Why I'm Voting New Zealand Loyal This Saturday

Why I’m Voting New Zealand Loyal This Saturday

I’m voting for New Zealand Loyal this Saturday. I make a point of never voting for the same party two elections in a row, because I don’t want to feel like I can ever trust one of the bastards. I voted ALCP in 2020, so can’t vote for them again this year, and don’t want to abstain again like I did in 2017.

The mainstream parties, however, don’t appeal. National and ACT seem like nasty money-worshippers. Labour and Greens hate me because I have white skin. All four are globalists who want more cheap labour imports, leading to lower wages and higher rents, the last thing my working-class family needs. I cannot, with good sense, vote for any of them.

New Zealand First is not really an alternative. They might be nationalist instead of globalist, which is a big plus. But they are still opportunist liars. Their refusal to support cannabis law reform demonstrated to me that they’re not really interested in freedom. As such, I could not support them with a clean conscience.

As existing followers of my work will know, I am an alternative centrist. This means that I oppose the political establishment (alternative), but consider the alternative left and the alternative right both dangerous extremists (centrist). I believe the American Revolutionaries came closer than anyone else to getting it right.

So when I went to see Liz Gunn and Peter Vaughan of New Zealand Loyal speak in Nelson on the 5th October, I went expecting to not vote in this year’s election. None of the other parties, I already knew, were alternative centrists. The closest was the Hamas-supporting Greens on the alternative left and the soulless ACT Party on the alternative right. Neither were good enough.

At the Nelson meeting, Gunn put forward what I felt to be a nationalist alternative centrist narrative, one that I have long argued for myself.

It was nationalist. Gunn’s refusal to work with globalists particularly appealed (the globalists are the ‘them’ of “Loyal to you. Not to them”). One of the messages that I endeavour to push is that globalists are the natural enemy of every single national group that wants to live in peace. Unfortunately, few New Zealand politicians accurately perceive the globalist menace (Peters is perhaps the only other).

It was alternative. Gunn excoriated the political establishment and their various freedom-thieving schemes, and showed interest in a number of issues that the mainstream media would dismiss as “conspiracy theory”. Among these were water fluoridation, Marsden Point, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum.

It was also centrist. To win the right-wing voters, there were the obligatory spiels about the 1% tax and the evils of Labour’s abortion law. But it wasn’t all right-wing. Gunn also expressed her support for the Portuguese model of ending the War on Drugs, and suggested that, if a NZ Loyal supporter didn’t have an NZ Loyal candidate in their electorate, they should vote for the ALCP one (which I will do, being in the Te Tai Tonga electorate).

I’m appalled by leftists. I hate it how they have completely abandoned the New Zealand working-class in favour of fashionable issues coming out of American universities. Workers can’t own homes but they expect me to care about trans rights? I hate it how I can’t talk to them about how working-class Kiwis would benefit from less immigration, lest they sneer at me and call me a racist.

I’m even more appalled by the right-wing attitude to life. The snivelling, moralising, cowardly forces that wanted to ban Mortal Kombat video games and ban Eminem CDs and ban cannabis and ban everything that anyone might enjoy in life, lest one displease some sadistic patriarch in the clouds, are not friends of mine either. To deny life is a slave’s mindset.

I’m most appalled by the New Zealand political establishment. It is sadistic to sit and support the status quo while so many Kiwis are suffering from homelessness, inaccessible mental healthcare, poverty wages and traumatic stress disorders. If the left wing and the right wing are misguided, the political establishment is cruel.

So I’m an alternative centrist. I was already convinced of New Zealand Loyal’s alternative credentials, thus the support for ending the Drug War sealed the deal for me.

The fact that many of the influencers in the so-called “freedom movement” take the authoritarian side when it comes to the Drug War had already ruled out that I would ever support them. Those who took the authoritarian side on vaccine mandates aren’t allowed to be prominent in the freedom movement, so why should those who take the authoritarian side on the War on Drugs?

Liz Gunn stands out to me, among all the others, as a genuine supporter of freedom.

That Liz Gunn and NZ Loyal take good ideas from both extremes of the alternative spectrum is why I am voting for them on Saturday. They might not get 5%, and, if they do, they might not be any good. But I will still support them on the grounds that they appear to be the closest there is to the nationalist alternative centre.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms! https://linktr.ee/vjmpublishing
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books! https://www.amazon.com/author/vincemcleod

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!

Charlie Mitchell: Mainstream Media Maggot

Imagine making a living finding justifications to silence freethinkers. This is what mainstream media scumbag Charlie Mitchell does, as evidenced by his recent efforts to have VJM cancelled from Reality Check Radio.

According to Mitchell the Maggot, if you have “offensive” opinions you need to be silenced.

When I was a child, journalists were the good guys who platformed people who the control system wanted silenced. Now journalists deplatform people on behalf of the control system. Mainstream journalists really are maggots.

Why Were Winston Peters’s Comments About Indigeneity So Controversial?

Winston Peters created a controversy this week in Nelson when he said that Maori people are not indigenous to New Zealand. The chimpout that followed saw Chris Hipkins, Chris Luxon and David Seymour all team up to criticise Peters. This caused some to ask: why are the left and the right teaming up against the centre?

The explanation: the left vs. right paradigm is no longer as relevant as the globalist vs. nationalist paradigm, if it ever was.

The globalist conception of indigeneity, which is essentially an anti-white conception, is that indigenous and non-indigenous are like victim and criminal. The presence of the non-indigenous in indigenous lands is a crime of some kind, and one that needs to be rectified, or at least compensated for. To be indigenous is to be innocent; to be non-indigenous is to be guilty.

This narrative – of irreconcilable opposition – is pushed by globalist interests in order to divide and conquer nations. It is in rejecting this narrative of division that Winston Peters has gained the ire of the globalists.

Peters correctly realises that a globalist conception of indigeneity is a threat to the New Zealand nation, because it sets the two primary components of the New Zealand nation (white Kiwis and Maori Kiwis) against each other in conflict. Through rejecting this conception, in favour of one where whites and Maoris work together as Kiwis, Peters has caused great seething.

Globalists are seething because they need to destroy nations, and to destroy national consciousness, in order to get those people to accept mass immigration. Mass immigration maximises rents and minimises wages, and therefore maximises profits, which is all that matters in our soulless capitalist hellscape.

There are few things more profitable than mass immigration for those who already own land, and the more land they own the more profitable mass immigration is.

The stumbling block for the globalists is that the people who already live in New Zealand will naturally oppose mass immigration, as it increases their cost of living and lowers their wages. So the globalists have to divide and conquer those people, by splitting them into an indigenous Maori bloc innocent of all wrongdoing, and a non-indigenous white (or Pakeha) block whose very presence in these isles is a crime.

This same scam is being pulled right now in Australia and North America as well. Even in Europe, white people are told that the Sami are the only indigeneous European people and that white people themselves don’t qualify (which leads to the absurd assertion that Icelanders, who have been in Iceland for 1,100 years, are not indigenous to Iceland, whereas Maoris, who have been in New Zealand for only 800 years, are indigenous to New Zealand).

The whole purpose of pushing indigeneity as a concept, when it comes down to it, is to disenfranchise white people. The concept creates the impression that only non-whites truly belong in New World countries. Whites don’t truly belong in New Zealand (or Australia, Canada, America, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa etc.). Therefore they need to gracefully let go of the levers of power.

If white people were encouraged to think of themselves as first-class citizens of New Zealand, as good as anyone else, those white people would be more inclined to defend the country against the globalist thieves in control of the mainstream propaganda organs. They would refuse to accept governments who sell the country out from under them, whether by asset sales or allowing mass immigration.

In other words, they would be less profitable.

The profit motive demands that the New Zealand nation be shattered among as many fracture lines as possible, and to that end Maoris and white Kiwis need to be set against each other. The time-honoured way of doing this is to manufacture a grievance narrative wherein everything white Kiwis have to their name is considered stolen from Maoris.

Winston Peters, like the author of this piece, has both Maori and white ancestry. Following naturally from this is a conception of nationalism that sees Maoriness and whiteness as equally legitimate expressions of Kiwiness, similar to how the Jomon and the Yayoi people both represent the modern Japanese.

Such a conception would heal the damage caused by globalist lies in recent decades – lies which have seen the New Zealand nation divided into Team Maori and Team White and then set against each other, to the ongoing detriment of both.

In summary, the very concept of indigeneity is globalist psychological warfare against those peoples who would live freely and determine their own fates. There’s no need for it other than to ascribe special privileges to the “indigenous” and to thereby stir resentment among the “non-indigenous”, weakening the nation against outside threats.

Peters’s comments were controversial because the globalists are in near-total control of the mainstream media, which means globalist values are normalised and nationalist values made to seem insane or evil. Thus, it’s expected that Peters would kowtow to globalist lies such as Maori people being indigeneous to New Zealand. In reality, it’s the fact that he told the truth – and not so much what he said – which is controversial.

As Orwell didn’t, but could have, written: in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms! https://linktr.ee/vjmpublishing
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books! https://www.amazon.com/author/vincemcleod

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!

Newspeak in 2023

In 1984, the purpose of Newspeak was to make anti-government thoughts impossible. The logic was that if people were prevented by language from talking about opposing the government, they’d also be prevented from thinking about it. Being unable to think about opposing the government, they’d make perfect slaves.

In the West of 2023, our rulers have forced a form of Newspeak on us. As in 1984, the purpose of it is to make dissent impossible. The major difference is that, in our world, Newspeak works by confusing and corrupting existing definitions of words. This has the effect of making communication impossible, and thereby making resistance impossible.

The word ‘racist’ is the classic example of twisted definitions. The word used to refer to people with racial prejudice, who expressed contempt for others for no other reason than their race. But over time, as people displayed a willingness to submit to those shrieking racist, the definition expanded. Today some will argue that the term can only refer to white people.

Ther term ‘racist’ is now so overused that you can be called racist for resisting racism, such as if you say ‘It’s Okay To Be White’. ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ is an explicitly anti-racist statement, used primarily by working-class whites in response to comments such as that of Marama Davidson. That it can be considered racist shows that words (and phrases) can be twisted to their exact opposites in the Newspeak of 2023.

‘Nazi’ is a related example. Originally used to refer to members of the German NSDAP of 1920-1945, it’s now so overused that any nationalist or anti-globalist sentiments are written off as Nazi ones. Today, almost any unfashionable opinion attracts cries of Nazism.

As with racist, a person can explicitly decry Nazism, to the extent of listing multiple grievances with the doctrine, and still get accused of being a Nazi. Trying to distinguish between the nationalist aspects of Nazism and the totalitarian aspects is not permitted. To do so is to become a “Nazi apologist”.

‘Far right’ relates to the above examples. Logically, if the right-wing is capitalist then the far-right ought to refer to hypercapitalist neoliberals like the ACT Party. Bizzarely, however, those described as far-right today are primarily working-class nationalists, whose main complaint is often the corporate importation of cheap labour. Somehow the right-wing are corporates while the far-right is anti-corporate.

‘Nation’ no longer means a population united by ties of blood and soil, as it has always meant. In the Newspeak of 2023, national ties are just like masks that a person puts on and takes off as needed. Anyone can claim to be of any nationality. The dumbing-down of language has obscured the difference between roots citizens and paper citizens. All are considered part of one big club, defined not by Nature but by the Government.

‘Disinformation’ now means ‘anything said by someone the Government doesn’t like’. This has been made evident by the New Zealand Government’s Disinformation Project, which serves as a Ministry of Truth, smearing anyone who speaks out against the ruling class. Enemies of the Government, in Newspeak, are incapable of speaking the truth. Everything they say is either disinformation, misinformation or malinformation.

‘The economy’ now means ‘the interests of international banking and finance’. It doesn’t have anything to do with the material needs of the nation being met. Today’s Newspeak will claim that the economy is doing well because unemployment is low, and will ignore the fact that most of those jobs don’t pay enough for the workers to own homes and raise families.

It doesn’t matter if people can raise families, because, as per the Newspeak definition of nation, the nation doesn’t need families. It can just import them from overseas, and as long as the GDP goes up it’s all good. Herein it can be seen that the Newspeak of 2023 is a form of neoliberal totalitarianism, unlike the national socialist and communist forms of totalitarianism in surface ways, but like them in fundamental ways.

‘Conspiracy theorist’, heard often in the mainstream media of 2023, is classic Newspeak. It’s another term for wrongthinker, denoting someone who is outside of society, a memetic outlaw. Even though human history is a parade of conspiracies, one after the other, anyone who notices a conspiracy in 2023 is equated with the severely mentally ill. ‘Conspiracy theorist’, in 2023 speak, is a synonymn for ‘schizophrenic’, i.e. a person whose paranoia leads them to see things that aren’t there.

There’s a reason why Confucius said that, if he were to be offered power, the first thing he would do would be the “rectification of names” i.e. he would make sure that words had accurate, commonly-understood meanings again. Newspeak was a thing in ancient China just as it was in 1984, and just as it is in 2023. Wherever you have totalitarianism, you have centralised attempts to control expression.

“In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it,” Orwell wrote. In 2023 thoughtcrime has been made impossible by the fact that each of us has been trapped in a silo of language, where communication is crippled by an absence of common understanding of the words we are using.

The Newspeak of 2023 has twisted all language, not to the service of Big Brother, but to globohomo – the alliance of globalist capitalism and globalist communism that has forced neoliberalism on the populations of the West. It’s no longer a sure thing that, when a person uses a particular word, that their audience will understand the intended meaning of that word. And so, we’re too confused to resist our ruling classes.

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!