have. The authoritarians in the New Zealand public howled for Will to be taken away and his parents prosecuted. So far, there have been no prosecutions, but a precedent has been set.

A predictable risk for the New Zealand people is that the same logic is next used for gender reassignment surgery. Globohomo likes to make the argument that denying gender reassignment surgery is risking that the trans person commit suicide. So in the eyes of the Government, denying gender reassignment surgery can carry a similar degree of risk to delaying Will’s surgery. And they were willing to uplift a baby over that.

Being torn away from one’s parents is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can go through. In order to justify it, the Government has to have excellent reason to believe that they’re preventing significant harm. In the case of Baby Will, the only potential for harm came from the Government itself. As such, they are very much the bad guys in this story.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

How Far Would House Prices Need To Fall For Young People Today To Have It As Good As The Boomers Did?

Boomers have been denying it for years, but young people all over the West have now caught on: the Boomers had it much, much better than young people today do. Measuring exactly how much better is hard, but we can guess by comparing how much saved labour Boomers needed to buy a house to how much saved labour younger generations need. Armed with the Reserve Bank’s Inflation Calculator, we can make some educated guesses.

If the last Boomers were born in 1963, graduated high school, then went to university or did a trade apprenticeship, they would have hit the job market – and started looking for a home to raise a family in – in about 1984. Any Boomers older than this would have had an even easier time. So we will compare the house-buying power of a young adult in 1984 with that of a young adult in 2022.

According to qv.co.nz, the average New Zealand house price in October 2022 was $951,040. The Reserve Bank calculator tells us that housing worth $951,040 in October 2022 would be worth $61,854.79 in the first quarter of 1984.

According to the Government’s NZ History page, the average weekly wage in 1984 was $285. This suggests that the average house price was about 217 times the average weekly wage in 1984. In other words, Boomers had to save about 217 weeks’ worth of wages in order to afford the average house.

According to the wage and salary guide at jobted.nz, the average weekly wage in New Zealand in 2022 was $1,093. So the average house price today is about 870 times the average weekly wage. This means that it’s over four times harder for young people today to buy a home they can raise a family in, when compared to Boomers.

The official narrative is that we need to grow wages if we want to bring back the living standards that our parents enjoyed. But there will never be enough wage inflation to bring today’s worker back to that level of prosperity. Our wages would have to quadruple while house prices remained the same. Therefore, if we are to ever enjoy that standard of living ourselves, we have to hope for a house price collapse.

A return to an average house price that was 217 times the average weekly wage would require a fall of 75.1% from current values. This means a fall from around $951,040 to around $236,809. Note that this would not mean that young people today had a better standard of living than the Boomers – it would merely mean that they would have an equal one.

An average house price of $236,809 seems fantastical to young people today.

It’s incredible how much easier life would be for young people in 2022 if the average house cost less than a quarter of a million. It would mean an end to the mortgage slavery that is strangling the West. It would mean that thousands of hours of labour per mortgage holder, currently getting sucked into bank profits, could be redirected to the benefit of families and communities.

That is also why we can’t expect it to happen – there is nothing more profitable than human misery, and mortgage slavery is one of the prime examples of that in the world today. The more expensive houses are, the more human life energy the owners of those houses can absorb from the lower classes in exchange for them. So the ruling class is not likely to change anything anytime soon.

Therefore, the best young Kiwis can hope for, if they want to ever have the same standard of living that the Boomers had, is a house price collapse of at least 75%. The mainstream media will tell us that we’re not allowed to hope for that, because it would mean the destruction of the New Zealand economy. But the status quo is our effective financial enslavement. Something has to give.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Are (You) A Domestic Terrorist?

The New Zealand Government took another leaf out of the authoritarian playbook recently. The NZ Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) published a guide for Kiwis keen to rat out one of their friends or neighbours for wrongthinking. Titled ‘Know the signs – A guide for identifying signs of violent extremism‘ (link goes to .pdf), the booklet marks another step in New Zealand’s descent into dystopia. VJM Publishing examines.

The document opens with a foreword by the ghoulish Director-General of the NZSIS, Rebecca Kitteridge. She explains that the NZSIS wants “to help New Zealanders feel more confident about stepping forward” to rat out their friends and neighbours. Apparently this is necessary in order to combat violent extremism, as one of the NZSIS’s core missions “is to detect violent extremists”.

The reader must note here that violent extremist has a very specific definition (as we will get to later). Mongrel Mob members, for example, are not considered violent extremists. The Government is happy to let violent extremists run free if they’re in gangs, because gangs mostly prey on working-class people. The NZSIS is after a different sort of violent extremist.

“We all have a role to play in keeping each other safe,” Kitteridge proclaims. To that end, we’re all obliged to report to the NZSIS any behaviour that might be concerning. “If you see something, say something,” the booklet demands, in an ominous echo of the wartime admonitions to help uncover enemy spies.

On page 6 it states the NZSIS’s wish for people “to report any behaviours or activities they come across that resemble any of the indicators described in this guide, or that feel concerning.” As we will see, the net has been cast so wide that almost every Kiwi with an original thought is now a suspected terrorist.

On page 8 we are informed that “Extreme ideologies can be based on faith, social or political beliefs that exist on the fringes of society, outside the more broadly accepted views and beliefs of most people.” This normative approach to extremism reveals that Kitteridge and the NZSIS are doing the Establishment’s bidding. If society believes that the Earth is flat, then saying it’s round is extremism.

More alarming is the assertion that violent extremists may seek “to create a community based on their ideology.” The fact is that you, the reader, are a head of human livestock, and you’re not allowed to seek out self-governance, any more than a slave is allowed to leave a plantation. Your community is that of the New Zealand Government, and they speak for you, as the sole source of truth.

The booklet gives the game away when it says “Extremists may seek to radically change the nature of government, religion or society.” This demonstrates that the NZSIS has no interest in truth, freedom or justice. Their interest is simply to maintain the status quo. Therefore, whoever has power is assumed to deserve to have power. The NZ Government is infallible, and so anyone wishing to radically change it is an extremist.

We are warned that “Violent extremists take these ideologies further and justify using violence to achieve radical changes.” Note that only violence used to achieve radical changes is considered bad. Violence used to maintain the existing order is of no concern. As such, the Government’s violence against the people, such as during the Wellington Protest or during the War on Drugs, is of no concern here.

The real material of interest begins on page 12, with the section titled ‘The indicators of violent extremism’.

Under ‘Mindset and ideology’, the booklet asks us to watch out for the person who “Consumes violent extremist videos, media, music or messaging”. The irony here is that the vast majority of violent extremist media consumed in New Zealand is consumed through watching the television news, and Normie television-watchers are far more dangerous than anyone else.

On that topic, we’re told to watch out for the person who “Develops a hostile ‘Us-Versus-Them’ worldview” and who “Makes dehumanising, hostile or violent statements against individuals or groups they perceive as ‘the enemy’ or the ‘other’.” Never in New Zealand history were people dehumanised as much as people who didn’t take the Coronavirus vaccine were in recent years – but the NZSIS isn’t interested in that.

Under ‘Association and relationships’, we’re told to watch out for anyone who “seeks a following to promote their cause.” Realistically this means anyone with even the remotest chance of having successful political influence. The subtext of this booklet is by now becoming clear: anyone who doesn’t submit to The Powers That Be is a security concern.

Even more worrying is being asked to watch out for anyone who “Becomes involved in a group […] where extremist ideas are discussed.” No VJM Publishing Chan Chat TeleGram channel. No 4chan. Not even an Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party forum. No politics are to be discussed by you at all, pleb! Just turn on the television and receive your thoughts for the next 24 hours.

Under ‘Research and planning’ comes the warning to watch out for anyone who “Searches for offshore conflicts related to their ideology.” So anyone with an interest in history is now a terrorist suspect. If you want to broaden your knowledge of the practical realities of your ideology – terrorist. Interested in World War Two? Terrorist.

After these hysterical and paranoid sections come a couple of sections of sanity. Under ‘Gathering knowledge, skills and resources’ the booklet asks us to look out for anyone who “Suddenly or unusually develops a stockpile of knives, firearms or explosive materials.” Under ‘Preparation’ it calls for us to be wary of anyone who “Declares intent to conduct a terrorist or violent extremist act.”

Entirely reasonable – but this hardly had to be asked for. Surely any sane person would contact the authorities if they heard someone else say they were going to commit an act of terrorism?

The next section, ‘Security awareness’, returns us to the madness, asking us to watch out for anyone who “Uses fake names, aliases or pseudonyms when online or within specific communities” (90% of Internet users) or “Creates exclusive groups on secure forums or messaging apps” (80% of Internet users). Again the common refrain: almost any of your neighbours, friends or workmates could be a terrorist waiting to strike.

Even more psychotic is the request to watch out for anyone who “Becomes secretive about their activities with associates” or “Provides limited or false information when questioned about future plans”. In Ardern’s New Zealand, just like in East Germany under the Stasi, secrecy is itself guilt. If you don’t want people prying into your affairs, you’re a terrorist suspect.

Hilariously, this section comes with a proviso that security awareness on its own is not enough to suspect that a person might be a terrorist. The obvious reason for this is because almost all NZSIS officers themselves would fall foul of almost all criteria here (which is why you’ve never spoken to an NZSIS officer using their real name on the Internet).

The final section, ‘Unusual changes in behaviour’, asks us to keep an eye out for basically anyone with a mental illness. Actions such as “Withdraws from or abandons close relationships”, “Appears withdrawn or prone to sudden outbursts” and “Stops participating in regular and established commitments” are all classical signs of depression or anxiety, which most of us are suffering from acutely in the 22nd year of Clown World.

In summary, the ultimate effect of this document will be to spread suspicion, mistrust, hate and fear between and among all communities in New Zealand. This may have been its intent, or the Government might still be chimping out in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!