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!

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!

Why All The Rapists Can’t “Just Be Deported”

The whole world is now aware that England is full of Muslim rape gangs that prey on white children. The total numbers of raped girls are uncertain, but colossal, at least several hundreds of thousands. And these gangs are still operating all over England.

Many wonder why the English don’t just get rid of these people. It seems obvious that the Muslims are going to keep raping children in England – after all, they do it everywhere else as well. This essay explains.

Before any political action can be possible, consent for it has to exist among the executive. In a democracy, that executive is the masses (at least, in theory). If consent doesn’t already exist, it has to be manufactured. In practice, political action only happens if it’s first made psychologically possible by conditioning the masses to accept it. The World Wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq: all were only made possible thanks to mass brainwashing through the newspapers and radio.

The big problem is that the Western ruling class has now spent 80 years manufacturing consent for the exact opposite of mass rapist deportations, namely mass rapist importations. There has been 80 years of brainwashing to make us believe that all racial groups are precisely the same on all behavioural and intellectual measures (despite the evidence of our own eyes and ears), and that those who deny this equality are the greatest evil on Earth.

In order for mass deportations to become psychologically possible, this 80 years of brainwashing will have to be reversed. It will have to be conceded that the peoples of the world are actually very different, and for genetic reasons that can’t simply be overcome through education. But the equalitarian dogma is at the very core of our culture. So it will take decades, at least, and will require many people to die of old age.

If mass deportations were attempted while it was still believed that human populations were substantially the same, there would be mass resistance from Western populations. The architects of the deportations would be decried as Nazis. Mass rioting would be certain. Young Westerners, Antifa and women would fight tooth and nail to prevent deportations being carried out. It would be carnage.

Consent would have to be manufactured over an extended length of time before any mass deportations could be possible. This would involve a dedicated propaganda campaign which not only drew attention to all the violence and sex crimes committed by certain groups of immigrants, and not only laid out the true costs (economic or otherwise) of Third World immigration, but which decried open borders politicians as traitors. And it would have to do this in a sober, calm, balanced and persuasive manner.

All of this would require a reckoning with the lies of the past. This means a public acceptance that men like Enoch Powell accurately predicted the future when they predicted rivers of blood. It means being taught in schools that the Blank Slate Theory was a colossal mistake. It means an understanding among the ruling class that the demonisation of hereditarians was a shameful collective error that should never be repeated.

The only way this can even begin to be possible is through taking control of the media. The media tells the people what they believe, what their history is and what their future is. Only if honest people take control of the media is it possible to promulgate the narratives necessary to create consent for the mass deportations of rapists.

This is much harder than it sounds.

For one thing, the media is a big institution. Even in a tiny country like New Zealand, the media employs over a thousand journalists and has a total market capitalisation of close to a billion dollars. A rival enterprise might have to raise ten million dollars to start with a one percent market share. Even after spending that ten million, the investment could get attacked by lawfare or propaganda.

For another thing, the globalists are aware of the opinion-shaping power of the media and will fight to not lose control of it. They have long known that whoever controls the mass media controls the masses. Thus they have long been prepared for any contingency in which the masses themselves tried to take control of that media. They will launch propaganda campaigns against any alternative media, and if that doesn’t work they will pay politicians to ban it.

Removing the hordes of rapists is therefore much more complicated than anyone would first believe.

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!

Malinformation, Or How Facts Can Be Racist

Today’s authoritarian left have dreamed up three categories of things you’re not allowed to say. There is disinformation, wherein someone wilfully says something untrue; there is misinformation, wherein someone inadvertently repeats an untruth told to them by someone else; there is malinformation, wherein someone tells the truth but is still guilty of wrongthink. This essay explains.

According to the United Nations itself, malinformation is “information that is truthful but is slanted to mislead and cause potential harm”. The examples usually given are doxxing, swatting, catfishing etc. However, the term is broader than that, because it seems to include political harm, or at least the perception of political harm.

Malinformation is an exceptionally wide-ranging term, because harms (especially political harms) are often subjective. The Iona University website makes the astonishing claim that sharing truthful information about members of the British monarchy evading taxes is malinformation, because the sharing of that information can be decreed to be intended to harm that monarchy.

The truth is no defence.

The Iona University website also tells us that “Malinformation can become disinformation with enough social media virality”. In other words, the truth can become a lie with enough “social media virality”. Apparently the context in which a piece of information is shared now determines whether that information is true or false. One can hear Orwell’s mocking laughter from beyond the grave.

The concept of malinformation is an inevitable development of postmodernism. Once the concept of objective truth is thrown out the window, sharing information becomes a primarily moral decision. Whose interests are served by the sharing of this information? And are they oppressor or oppressed?

It seems that one person’s opinion is another person’s malinformation. So, perhaps ironically, it comes down to whoever can force the widespread acceptance of a definition of malinformation that suits them.

For instance, the Iona University website claims that “entire articles reducing a complex situation to an image” is a form of malinformation. But reducing a complex situation to an image is precisely what the corporatist media did when it reduced the mass immigration of Middle Eastern “refugees” to Europe to a photograph of a drowned Syrian boy. And yet, no misinformation expert seems to consider the sensationalisation of this photo in the mainstream media to be a form of malinformation.

Pointing out the incredible numbers of rapes and other crimes committed by Muslim and African immigrants is, apparently, malinformation. The fact that people from such countries commit certain crimes at a disproportionate per capita rate, sometimes ten or even 20 times that of native Europeans, is apparently not remarkable by itself. But if used as a supporting argument to build a case against immigration from Muslim and African countries, then it’s causing harm, and is malinformation.

Naturally, mainstream media stories about how one particular refugee got a job are not malinformation, because they’re not causing harm (harm being defined as harm to the interests of the globalist banking and finance concerns who own the mainstream media). Propaganda intended to make people more accepting of mass immigration is not harmful, according to this definition.

A Swedish study found that “In 2017, 58% among those suspected for crime on reasonable grounds are migrants. Regarding murder and manslaughter, the corresponding figures are 73%. These figures are interesting out of purely scientific reasons. Due to migration, murder rate in Sweden has quadrupled.” Mentioning this is also malinformation, if it’s intended to make open borders politicians look bad.

Presumably the correct context is to blame everything on white supremacy. Sharing information about colonial atrocities is, for this reason, not malinformation, because it harms the right people. So facts can be racist if they harm the interests of certain already disprivileged races (or at least the interests of those who claim to speak for those races).

Facts about how men commit far more violent and sexual crimes than women are not malinformation, because men are oppressors.

Here one starts to understand the political motivation behind the creation and promulgation of the concept of malinformation. The world is currently under globalist control, and therefore sharing of truthful information is a bad thing if it harms globalist interests. And those interests are primarily about keeping the rest of us fighting while they loot the place.

Note that the Government is never guilty of malinformation. The Government, seemingly by definition, never uses the truth to mislead or to cause harm. This reveals the reality of the concept of malinformation: just as with disinformation and misinformation, malinformation is whatever with the people with power say it is, and malinformation is never what the people without power say it is.

Essentially, there is little difference between something truthful the people in power don’t want their political opponents to say on the one hand, and malinformation on the other. Mentioning crime statistics is a form of malinformation because it does harm to the political establishment to point out measures of its incompetence. As does mentioning corruption on the part of the ruling class.

In principle, the sharing of any facts or evidence that goes against the political objectives of the globalists who own the world’s media and governments is malinformation. The only real counter to this is to develop networks and ecospheres of free-thinking people, outside of the control of the government or the influence of the mainstream media.

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 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!

Clean And Dirty Information, And How To Tell The Difference

This essay describes a concept in information science. This is a concept that is of extreme importance in today’s Post-Truth Age, now that the media is even more full of propaganda than usual. It relates to the art and science of deciding whether a given set of information is trustworthy.

There are already conceptions of clean vs. dirty data. However, those conceptions are inadequate, because cleanliness is considered the same thing as accuracy. As such, they are not useful, because it would be simpler and easier just to use the term ‘accurate’ instead of ‘clean’.

A useful conception of clean vs. dirty information has to take into account the moral dimension of the people promulgating the information. Essentially, then, clean information comes from a clean source who cares about the truth only, with no view to the propaganda value of the information, and dirty information comes from a dirty source, who doesn’t care about the truth at all.

This division is very simple, but applying it in the real world of propaganda is highly complex.

For one thing, it takes great knowledge of the world and of the people in it to make accurate judgments about other people’s biases. The usual, poorly-educated approach is to trust people based on whether they have attributes in common with oneself: race, class, education, occupation etc. The more qualities they have in common, the more trusted.

Another poorly-educated approach used by many people is to determine truth based on whether the speaker has a high rank in the listener’s herd or not. So one’s pastor, boss, father or club leader becomes the authority to which one listens. All that matters is a high position in a friendly dominance hierarchy. This was the approach described in detail by Edward Bernays in Propaganda.

It can safely be said that all information from a political source is dirty. Any press release put out by a political party can be considered filthy. So can any article or book written by a member of a political party. The greater the influence of politics on any source of information, the dirtier it is.

It can also safely be said that most information from religious sources, particularly Abrahamic ones, is dirty. This is especially true of those who are seeking to gain followers for money or political power. Anyone who says that you have to obey them or suffer everlasting pushishment in a Hell Realm can be confidently written off as a dirty source. But in this regard, as with others, the world’s religions vary greatly.

Here it’s necessary to look at the reputations of the people pushing the information. Have they murdered their way around the world over the centuries? Do they regularly sexually abuse their children? Do they practice barbarisms such as infant genital mutilation? Do they have transparently sadistic animal slaughter protocols?

Perhaps there was once a time when the mainstream media was a clean source of information. This was back in the times when honest people chose to become journalists for the sake of spreading the truth (i.e. before the Charlie Mitchells took over). Today, no rational or intelligent person can trust anything in the mainstream media.

It used to be possible to trust scientists, because a lot of the people drawn to academia are the sort of person who values truth above merely material concerns such as political power or wealth. But then corporations started buying research favourable to their products. It turns out that scientists are only slightly harder to buy than politicians.

Who actually does tell the truth?

In order to reliably tell the truth, a person has to believe that there are positive consequences for speaking truth and negative consequences for telling lies. They have to believe in something like karma, or at least the Law of Attraction, before they can be trusted to put the truth before their own interests.

This is to say that it’s possible to trust genuinely spiritual people. But there, again, is another major problem: usually it’s impossible to tell if someone is genuinely spiritual or not. The low-IQ approach is to trust people at the top of the same religious herd as yourself. High-IQ people go on the reputation of the source among other high-IQ people.

If you would ask the ten most intelligent people you know who they consider clean sources of information, and if more than one of them suggested the same source, you could be reasonably sure that source was clean. This is the same logic as academic peer review, and, while an effective way of distinguishing clean from dirty, it’s far from infallible.

The tough news is that there’s no truly reliable way to tell if someone is a clean source of information other than going through everything they have written or said, comparing all facts therein stated to known truths, and subjecting their logic to the most rigorous examination. If they regularly make predictions that turn out to be false, that’s a good sign they’re a dirty source.

Perhaps the two rules of thumb are firstly: never trust an authority figure, because they have reason to lie to you. Secondly: prefer to trust someone who is trusted by smart people and distrusted by dumb people.

The great thing about clean information is that it can be absorbed without the need to take time and energy correcting for bias. A truly clean source of information is worth gold in the information marketplace of 2023. In this age of pervasive AI-generated content though, best of luck finding it.

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 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!