If You Think National Will Roll Back "Hate Speech" Laws, You're Stupid

If You Think National Will Roll Back “Hate Speech” Laws, You’re Stupid

Libertarians across New Zealand were dismayed by news last month that Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government intends to press ahead with so-called “hate speech” legislation. This is widely expected to entail European-style restrictions that could see a person imprisoned for saying that mass immigration is like an invasion, as French author Renaud Camus was earlier this year. But those putting their hopes in the National Party to fix it will be disappointed.

Right-wingers, in general, were also dismayed at Ardern’s confirmation that the Sixth Labour Government will introduce “hate speech” laws if they are re-elected on the 17th of this month. The conservative argument is that free speech is a fundamental part of New Zealand culture, and there’s no good reason to throw this away.

Judith Collins responded by saying that National “would not add further” to the loss of free speech, but would not commit to rolling back any free speech violations that the Labour Government might commit. Neither did she affirm that free speech was a fundamental Kiwi value that needed to be defended.

The reality is that National can sense a political advantage in acting as if they are in favour of free speech, but they don’t really care about it, for two major reasons.

The first is that they’re not, in any sense, a libertarian party. In fact, they are transparently authoritarian in several ways. National likes to pose as if they’re against government interference into the private lives of citizens, in contradistinction to Labour, who want a nanny state. But if they were libertarian they would work to legalise cannabis.

Being in favour of legal cannabis is no longer a radical position for a right-wing party in the Anglosphere. 55% of American Republicans are in favour of cannabis legalisation, and even a state as Republican as Alaska, where Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton 51%-37%, now has legal cannabis. Part of the reason for this is the libertarian streak possessed by American right-wingers.

This libertarian streak doesn’t exist in New Zealand conservatism, which is why we are some 20 years behind America when it comes to cannabis. But the absence of these libertarian sentiments among New Zealand conservatives suggests that they won’t make an effort fighting for free speech either. Why would someone who thinks you should be in a cage for growing medicinal cannabis fight for your right to free speech? They wouldn’t.

The second major reason why National don’t care about free speech is because they are influenced by people who are against it.

British Conservative Leader Boris Johnson is bringing in draconian anti-free speech laws under the guise of child safety. The proposed bill will make it illegal to cause “online harms”. The Centre for Policy Studies declared their opposition to the bill, stating that it was wrong to let an unelected communications regulatory body decide what people were allowed to write on the Internet.

If the British equivalent of the National Party is restricting free speech in the same way that the New Zealand Labour Party intends to do, that is evidence that the moves are not inspired by left-wing or big government sentiments but by globalist ones.

Because the National Party is just as beholden to globalist interests as Labour is (even if those interests are slightly different), there’s no reason to think that they would be much different to Labour when it comes to free speech. Globalist interests want few things more than to shut down criticism of mass immigration – the less resistance, the higher house prices can be pumped, the more mortgage profits can be raked in.

In fact, one can predict that even if National wins the election this month they will introduce some kind of free speech restrictions anyway. There is transparently a wider globalist agenda to abolish free speech and, with it, dissent and criticism in general. This agenda has arisen because we are in the democracy to tyranny part of the political cycle.

No matter who wins this month’s election, New Zealand will lose our rights to free speech, as we have already lost our firearms rights and our rights to use spiritual sacraments. And in the same way that neither Labour nor National rolled back firearms restrictions or restrictions on the use of cannabis and psilocybin, nor will either party roll back any restrictions on free speech that might get passed in coming years.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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: Free Speech Under Attack IV

This reading carries on from here.

Chapter Ten in Free Speech Under Attack is ‘China’s Sinister Influence’ by Robert Stanmore. In this essay, Stanmore describes the Chinese influence on free speech suppression in Australia and New Zealand. China is even worse than Islam, in Stanmore’s estimation. China has the money to buy off the Western free press. It has already bought the New Zealand National Party.

Stanmore recounts how China uses their network of Confucius Institutes to influence university culture in China’s favour. They also use a scheme called the Confucius Classroom Program to bring propaganda to primary and secondary students. New Zealand is in a dangerous situation because both National and Labour are beholden to China, although National more so.

Chapter Eleven is ‘”De-platforming” speakers’ by Tim Wikiriwhi. He defines deplatforming as when a speaker is prevented from using a platform because those in authority don’t want to let that speaker expound their views. Wikiriwhi recounts how Bruce Moon, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were deplatformed by authoritarian leftists afraid of criticism of their immigration policy.

Wikiriwhi quite rightly points out that censorship achieves little but introduce darkness and ignorance to a political discussion. He also, quite rightly, draws attention to the immense scale of Muslim rape gangs in the Western World, an issue that should be discussed. The essay ends with an appeal to the fundamental value of free speech and how governments should not interfere with what the people say or hear.

Chapter Twelve is ‘The Thug’s Veto’ by Peter Cresswell. This is easily the shortest essay in this book, at only four pages. Cresswell defines the Thug’s Veto as when people use the threat of violence or chaos to get an event they disapprove of shut down. This is a small part of what is more generally known as cancel culture.

Cresswell here points out that laws against “hate speech” are tantamount to laws against criticising evil. Moreover, it’s apparent from the beginning that such laws will not be applied evenly. Left-wingers will escape censure for levels of hate that right-wingers will be hammered for. Those pushing for hate speech laws are fighting for irrationality, and are against reason.

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: Free Speech Under Attack III

This reading carries on from here.

Chapter Seven in Free Speech Under Attack is ‘Banning a Political Pamphlet’ by Tim Wikiriwhi. This is a polemic against Andrew Little’s efforts to introduce hate speech legislation and to ban the 1Law4All pamphlet about the Treaty of Waitangi. Here, Wikiriwhi – himself Maori – supports the sentiments of the pamphlet by agreeing that the British settlement of New Zealand was a net positive for the Maori people.

This essay is quality in its invective, describing Peter Dunne as an “obsolete politician” and making use of the adjective “ham-fisted”. It demolishes the social justice warrior case that British colonisation lowered the quality of life in New Zealand, and makes an impassioned case for the value of free speech. The SJWs won’t be able to scream “Racist!” at Wikiriwhi, so they will likely ignore him.

The Treaty of Waitangi and British colonisation, bringing the advantages and restraints of civilised government to New Zealand for the first time, were the best things that ever happened to New Zealand and the Maoris benefitted enormously from them.

Chapter Eight is ‘Islam and Free Speech’ by Robert Stanmore. This essay discusses the various measures taken by Muslims to shut down free speech in the guise of preventing blasphemy. Stanmore recounts Muslim attacks against free speech in several Western nations, whether by using violence, intimidation or the law. He (correctly) points out that the Koran encourages Muslims to kill non-believers.

Stanmore encourages us here to learn from the example of Britain and Canada, where Muslims are numerous enough to influence the law by threat. In the vast majority of cases, Muslim immigrants show no sign of willingness to conform to the expectations of their host nations, and show every sign of willingness to force their hosts to conform. This is a danger we should be extremely wary of.

Chapter Nine continues in a similar vein. This short chapter is called ‘The Fraud of Islamophobia’. Here, Stanmore recounts the multiple admonitions to violence found in the Koran, and how Muslims are reluctant to reject these verses. Disappointingly, he ignores the violence inherent in the Bible, and the murderous way that Christianity itself has spread.

Stanmore even makes the laughable assertion that Christianity is inherently a peaceful religion akin to Buddhism or Hinduism. Despite these errors, he is able to list a number of scriptural horrors within the Koran that suggest Islam is not compatible with a modern Western way of life. A “religious hatred” law is unacceptable.

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!

Metaphysical Abolitionism

The term ‘abolitionism’ refers to the political movement that sought to abolish chattel slavery. It was a popular term in the 19th century, when first the British and later the Americans made it illegal to own other people. However, as this essay will examine, the battle against slavery merely shifted to a different front – the metaphysical one.

Controlling slaves physically is a major undertaking. They have to be shackled so as to not escape the plantation, and beaten or whipped so as to not shirk labour. Plantation owners in the antebellum South found themselves spending a great deal of their profits on keeping their slaves in line. Slave rebellions were common.

Eventually, the slave owners realised, it was unnecessary to keep people in chains and shackles when they could simply control their minds and their spirits. Controlling the minds and spirits of the slaves meant that the slave owners controlled all of their actions anyway, without having to physically abuse them and generate resentment or risk rebellion.

The enslavement of the mind and the spirit is linked to the Silver Right and the Golden Right of alt centrism. Simply put, a people cannot be free unless they’re both free to think for themselves and free to reconnect with God. The metaphysical abolitionist demands the removal of any obstacle preventing these two goals from being achieved.

Enslaving the mind, however, is the expertise of the Western ruling class. This they achieve through control of the popular narrative.

Ever since the publication of Edward Bernays’s Propaganda in 1928, the ruling elites have structured the education and media systems to both condition people to feel bad for questioning the popular narrative, and to feel good for enforcing that narrative on those who question it. The end product is a country of willing slaves, as submissive as any other herd animal.

The first step to inducing a population into trusting the mainstream media is to pacify them through the education system. 12 years of schooling is enough to condition most people into believing that questioning the popular narrative is an act of evil, and only by going along with it can happiness be found. It’s a simple matter of punishing those who ask questions and rewarding those who submit.

Controlling the popular narrative through the mainstream media means that Western elites control the permissible boundaries of thought. By normalising certain topics of discussion through repeated media exposure, they abnormalise others. The term ‘Overton window’ refers to that range of political positions that have been thus legitimised.

Any idea expressed in the mainstream media is legitimate; any idea not expressed in the mainstream media is illegitimate. If the elites really don’t like an idea, they simply instruct the talking heads on the television to describe supporters of that idea as ‘conspiracy theorists’. By discouraging unwanted lines of reasoning, the elites can keep people going around in circles, chasing mental phantoms like rats on a wheel.

The results of this widespread brainwashing are easily noted. The ruling elites merely have to broadcast the necessity of something over the television, and the masses will fall unquestioningly in line. If a talking head on the television says that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the masses will demand his destruction. If the talking head says to wear a mask to prevent coronavirus, the masses obey.

The metaphysical abolitionist opposes all of this. Metaphysical abolitionism demands that people be allowed to think freely. So a metaphysical abolitionist will reject the importance of mainstream schooling, will discourage the consumption of the mass media and will encourage people to consume alternative media of all kinds. Their favourite thing is people getting together, away from normies, to discuss what the truth really is.

However, even if we did manage to break the psychological conditioning that enslaves our minds, there is a greater challenge.

Our minds may have been enslaved for a hundred years, but our spirits have been enslaved for even longer – ever since Christians destroyed the Eleusinian Mysteries in the 4th Century A.D. Since then, we’ve been the slaves of those who would tell us lies about God. The metaphysical abolitionist opposes this and wishes for the spirits of all people to be free.

In the same way that the ruling elites can engender intellectual submission by restricting intellectual expression to a range of harmless ideas, they can engender spiritual submission by restricting spiritual expression to a range of pointless superstitious dogmas. The humiliation engendered by forcing people to worship an idol of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef instead of God has the effect of inducing passivity. With spiritual slavery follows slavery of every other kind.

Although humans have been using spiritual sacraments such as cannabis and psilocybin to reconnect with God for thousands of years, their use is mostly illegal in the modern West. The laws prohibiting them are explained to us as laws protecting the people’s mental health, but this is a total lie.

The truth is that cannabis and psilocybin are illegal because they are spiritual sacraments.

All spiritual people know that the truth will set you free, so those who would enslave the spirit must tell lies. Spiritual sacraments such as cannabis and psilocybin teach people the spiritual truths about reality: that consciousness is eternal and that God not only exists but also wishes the best for us. These sacraments have been made illegal so that the common people remain blind to the lies of the elites.

Spiritually speaking, the vast bulk of the population divides neatly into two halves: the slaves who follow whatever mainstream religion is pushed on them as children, and the malcontents who, recognising the mainstream dogma to be lies, reject the question of spirituality entirely. Genuine spiritual seekers – those who reject both the “Christian” label and the “atheist” label – are thus marginalised.

Metaphysical abolitionism demands that the human spirit be as free as the human body. This requires that people have free access to whatever spiritual sacrament they feel will help them reconnect with God. All spiritual sacraments must be legal and readily available: cannabis, psilocybin, LSD, DMT – the lot.

In summary, the metaphysical abolitionist advocates for free speech, free thought and for the annihilation of dogmatic religious strictures. This is to advocate for free minds and free spirits. The abolition of chattel slavery has been achieved already, at least in the West. It’s time to achieve the abolition of a much more insidious form of slavery, that of our minds and spirits.

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!