VJMP Reads: Gaddafi's Green Book III (fin)

VJMP Reads: Gaddafi’s Green Book III (fin)

This reading carries on from here.

Part III is titled ‘The Social Basis of The Third Universal Theory’. This is divided into eleven chapters.

In the first, ‘The Social Basis of The Third Universal Theory’, Gaddafi declares that the social bond is the basis for the movement of history. Each group has common social needs which must be collectively satisfied. The national struggle is the basis of history. “…just as community is the basis for survival of all groups within the animal kingdom, so nationalism is the basis for the survival of nations”.

“Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin.” The destruction of nations leads to minorities. National unity is the basis of survival – Gaddafi compares it to gravity. Gaddafi channels Edward O Wilson at one point, stating that the social bond works automatically towards the goal of national survival. Nationalism is the secret of group survival and it’s harmful to go against this. He observes that marriage within a group strengthens its unity.

In the second, ‘The Family’, Gaddafi compares the family to a plant, both being an expression of Nature. Any “dispersion, decline or loss of the family” is unnatural and could be compared to the destruction of a plant. Gaddafi compares society to a garden. The ideal form is one in which the individual can flourish within the family and the family within society. A society in which individuals lived without their families would be artificial.

In the third, ‘The Tribe’, Gaddafi notes that a tribe is just an extended family, and a nation is just an extended tribe. This same point was noted in Aristotle’s Politics. “The relationship which binds the family also binds the tribe, the nation, and the world.” Feelings of kinship decrease the larger the kinship group is. Gaddafi ridicules those who think otherwise.

In the fourth, ‘The Merits Of The Tribe’, Gaddafi describes the tribe as a secondary family. It raises and educates those within it. It also allows more freedom than the family, which supervises closely. Blood is the prime factor in its formation, but a person or family can be part of the tribe by affiliation and then later part of the tribe by blood.

In the fifth, ‘The Nation’, Gaddafi notes that loyalty to any one of family, tribe, nation and humanity weakens loyalty to the other three. Selfishness is harmful to the wider group, but self-respect is beneficial to it. A shared destiny is essential to nationhood. “The national state is the only political form which is consistent with the natural social structure.” The nation-state will naturally endure unless attacked from the outside or unless it collapses into tribal mentality.

All states composed of multiple nations will eventually destroy themselves, because the social factor of national bonds will inevitably triumph over the political factor. The tribe develops individuals at the post-family stage, and the nation develops individuals at the post-tribe stage.

In the sixth, ‘Woman’, Gaddafi opens by declaring it self-evident that men and women are equal as human beings. However, the fact that both exist and not just one shows that they occupy different roles. Men and women cannot replace each other in those natural roles. Nurseries are unnatural and should not exist, save for the case of orphans, where nurseries are better than foster homes.

“In need, freedom is latent.” Therefore, women should not be forced to work to provide the necessities of life. Belief in gender equality deprives women of their freedom. Gaddafi notes, with disapproval, that societies everywhere seek to turn women into men. “Men and women must be creative within their respective roles.” Women should not be forced to carry out men’s duties to gain equality with men.

In the seventh, ‘Minorities’, Gaddafi outlines two kinds of minorities. One belongs to the nation, which provides its social framework, whereas the other must form its own social framework. He suggests that the problems of minorities have to be solved at the national level, in a society controlled by the masses. Minorities should not be seen as substrata.

In the eighth, ‘Black People Will Prevail In The World’, Gaddafi claims that black people are motivated to vengeance by slavery. Much as Asians and white people had eras of dominance over history, so too will the blacks. He notes that the backwardness of blacks has led directly to their numerical superiority. The populations of other races are declining because of their obsession with work, but this hasn’t affected the blacks.

In the ninth, ‘Education’, Gaddafi speaks against rote learning. He notes that the style of education that is typical in the world goes against human freedom. Forcing a human to learn according to a curriculum is dictatorship. State-controlled and standardised education stultifies the masses. Education of all kinds of subjects should be available. “Knowledge is a natural right of every human being.”

In the tenth, ‘Music And Art’, Gaddafi laments that there is no common human language. He makes the startling claim that the stylistic sentiments of earlier generations are passed down to later ones in the genes. “People are only harmonious with their own arts and heritage”. Eventually, Gaddafi claims, all people will speak one language, or society will collapse.

In the eleventh, ‘Sport, Horsemanship And The Stage’, Gaddafi equates spectator sport with watching someone pray or eat at a restaurant. Much of this chapter has no real Western context, as our participatory sports are organised in a different way. He agrees with the general Western sentiment that sports should be for the masses. But he makes some odd claims, such as that the grandstand was invented to deny popular access to the sporting field.

In summary, Gaddafi’s The Green Book is a wide-ranging summary of his political and social beliefs. It is penetratingly insightful at places, and bafflingly vague at others. His criticisms of democracy, as it is practiced, are brilliant, but the book is light on practical detail regarding the alternative. Far from coming across as a dictator, Gaddafi seems intelligent and reasonable in this book. There is no focus on destroying his enemies, but rather on how a great country could be built on nationalist and socialist principles.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 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 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, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

VJMP Reads: Gaddafi’s Green Book II

This reading carries on from here.

Part II is titled ‘The Solution of the Economic Problem: Socialism’. This is divided into seven chapters.

In the first, ‘The Economic Basis Of The Third Universal Theory’, Gaddafi calls for the abolition of the wage system. He states that “Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them.” The producer has a right to that which they produce – a secondary benefit through the improvement of society or through wages is inadequate. Inequality cannot be tolerated as it leads to exploitation.

Gaddafi repeats Adam Smith’s rule that economic production is the result of raw materials, capital input and human labour. He claims that all three of these components are necessary to produce anything, and therefore all three should get an equal share. Gaddafi also notes that the working class is declining owing to scientific and technological advancement. People are, however, the basic component in any production process.

In the second, ‘Need’, Gaddafi notes that a person cannot be free if their needs are controlled by others. Need leads to the enslavement and exploitation of those who need. Conflict is caused by one group controlling the needs of a second, giving that second an incentive to rebel. Need is a problem inherent to life.

In the third, ‘Housing’, Gaddafi opens with “Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be owned by others”. A person cannot be free while living in a home owned by someone else, whether or not they’re paying rent. Fiddling with rents won’t help – the important thing is ownership. People won’t have the right to own multiple houses, because to do so is to control the needs of others, which is exploitation and cannot be permitted.

In the fourth, ‘Income’, Gaddafi declares that income is an imperative need. In a socialist system, there are no wage-earners, only partners in the production process. Income should not be a wage in exchange for having one’s production taken away.

In the fifth, ‘Means Of Transportation’, Gaddafi declares that transportation is also a necessity. Therefore, it’s subject to the same restrictions from being controlled as housing and income. Like housing, transportation may not be owned for the sake of renting it out.

In the sixth, ‘Land’, Gaddafi begins by stating that “Land is the private property of none.” He believes that the land ought to belong to whoever works it. Gaddafi’s aspiration is to create a society that is happy because it is free. This comes about via the liberation of people’s material and spiritual needs from the control of others.

Gaddafi is aware that wage-earners have little incentive to work. Neither do poeple who work for the common good. The self-employed, however, have plenty of incentive to do so. Gaddafi sees the economy as a zero-sum game, because, for him, there is no reason to produce beyond one’s needs. The industrious and skillful have no right to lever this advantage to take from the shares of others.

An especially diligent or intelligent person may meet their needs with less effort, but they may not acquire more than they need. Happiness is a matter of material and spiritual freedom. Profit itself must be eliminated, as it inevitably will be as the socialist process continues to evolve.

In the seventh, ‘Domestic Servants’, Gaddafi states that domestic servants are a type of slave. The Third Universal Theory offers freedom to both wage-earners and domestic servants. Household services should be carried out by employees, not by domestic servants. He concedes that it isn’t easy to assign a share of production to service workers.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

All The Rights We’ve Lost Thanks To Immigration

Kiwis were disappointed last month to hear that the Sixth Labour Government is taking away our rights to free speech. Any speech that the Government hates will now be “hate speech” and subject to criminal sanction. As is the case in Scotland, an immigrant Justice Minister, from a culture that doesn’t value free speech, has stripped those rights away from a population that has cherished them for centuries. But, as this essay will show, free speech is just one of the many rights we’ve lost thanks to mass immigration.

Free speech is the fundamental value of Western civilisation. Without it, society cannot self-correct. So without free speech, small problems snowball into catastrophes. Legal recognition of the importance of free speech is one of the main reasons why Western countries are so stable in comparison to others.

But the value of freedom is generally only understood by Westerners.

The reason why men like Kris Faafoi and Scotland’s Humza Yousaf can so glibly annihilate one of the most important aspects of Western culture is that they weren’t raised to respect it. Their cultures do not have a history of struggling to assert freedom at all, and so they were not raised to value free speech. It was inevitable that making these men Justice Ministers would lead to a loss of those freedoms.

Import the Third World, become the Third World – and the Third World does not have a culture of free speech. If the Justice Minister of New Zealand had been a proper Kiwi, raised in Kiwi culture to appreciate the Greco-Roman-Anglo heritage that made New Zealand worth living in, we would still have our rights to free speech today. But that’s only the beginning.

Our right to use cannabis was also lost because of immigration.

In the 2020 cannabis referendum, the No side of the vote got 1,474,635 votes, and the Yes side got 1,406,973. This equals a difference of 67,662 votes. This narrow margin was enough for the Sixth Labour Government to declare that Kiwis wanted to keep locking themselves up for growing medicinal plants. But that margin would have been in favour of Yes if it wasn’t for immigrant voters.

An article in the South China Morning Post referenced a survey that found 80% of ethnic Chinese voters intended to vote No in the cannabis referendum. Some simple maths is enough to show that these Chinese voters alone tipped the overall outcome from a Yes to a No.

There are some 231,000 ethnic Chinese people in New Zealand. If we assume that 80% of them are eligible to vote, and that 80% of those actually did vote, that suggests some 147,840 ethnic Chinese voters voted in the cannabis referendum. If 80% of those voted No, that means 118,272 ethnic Chinese voted No and 29,568 ethnic Chinese voted Yes, for a balance of 88,704 more No voters than Yes voters.

The maths tells us that non-Chinese Kiwis voted Yes in the cannabis referendum, by a margin of some 21,000 votes. But these votes were cancelled out, and more, by the heavy Chinese opposition to cognitive liberty. And the Chinese weren’t the only immigrant group to vote to imprison cannabis-using Kiwis.

Pacific Islanders also voted against cannabis freedom, mostly out of religious sentiments.

The three electorates with the most Pacific Islanders in 2020 were Mangere at 59%, Panmure-Otahuhu at 46% and Manurewa at 39%. These were also among the electorates with the lowest Yes vote in the cannabis referendum: Mangere 38.7%, Panmure-Otahuhu 41% and Manurewa 39.5%. Many of the Pacific Islanders who voted against cannabis freedom were mindlessly following the orders of their pastors.

Religion also inspired Muslim immigrants to vote our rights away. The New Zealand Muslim Association came out in favour of Kiwis getting locked in cages for using cannabis, and the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ proudly allowed their logo to be displayed on the Say Nope to Dope supporters page. For them, tolerance and respect is an entirely one-way street: Kiwis are obliged to tolerate and respect Islam, but Islam is in no way obliged to tolerate and respect cannabis-using Kiwis.

If the cannabis referendum had been left up to white people and Maoris, it would have passed with around 60% in favour. But the mass importation of cheap labour from backwards cultures ultimately tilted the balance in favour of a No vote.

Our rights to use other spiritual sacraments are likewise gone. As a recent article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry noted, there is now ample evidence that sacraments such as psilocybin have immense therapeutic potential, “However, Australia and New Zealand are currently failing to acknowledge such evidence and, as a result, are falling behind in this crucial time of biomedical research and innovation.”

As noted in the article, the refusal to acknowledge the evidence for psychedelic therapy is political. Sadly, because conservative Third World immigrants now make up a significant proportion of our voters, we can kiss all research into psychedelic therapy goodbye. The Islanders don’t want it because of Jesus, the Muslims don’t want it because of Allah and the Asians don’t want it because drugs are bad.

Immigration also cost us our rights to free assembly, as was observed when Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux tried speaking about the consequences of mass immigration in Auckland.

Even though the NZ Bill of Rights Act explicitly states that Kiwis have both the rights to receive information and to free assembly, we were banned from assembling to listen to the Canadian duo at Auckland Council venues because Phil Goff, the Auckland mayor, was afraid of losing support from Muslim voters. Thanks to the mass immigration of conservative cheap labour, we’re no longer free to gather to discuss certain topics in public.

Most of our firearms rights were stripped from us after an Australian immigrant shot up a mosque full of Muslim immigrants on March 15, 2019. Even though no Kiwis were involved until Brenton Tarrant was arrested, the incident was used as an excuse to confiscate semi-automatic rifles all across the country.

Had we not opened the borders to the same cult of hate responsible for the Rotherham rape gangs and for the Drottninggatan truck attack, and had we not sat impotently while the Al Noor Mosque produced multiple terrorists, we would never had suffered such an atrocity on our shores. But, as many other Western nations had already learned, mass immigration from violent, supremacist cultures inevitably leads to violence.

The worst loss of freedom from mass immigration, however, was the loss of our right to own a home and raise a family.

In 1992, the average New Zealand house cost around $105,000, and the average wage was close to $15, which meant that a person had to save about 7,000 hours of labour at the average wage to own the average house. After three decades of mass immigration, the average house now costs $820,000, while the average wage has only risen to $35. This means a person now has to save over 23,000 hours of labour at the average wage to own the average house.

Mass immigration means more people competing to bid up the price of housing, as well as more people competing to bid down the price of wages. Anyone with a high school economics education could have told you that mass immigration would lead to higher house prices and lower wages. The combined effect of these two phenomena is that it’s now impossible for the average Kiwi worker to buy a house and to support a family with their own wage.

The loss of the freedom to buy a home and to support a family with one’s wage is the worst loss of all, because it effectively makes us the slaves of the bankers who hold our mortgages, and of the employers whose $20/hour we need to pay those mortgages off. Yet this loss is the inevitable consequence of mass immigration, the last thirty years of which has reduced us to this wretched condition.

We were told that mass immigration wouldn’t cause the loss of any freedoms because the immigrants would become like us – appreciative of the freedoms of Western culture and willing to defend them. However, we were lied to. The immigrants we let in never had any intention of respecting our culture and our values. In reality, we lost everything. We lost all our rights, all our freedoms, we lost our entire culture.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Generation Ruthanasia

Many Kiwis were shocked by a video circulating this week depicting a mass brawl at Te Aro Park in Wellington. The scene made it appear like public violence is now just part of everyday life in New Zealand. The nihilism reflects the rotten state of our economy – a rot that began with the Fourth Labour Government’s introduction of neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism came to New Zealand under the friendly name ‘Rogernomics‘. The Fourth Labour Government, following the trends established by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher overseas, adopted a number of neoliberal measures that would supposedly increase New Zealand’s economic performance. To some extent, they did. The real suffering didn’t begin until after Labour’s 1990 election defeat.

The Finance Minister of the Fourth National Government, Ruth Richardson, took the scythe to New Zealand’s poor with the 1991 Budget. The combination of the $14/week cut to the unemployment benefit, the $27/week cut to the sickness benefit, the $25 to $27/week cut to the families benefit and the abolition of universal payments for family benefits was a kick in the guts to those already at the bottom of society.

The act was dubbed ‘Ruthanasia’. In the same way that a useless old person is put to death with euthanasia, the useless lower classes were put to death with Ruthanasia. The narrative from the media was that beneficiaries were lazy, thieving scum anyway, and cutting their benefits should motivate them to get off their arses and into work. If not, they could die, it would be just as good.

The measures were particularly brutal to solo mothers, who found themselves $40/week or more worse off. The idea was that solo mothers were society’s filth, and in breeding outside of a stable marriage they were responsible for all of society’s ills, and needed to be punished for it. Their children were surplus to economic requirements, and therefore should be made to understand that they were not needed or wanted.

To a major extent, this strategy succeeded. Today, New Zealand’s youth suicide rates are the second-highest in the developed world. Every year, 14.9 out of every 100,000 Kiwi adolescents decide permanently that their life isn’t worth living. The vast majority of those are from the poorer classes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the abuse and neglect of New Zealand’s poor was normalised by Ruthanasia.

However, the children that Ruth Richardson threw to the wolves in 1991 mostly survived.

Some are now the ironhearted gang leaders who hold the loyalties of other violent young men. Winning the favour of such hard men may have been the reason for the fight in the video link in the first paragraph. Such mindless aggression might sound barbaric, but that’s the reality for young men in Clown World.

The children born into beneficiary families between 1980 and 1995 are now Generation Ruthanasia. Many of these children killed themselves as adolescents. Many more turned their hatred outwards and mutilated others. Too many of them are missing some of the part of the mind that allows humans to feel empathy with other living beings.

This absence of empathy is an inevitable consequence of the way they themselves were treated – as before, so after. Yet therein lies a great danger for New Zealand society over the next couple of decades.

Generation Ruthanasia might be outnumbered by people who were raised well, but they are still numerous enough to have a significant influence upon the nature of our society and upon the minds and the values of the following generations. It is their nihilistic cynicism that one sees expressed in the gang brawls at Te Aro Park this week, and in other places.

The now-adult men of Generation Ruthanasia don’t know how to love, neither themselves nor others. The loving parts of the mind and heart have long since been closed off for only bringing sorrow. But these men are already old enough so that the next generation looks up to them. As such, there’s a risk that their absence of empathy becomes normalised.

The natural, logical realisation that went through the minds of Generation Ruthanasia as children is that human life is without value. If children are worth so little that it’s fair to withhold money from their parents so that those children can’t eat, then what does have value? Certainly not this society. This logic is why the savagery of the gang lifestyle is no longer enough to scare everyone away.

This way of thinking is not dissimilar from that of the generations raised in places like inner-city America and Brazil – and that’s what New Zealand is now on track to become like, if the process of social decay is not arrested. But solving the problems posed by this cohort of severely mentally and spiritually damaged people will take decades.

The least part of any effective solution will be a massive financial investment – one large enough to reset the mental health situation. A universal basic income, to give people time to mentally recover, might be necessary here. Any government refusing to consider such measures would do well to bear in mind Machiavelli’s maxim that “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!