Why Hate Speech Laws Must Be Opposed As Hard As Possible

Why It’s Imperative That Hate Speech Laws Are Opposed

The left and right factions of the Australian Establishment came together this week to strip freedom of speech from the Australian nation. This happened in the form of the Labor and Liberal parties joining forces across the aisle to pass new hate speech legislation. This will be the most aggressive hate speech legislation ever passed in Australia. The Australian Greens have suggested the bill is so restrictive that it will become illegal to criticise Benjamin Netanyahu.

Under the new bill, the head of the secret intelligence service will be given the powers to ban any political group the Australian political establishment doesn’t like. This extreme measure, reminiscent of NKVD or Gestapo control systems, will mean that anyone organising to challenge the Australian political establishment will risk simply getting banned before any real challenge can be made.

The differences between this system and a one-party totalitarian state are minor.

One common, but naive, argument made about hate speech laws is that they protect people from being degraded or abused. Well-meaning people then get suckered into supporting them in the belief they will only impact white supremacists and terrorists. This is wrong, but an easy trap to fall into.

The primary danger with hate speech laws is that literally anything can be defined as hateful. Even the most innocuous-sounding statement can be declared to be “associated” with some hate group or ideology. So, in practice, whether or not a person gets prosecuted for hate speech depends on the whims of whoever is in power, not on any objective moral or legal standard.

VJM Publishing first came to national attention in New Zealand in 2019, when we were attacked in the mainstream media by the Human Rights Commission for selling ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe. The media beat-up took every possible opportunity to link the sale of the shirts to white supremacy and to Brenton Tarrant, declaring that I was racist, hateful, divisive etc. Presstitutes like Kanoa Lloyd told the country, without any evidence at all, that the t-shirts “were intended to ‘shock and hurt’.”

Shortly after the media beat-up, the Police came to my house to harass me about it.

If the Human Rights Commissioner takes to the mainstream media to call you hateful and racist for saying something, you can best your last dollar that you’d also get prosecuted for a hate crime for saying that thing if hate speech laws were in effect. Therefore, it’s logical to assume that saying “It’s Okay To Be White” will be considered hate speech under the new laws. Saying that it’s okay to be you will be a crime, if the political establishment doesn’t like you and hate speech laws are in effect.

It might be argued that people will resist these laws. The ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ incident proved otherwise. TradeMe head of Safety George Hiotakis initially stated, perfectly accurately, that t-shirts saying ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ do not violate any rules about racist slogans. “Items which marginalise individuals or promote one race at the cost of another cannot be sold onsite,” Hiotakis said [quoted from The Independent link above]. ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ clearly does neither.

Paul Hunt wasn’t giving in that easily, though. Using his full influence as Human Rights Commissioner, Hunt persuaded masses of people to contact TradeMe to lay a complaint. Hiotakis eventually caved to this frothing mob, cancelling the listing and banning the shirts from sale.

This proved an important point, of extreme relevance to the hate speech discussion: whether something is considered hate speech depends on whether a mob has been whipped up about it. If there’s a mass of people mad about some statement, no matter how innocuous, then it’s hate speech. If no-one, or only a few people, are mad about it, then it’s legitimate speech.

Rule by law goes out the window once hate speech laws are brought in. Because hate cannot be defined accurately – as proven by the ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ debacle – hate speech laws represent rule by mob, not law.

However, this perfectly suits those with power and influence. Because Paul Hunt has the power and influence to stir up a mob and have me cancelled, and I don’t have the power to impact him, such laws give the ruling class the power to strike down any wrongthinker they please, with no risk. All that needs to happen is for Hunt or some other powerful Government figure to take to the mainstream media denouncing the wrongthinkers, and the herd falls in line.

It’s impossible to think of a single example of anything that could not be considered hate speech if the definition of hate was broad enough. The ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ example is proof of this. Saying it’s okay to be white is the exact opposite of hatred: it’s affirming the moral okayness of white people in the face of constant media demonisation. But the ruling class can nevertheless declare it hate speech and destroy the people saying it, and get the consent of the masses to do so, on account of their overwhelming narrative control.

Once hate speech laws are brought in, the people who brought in those laws will then decide what other people are allowed to say. This is because the people who brought in the laws can arbitrarily define absolutely anything they don’t like as hate. Hate speech laws in New Zealand will be used for one purpose: to crack down on everyday Kiwis criticising the political establishment. It’s imperative that free and decent people resist them to the maximum extent possible.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

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

All My Life Interactions With The Police, Rated Out Of 10

I have no criminal record, and have only had limited interactions with the Police. In fact, I have only had five meaningful interactions with the New Zealand Police in my entire life (i.e. not including traffic stops, breathtests etc.). This article summarises all five and gives them a rating out of 10.

Interaction One, 1986

My mother is a diagnosed schizophrenic and has been since before I was born. She was institutionalised in 1986, when I was five. In the weeks leading up to this she had become more and more erratic and unhinged. One day, the Police came up and dragged her away screaming. Two officers held her under one arm each, her legs trailing in the gravel, and chucked her into the back of a wagon. Then they drove away to Ngawhatu mental hospital.

I understand that things were rougher in those days. It was still a tough thing to see as a kid, and did not endear me to the Police. It taught me that the Police are there to enforce the will of the ruling class upon the plebs, and not to negotiate with them. Negotiation is something you do with equals – poor, mentally ill people are just to be smashed.

Rating: 0/10

Interaction Two, 1990

One of my relatives, who lived nearby, was a cannabis grower. For whatever reason, the Police figured this out and came to bust him one day. This wasn’t a close interaction, as I was mostly watching from next door while my relative’s place got turned over and he got led away in handcuffs. But it still coloured my attitude towards the Police.

I didn’t know anything about cannabis then. But I knew that actual crimes were murder, robbery, assault etc., not growing plants. My grandmother expressed a deep sense of injustice at the arrest and subsequent imprisonment, and at the effect that imprisonment had on my relative’s mental health, and these feelings influenced me heavily. That the Police would enforce oppressive laws like cannabis prohibition made me see them as evil.

Rating: 0/10

Interaction Three, Summer 2004/05

At this time I lived in a central Christchurch apartment. At about 2:30a.m. one Saturday morning I heard a smashing noise on the road outside. I looked out the window to see a bunch of youths, maybe 15-16, breaking windows on parked cars with golf clubs.

I called 111, explained the situation and a patrol car turned up in about five minutes. They arrested the youths, but not before pointing them towards my apartment so I could confirm on the phone it was them. I never heard from the Police about it, so I presume the youths confessed and got diversion or similar. In all, justice was delivered swiftly and efficiently.

Rating: 9/10

Interaction Four, Summer 2008/09

When I was a barman in Nelson, I got attacked by a drunken thug who I had cut off for being a drunken thug. Upon reporting the assault to the Police, I found that they weren’t particularly interested. Although there was supposedly a crackdown against alcohol violence underway at the time, they only grudgingly took my complaint, trying to convince me along the way that it probably wasn’t worth bothering with.

This surprised me, as the Police routinely arrest and lock up people for victimless drug crimes. On what planet is a violent crime no big deal, in comparison to that? I am grateful that the Police ended up prosecuting the offender and obtaining a conviction. But the way they handled my complaint made me realise that they’re not there to help working-class people, rather just manage us at the lowest possible cost. If that means fobbing an assault victim off then so be it.

Rating: 5/10

Interaction Five, July 2019

About 10.30a.m. one rainy Winter morning I got a knock on my front door. I stubbed out my joint and went outside to find two Police officers. They said they had come as part of Operation Whakahumanu to ask me some questions about my online activity. This was in the wake of me getting attacked in the mainstream media by the Human Rights Commission for selling ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe.

Apparently the ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ saga had got me on a list of suspected white supremacists, so after the Christchurch mosque shooting I was suspected to be another mass killer in waiting. As someone with no criminal record and who doesn’t own firearms, I would have thought all violent criminals, at least, would be higher priority. It turns out that wrongthinkers are at the top of the hate list.

I refused to answer any questions and asked for a warrant, which they didn’t have, so I asked them to please leave the property. I had to repeat this a few times before they did.

Getting targeted by the Police in an intimidation and harassment campaign on Government orders is a deeply unpleasant experience. It emphasised to me the extent to which people like me – anyone who tells the truth – are the enemy of the ruling class.

Rating: 0/10

Total rating: 14/50 (2.8/10 average)

Generally my interactions with the New Zealand Police have been poor, despite not being a criminal. Although they sometimes do the right thing, they have clearly demonstrated to me that they are primarily the thugs of the ruling classes, and are happy to destroy lower-class people on spurious grounds if given an order to do so.

Bonus: this isn’t an interaction as such, but the Police appear to monitor everything I post online with the apparent intent to comb through it for wrongthink. Another 0/10.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

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

Free Range Slavery

For most of human history, slavery has been central to all economies. Ownership of human livestock has always been the single most profitable endeavour of all, as it allows the owners to claim the productivity of the slaves. Countless wars have been fought both to capture slaves and to free them. But a number of misconceptions have arisen about the practice of slavery, both in the past and in the present.

The story we are given is that slavery has existed forever, and continued up until the British Empire banned the trade in 1807. From there it was gradually banned throughout the rest of the world. Except for one particularly violent disagreement in America in the 1860s, the world was happy to get rid of slavery, and in doing so we all moved forwards into a more equitable and respectful future. Today we are all equals, born with the same opportunities.

In reality, slavery continued, it just switched from the plantation slavery model to the free range slavery model.

In the old days, slaves were usually bound to a particular plot of land. This was because the demand for their labour initially came from landowners, who wanted someone to work their farms without payment. The origin of this practice can be seen in the behaviour of the alphas of chimpanzee troops, who control access to food and sexual resources. In the same way subordinate chimpanzees must obey the alpha or face physical violence, the slaves must obey their masters.

The landowners in such cases were often plantation owners. This is the model of slavery most common to the New World, a.k.a. the hacienda model. In the antebellum American South, slaves would often spend their entire lives on the same plantation. The problem with this model is that the slaves are obviously slaves. Therefore, they are liable to rebel.

Free range slavery is the solution to the problem of rebellion. Permit the slaves some freedom of movement, and the freedom to choose the plantation upon which they will labour, and they won’t get discontented enough to rebel. This is doubly true if you also have a gigantic propaganda apparatus brainwashing everyone into thinking they’re as free as they could ever wish to be. It’s triply true if you also have a security apparatus devoted to destroying anyone who realises any of the above.

The new ruling class of the Industrial Age were factory owners, not plantation owners. This ruling class had the insight that enclosing the commons, making it impossible for many to sustain themselves, would create a large number of desperate people willing to work for very little. Free range slavery began with the enclosure of the commons in acts such as the Highland Clearances. The people so cleared had to move to the cities and take work in factories, where they were regularly put to work for 70-80 hours per week.

In spirit, free range slavery is enslavement on the class level, something made more possible by modern technology. This technology allows for an unprecedented level of co-operation among the slave-owning classes. These ruling classes co-operate closely through two-way technology such as the telephone, while the middle and working classes are divided and conquered through one-way technology such as the television.

In the free range slavery model, each slave is free to choose the plantation on which they work. But the system is rigged so that, no matter which plantation they choose, they can never overcome slave status. No matter how high their wage, they have to pay so much in taxes, rents and other expenses that they are just as incapable of improving their position as the plantation slave.

A man who works 60 hour weeks, 250 hours/month, making $10/hour, will make about $2000/month after tax. Average rent for a one bedroom apartment is $1000/month in many American states. His bills for groceries, healthcare, electricity and other utilities will come to at least $500/month. This will leave him at most $6,000/year to put towards a house – and the average American house price is now above $370,000, so it will take him at least 60 years to get there. In practice, he will never get there, because working 60 hour weeks for 60 years is not realistic. But he will probably put in a lot of effort before he realises this.

Those who already own all the land are laughing all the way to the bank at this arrangement.

There are several advantages to the free range slavery model, which essentially maximises horizontal freedom at the same time as minimising vertical freedom.

The first, and most obvious, is that the slave owners no longer have to bother with the feeding, shelter and upkeep of the slaves. Those things are now the slaves’ problems. This is much more efficient for the slave owners, who now only have to manage the slaves during working hours. Outside of working hours, the free range slave manages itself.

A second advantage is that the free range slave can be manipulated into believing that his difficulties are his own fault. This makes him much less likely to blame the slave owners and landlords. If a free range slave can’t afford housing, he can simply be told that he isn’t working hard enough. Likewise if he can’t afford decent food. If he gets killed by rent, he can be blamed for choosing to live in a high cost-of-living area. Can’t or won’t relocate? Then he doesn’t really want freedom enough.

The main advantage to the model is that the slaves never figure out that they are slaves. If they were forced to wear shackles, or if they were whipped by overseers, they would figure it out in short order. But because they are free range slaves, any of them who complains about their conditions is met with “You can always get another job somewhere else.” Because they’re always scrambling to find or to keep employment, they never figure out that they are structurally enslaved in a way that individual action cannot overcome.

Free range slavery is, therefore, correctly understood as an ingenious system of mass enslavement with minimal resistance.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

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

North Island Narratives

Living on the South Island, I am often frustrated by the North Island-centrism of our mainstream media. Thanks to some combination of arrogance and insularity, the New Zealand media acts as if New Zealand is just the North Island. This has led to it espousing a number of narratives that don’t reflect life for those of us in the South Island. This essay explains.

Perhaps the stupidest North Island narrative is that gangs and gang culture are inherently brown. People join gangs, this narrative has it, because of colonisation, which destroyed the natural social structure of Polynesian peoples.

Leaving aside that a lot of Tongans are in New Zealand gangs – and Tonga was never colonised – the vast majority of gang members on the South Island are white. So when the New Zealand media harps on about how gangs are a consequence of colonialism, those of us on the South Island are left shaking our heads. All the white guys in the Hells Angels are presumably perpetrators of colonisation, not victims of it. So how did they get to be gang members? This narrative makes no sense at all.

The North Island narrative that does the most damage is the stolen land one. Large swathes of the North Island were confiscated in relation to the Maori Land Wars, probably unfairly. Areas such as Wellington were probably swindled from Maori ownership; the acquisition of Port Nicholson was dodgy even by 19th Century standards. But this does not mean that the same guilt-dripping narratives apply to the South Island.

The New Zealand Settlements Act was never applied in the South Island, thus there were no confiscations. So the whole narrative around unjustly confiscated land is a North Island narrative. Those of us on the South Island are tired of hearing about it.

In fact, Treaty-based narratives in general are North Island narratives. The British declared sovereignty over the North Island on the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi, but they declared sovereignty over the South Island on the basis of discovery. This is an established historical fact.

Therefore, on the South Island there is no relevance to any of the narratives about how white Kiwis owe Maori Kiwis this and that because of Treaty breaches. The Treaty isn’t relevant here. The idea that the Treaty of Waitangi is the “foundational document” of New Zealand is pure North Island narrative. The people pushing it are either North Islanders or globalists.

Related to this is the idea that the Maori word for ‘New Zealand’ is ‘Aotearoa’. In fact, ‘Aotearoa’ was originally used to refer to the North Island only. The term for the North and South Islands together was ‘Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu’. ‘New Zealand’ is translated as ‘Nu Tireni’ in the Treaty of Waitangi, not ‘Aotearoa’.

In the North Island mind, the North Island is New Zealand. Therefore, whatever applies to the North Island (such as the name ‘Aotearoa’) also applies to New Zealand. This is naturally objectionable to those of us on the South Island. But, because the New Zealand media is North Island-based, our concerns get sidelined.

Related to these ideas is the idea that New Zealand is Polynesian. Perhaps the North Island qualifies by climate as part of Polynesia, but the South Island is simply too cold. Nothing like the Mount Cook National Park exists anywhere in Polynesia, and nor could it, given that the South Island is 3600km south of Samoa and 7100km south of the Big Island of Hawai’i.

In truth, the South Island should be considered a Subantarctic Island like the Auckland Islands.

Another common, but false, North Island narrative is that the song ‘Tutira Mai Nga Iwi‘ is a defacto national anthem on account of its supposed universality. Apparently everyone learns all the lyrics to this song at school. But I went to primary, intermediate and secondary school on the South Island, and I never heard this song once. This song is not the only element of North Island culture to be conflated for New Zealand culture, but is perhaps the most conspicuous.

The funniest North Island narrative is the idea that Auckland is a major world city. Aucklanders in particular have the delusion that Auckland is a second Sydney. In truth, Auckland is not even another Brisbane or Perth, but rather another Adelaide. Yeah, it’s bigger than Christchurch. But so what? We don’t pretend that Christchurch is anything other than perfectly moderate-sized.

The most egregiously self-righteous and arrogant North Island narrative is the one that holds the South Island is racist. This is downstream from the presumption that whites are inherently racist: the South Island is much whiter than the North, therefore, the logic follows, it must be more racist.

There might be a minority of social outcasts in Christchurch who take out their frustrations on anyone unlucky enough to look like an outsider. But on a Saturday night when people have been drinking, I would rather walk through Cathedral Square as a brown person than Otahuhu as a white person.

These North Island narratives might not, by themselves, constitute enough disrespect that South Island independence becomes preferable. But they are at least a call for an independent South Island media that can promote South Island narratives.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

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