The seventh chapter in Own Your Future is ‘Public Safety’. Here Seymour opens the chapter with one of the non-sequiturs that seems to be characteristic of his style. He talks about visiting a prison, and seeing the downcast faces on the prisoners there. For some reason he lurches directly from this to stating his belief in deterrence being the primary solution to the crime problem.
It’s hard to believe that Seymour is writing this chapter with a straight face. He claims to be tough on the causes of crime – yet his party supports National every step of the way in ripping down the social welfare that people need to get out of the poverty that causes crime.
Indeed, the facade soon slips, and he openly admits that ACT Policy is based around “making the consequences of committing crimes sufficiently bad that people will decide not to do it in the first place.” Within the space of a few sentences he goes from complaining about the cost of prisons to crowing about ACT success in keeping people in prison for longer through their three strikes policy.
From there, Seymour launches into a rant against burglary. Fittingly for a party that values property more highly than people, he wants to add burglary to the list of crimes that involve the three strikes law, the third offence being punished by a minimum three years without parole. Helpfully, he informs us that “The aim [of burglary] is getting more money or goods without working for them or being given them.”
At this point, Seymour serves up a genuinely good idea. Prisoners often find it difficult to return to civilian life after their sentence on account of poor literacy and numeracy, so Seymour proposes that they can get time knocked off their sentences by completing adult reading and maths courses while in prison. Any prisoner who is already educated can get time off for helping to tutor the other prisoners.
This is actually a really good policy, but it’s incredible that Seymour, as a supposedly principled libertarian, doesn’t mention cannabis law reform here. If it costs $105,000 a year to keep a person in jail, we could save tens of millions immediately just by letting cannabis growers and dealers out. He doesn’t suggest this, even though it seems like such an obvious thing for a principled, libertarian party to suggest at this juncture.
This newspaper wondered some time ago if perhaps David Seymour is the biggest coward in the New Zealand Parliament. It’s astonishing that ACT, who barely get more votes than the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, aren’t willing to support cannabis law reform as their libertarian counterparts everywhere else have done, when the entire country is crying out for it. They could take votes off the Greens and the Opportunity Party simply by offering a right-wing alternative to how to legalise cannabis.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
The sixth chapter in Own Your Future is ‘Immigration’. It starts with an attack on Winston Peters’s “twenty year racist dogwhistling campaign”, in which Seymour takes the opportunity to position himself as a crusader against racism and bigotry. This is a wise strategic move on Seymour’s part, considering that his party gets more votes from the foreign-born than any other. The Greens are also accused of racism for wanting to lower immigration levels.
Astonishingly, Seymour makes a passionate appeal to New Zealand’s moral obligation to help displaced refugees – but at no point in this book so far has he made any appeal to New Zealand’s moral obligation to help its own people, especially its poorest and most disadvantaged. Here Seymour comes across as the out-of-touch, highly privileged urban dweller who is horrified by a tennis ball to the head.
Ironically, Seymour pillories those who cry “racist” at everyone who claims that we need some immigration restrictions, despite doing the same thing himself on the previous page. This he does in an attempt to position himself as the supporter of a “smart” immigration policy, pointing out that no-one wants no immigration and no-one wants open borders.
He lists at length what he perceives to be the good things about New Zealand, as a way of explaining why so many people want to come here. He claims that New Zealand has a “generous” welfare system, no doubt by way of comparison to Samoa or India. Noting that New Zealand would be swamped tomorrow if we decided to throw open our borders, he seems to think it’s good enough for New Zealand to be doing better than the global average. No word about our domestic violence, child abuse or teen suicide rates.
He also makes some fair criticisms of the current immigration system, such as the absurdity of getting an investment visa from buying and holding for a few years a couple of million dollars’ worth of Government bonds. He laments the shortage of workers at tech companies and hospitals, but manages to resist the temptation of arguing that we need to attract them through lower tax rates.
New Zealand First comes in for special criticism here, with Seymour going as far as to claim that their “poisonousness” is “intended to hurt those who want to bring their skills and settle in New Zealand”. Seymour might not be aware that Maoris vote New Zealand First much more often than white people, so one wonders what he makes of this. Are Maoris racist for not wanting mass immigration? No-one knows.
There are many contradictions in this essay, many of them glaring. Possibly the most grievous encountered so far is when he complains that previous Governments have failed to make sure that the immigrants coming there are those who will integrate and contribute to economic growth, but in the very next sentence complains that those Governments only “reluctantly and begrudgingly” increase the refugee quota when concern about overseas suffering becomes “overwhelming”.
Anyone with the most passing familiarity with the situation in Europe knows that refugees are precisely the sort of person who are least likely to integrate, and who will offer negative economic growth. This contradiction is so glaringly incredible that it’s unclear if Seymour is being dishonest here or if this essay is simply poorly written.
Hilariously, Seymour is willing to grit his teeth and write that New Zealand doesn’t need “upper middle class foreign citizens flashing their bank accounts at us on their way through customs to get to a beach house” – when those people make up most of ACT’s voters. Also, we don’t need more Pacific Islanders “taking the piss” by using family migration to get their extended family “to come and live and take advantage of our generous welfare system”. Seymour writes this, apparently completely unaware that, earlier in the chapter, he pilloried New Zealand First and called them racist for saying much the same thing.
Seymour concludes this chapter with some virtue signalling about how our refugee quota is an “embarrassment”. He doesn’t appear to understand that keeping the number of Muslims and Africans low is the only way that the New Zealand population will remain favourable to immigration in general – this has been the lesson of the last twenty years in Europe. This contradiction is typical of what has so far been the most poorly written and argued essay in this book so far.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
If you’ve moved in conspiracy circles for long enough you will have heard the name of Albert Pike, and his prophecy of three future great wars, one which would see the old empires of Europe mutually annihilate each other, another that would see extreme nationalism and extreme communism mutually annihilate each other, and a third that would see Judaism and Islam mutually annihilate each other. This essay reveals a few truths about these prophecies.
In Pike’s time, freethinkers faced the problem of not being allowed to discuss intellectual subjects freely because of the paranoia of the ruling classes. This necessitated that free thinkers met behind closed doors, and that those who sought entry were heavily vetted. Recognising that these efforts to suppress the truth were grossly immoral, some schemers got together and hatched a scheme that would destroy all opposition to free inquiry and free speech.
Their plan was to use the principle of coincidentia oppositorum to destroy all of the corrupt institutional forces that made it impossible to honestly study and discuss the natural world and the things in it. This involved setting those institutional forces against each other in a series of wars, in blocs of equal power that would bleed each other dry. The kings would be first to go, then the dictators and finally the priests.
All of this is a great work of alchemy. As followers of this newspaper are aware, there are three masculine elements of iron, silver and gold, and each of them has a corrupted form that must be dissolved for the truth to shine through.
The corrupt form of iron was destroyed in World War One when the great European Empires that had developed from the military caste (i.e. the men of iron) destroyed each other. The corrupt form of silver was destroyed in World War Two when the great political falsehoods (i.e. the products of silver) in the form of national socialism and communism destroyed each other. The corrupt form of gold is destined to be destroyed in World War Three, when the great religious falsehoods (Judaism and Islam) destroy each other.
This is the great secret that you’re not privy to. Once you are privy to it, the rest of it all makes sense.
This is the reason why the Western world, whose politicians are beholden to the schemes of the great schemers, moved so certainly after the conclusion of World War Two to secure the position of Israel. The relentless pushing of the Holocaust religion ties into this as well – it has come to be considered extremely immoral to oppose a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.
The ceaseless propagandising on behalf of Israel serves two purposes.
First, it flushes out Jews from among Western populations and induces them to emigrate to Israel. Concentrating all of the world’s remaining Jews in one spot is an important precursor to exterminating Judaism – after all, if they were all in Israel it could be done with a handful of nuclear missiles.
Second, it primes the Western World for the massive retaliation against the Muslim World that we are intended to engage in once Israel is destroyed. The Illuminati scheme calls for the West, insane with rage and fear after Israel’s annihilation, to itself annihilate the Muslim world in revenge for their unthinkable crime against Israel. To this end, we are artificially being induced, by ceaseless media bombardment, to pay attention to the impending Middle Eastern cataclysm.
On the surface of it, allowing mass Muslim immigration to the West seems like absolute insanity. It has long been known that those who live among Muslims come to hate them, and for good reason, since Islam is an ideology of hate. Too many Muslims genuinely believe, as Christians once did, that their superstition is destined to rule over the whole world by the Will of God, and that violent acts that hasten this end are justified.
But stoking this hate is part of the plan. The people of the West have to be conditioned to despise Muslims so that we are motivated to provide the righteous flames of revenge to them after they destroy Israel. We become conditioned to despise them as a result of their presence and behaviour in the West. Therefore, opening the borders to them now causes Westerners to become ready to play their role in the third part of this great scheme.
Male infant genital mutilation is another part of it. Abrahamists would have you believe that the practice of male infant genital mutilation is not harmful and does not cause any trauma to the infant boy. To the contrary, it causes a massive amount of trauma, proportionate to having one’s earlobes sliced off, but this is desired and is intentional, because of the psychological malleability it produces.
This trauma makes the victim exceptionally receptive to certain suggestions, in particular suggestions to do violence against others. This is why the vast majority of the world’s terrorists, mass murderers and serial killers are mutilated. Revenge-fuelled outbursts of violence are natural for innocent beings who have been forced to undergo such a severe trauma for no good reason.
The three most notable areas of male infant genital mutilation are the Muslim world, America and Israel. The reasons for this are simple: these are the people who have been selected to play the starring roles in World War Three. Therefore, they have to be mutilated so that they’re submissive and malicious enough to follow the orders to destroy huge numbers of people when they are given them.
How this will come about has long been foreshadowed: Israel has been claiming for over two decades that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. Iran might be, Iran might not be, but the point is that it is part of the plan for them to develop nuclear weapons, and it’s part of the plan for them to use those weapons on Israel.
When this happens, the world will be so shocked, horrified and traumatised that we will be in a prime state to accept the introduction of a New World Order that promises to keep humanity permanently free from the great corruptions. This will involve the introduction of a world religion based on the perennial philosophy, and a world political system based on what we have learned scientifically from psychology and evolutionary biology about how the human species actually functions.
When this day comes, borders (iron) politics (silver) and religion (gold) will all be obsolete, because all humans will have been reunited with their birthright to know the truth. This will signify the end of the Kali Yuga and the start of a new Golden Age.
Of course, none of this really is a secret – you can find all these plans on the Internet if you have the patience to collate them. The real secret is whether or not what I’m saying is true. Is it truth, or it is bullshit dreamed up by some schizophrenic cannabis addict larping as a publisher while living at his mother’s house? You don’t know, you can’t know, unless and until you do the research, and in any case there’s nothing you can do about it. So enjoy the ride.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
The right to free expression is not a universally held cultural value, and can only be maintained as long as a sufficient proportion of the population support it
Historically speaking, the main reason why people have resisted mass immigration into their territories is because it usually leads to a loss of freedoms, in particular freedom to practice one’s culture. In recent decades, Westerners have been told that mass immigration to the West would not cause them to lose freedoms, but this turned out to be lies. This essay will examine how immigration, especially from undeveloped countries, leads to a loss of freedoms for the host population.
For people to have any freedoms at all they have to value those freedoms highly enough to assert them. If they cannot assert them, the ruling class will take them away. It can be seen in every society that, in order for people to value those freedoms highly enough to assert them in the faces of the ruling class, they have to share them in common, enough so to call it a culture.
Without a shared belief in the value of certain freedoms, they cannot be maintained. If only part of a population believes in a freedom, then the ruling class can ban it and not enough of the population will believe in it to assert it. Therefore, it will be lost. We can see, then, that freedoms are lost as soon as the proportion of the population that supports them falls below a certain level.
For example, naturally speaking, people are free to walk the land. There is no private property in a state of Nature, and originally there were no prohibitions on where one could go. Over the past 5,000 years, as something called civilisation got invented, this freedom was eventually stripped from the people by rulers who commanded men of iron able to use violence to drive undesired people away from certain territories.
The Swedes, possibly on account of the hard-won lessons of solidarity learned by their Viking forebears, were not willing to lose their right to walk the land freely. Thus, they asserted that right in the face of enclosures, and won what they call the allemansrätt (this was known as the Freedom to Roam back when Anglos used to assert this right). This means that Swedish people have the right to walk through property owned by other people as long as they do not come within sight of the main house (and some other restrictions).
Immigration is not likely to threaten allemansrätt anytime soon, but it is threatening (or has already destroyed) other freedoms, all over the West.
New Zealand Federation of Islam Associations president Hazim Arafeh voiced his opposition to a talk by journalist Lauren Southern in Auckland earlier this month, leading to it effectively getting banned by Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s refusal to approve a venue for it. Arafeh, in his attempt to get the talk banned, stated that “I don’t think insulting Muslims comes under free speech, that’s an abuse of freedom of speech.”
As everyone who actually values free speech knows, free speech is precisely what that is. The cultural value of free speech entails that the responsibility is on the listener to not chimp out when they hear something provoking. The reason why this is important is that it makes it possible to talk about things like rational human beings instead of keeping quiet out of fear, because this leads to resentment and then violence.
Satire, windups and pisstaking necessarily come under this umbrella, as do insults and criticisms of governments and religions.
Free speech acts as a safety valve that releases political pressure when the ruling class starts veering off path. An incompetent ruling class will always try to crack down on criticism rather than accept that they have been incompetent, and for this reason free speech must be ardently defended. The alternative is that ruling class corruption and incompetence becomes entrenched.
It is because the Anglosphere values free speech that we have never had a fascist or communist dictatorship come to power in any of our countries. None of Britain, America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand have ever had a totalitarian government, for the reason that our right to free expression enables us to criticise the bastards, and thereby to organise opposition, before they fuck everything up. Thus, no Hitlers, no Stalins, no Pol Pots, no mass starvation of tens of millions.
Arafeh, not being a Kiwi, doesn’t understand any of this. It’s not important to him. He will not defend it.
Islamic culture forces women to cover up because it considers those women responsible for the urges that their appearance might induce in men. The onus of responsibility is not on the Muslims, but on women, who are inferior, to moderate themselves. By the same token, the culture forces people whose speech it disapproves of to keep their mouths shut because it considers those people responsible for the violent urges that their speech might induce in Muslims.
The onus of responsibility is on us Westerners, as inferior, to moderate ourselves. We can see from what happened with Lauren Southern that Muslims are forcing us to shut our mouths in the same way they force their women to cover up – under the implicit threat of violence.
It’s obvious that if we had not allowed any Muslims to immigrate to this country, Arafeh could not have written a letter to Goff “on behalf of 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in New Zealand”. It’s equally obvious that if we let in another 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims, we will lose even more rights, because we can see this happening in other countries that have made the mistake of opening themselves to mass Muslim immigration.
Multiculturalism necessarily means that the only freedoms that remain are universal values that are supported by all people. What Westerners have failed to understand is that free speech is not a universal value. Most people on this planet are pathetic slave-creatures, not educated citizen-orators that can be expected to assert their rights through reasoned debate.
In short, we’re losing our freedom to speak freely because we’ve let in a lot of people who do not value free speech, and this is just one example. As shown by Europe, if we continue to let these people in, our rights to free expression will be further curtailed, and then the rights of people to walk certain neighbourhoods free of molestation will be curtailed, and then the rights of women to walk in public without covering up will be curtailed.
As long as banks continue to demand mass immigration for the sake of propping up house prices, gutless politicians will continue to placate those making the threats of violence for the sake of appearing to maintain order. We need to take care that our immigration policies don’t end up robbing us of our hard-won rights of free expression.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).
