Could We Abolish The Police In New Zealand?

Most people never imagined that, one day, we would seriously discuss the possibility of abolishing the Police in New Zealand. It’s usually just assumed that society would fall back into savagery without a police force to keep order. Yet, here we are. This essay outlines the considerations involved in disbanding the New Zealand Police.

The first thing is to distinguish between what we’re told the Police do, and what they really do.

What we’re told is the Police enforce law and order. The story we’re given is that the Police are another government service, like road construction or defence. It’s paid for out of general taxation like any other government service, and Police officers themselves are selected for the job on the basis of demonstrating a will to serve the people.

We’re told that the Police enforce law and order for the same reason that all other government officials do their jobs: a general will to end the suffering of all citizens. The predation of criminals causes a great deal of harm, especially when it goes unopposed. Thus, the suffering of the citizens can be minimised by raising a Police force to battle criminals.

What the Police really do is protect private property.

The Police originated with the first chieftain to horde more wealth than he could realistically defend himself. In the really old days, this would mean that other people teamed up to take his wealth off him. The civilised way to defend wealth is not to defend it oneself, but to pay gullible sycophants to do it.

Today, the Police protect the investments of alcohol company shareholders by attacking anyone who produces alternatives in the form of cannabis, MDMA, LSD or other substances. They protect the investments of the importers of cheap labour by harassing anyone who speaks out against mass immigration. They protect the investments of those who hold fiat currency by kneeling on the necks of people who try to pass counterfeit bills.

If you have no investments, the Police don’t care about protecting you. If you doubt this, try being working class and reporting a crime against yourself to them. They won’t give a fuck – they’re not there to protect people like you. They’re there to protect the property of those paying their wages from people like you.

The sad reality is that the New Zealand Police are a pack of dogs that the New Zealand ruling classes sic onto their enemies when they want them destroyed. Those enemies don’t have to be causing harm to anyone – they can be peaceful cannabis users or political dissidents. The Police will destroy them anyway because they are not taking orders from the people, but from their rulers.

Most adults understand now that the New Zealand Police, like Police forces everywhere, are waging a war against the people on behalf of their paymasters. The New Zealand Police see the New Zealand people as a common enemy and, as such, co-operate and conspire against them; it’s extremely rare that one Police officer testifies against another in court.

The grim facts about human nature show that if we abolished all peacekeeping and orderkeeping services, society would soon decay into a Lord of the Flies-style permanent chimpout. However, this doesn’t mean that abolishing the Police would lead to such an outcome. It would in the short-term, if we abolished the Police immediately, but with a bit of thought we could simply deprecate them instead.

What would happen if we gradually abolished the private property-protecting force that is the New Zealand Police, and replaced them with some kind of peacekeeping and orderkeeping force that operated with the consent of the people it kept in line? A community police force whose role was to keep peace and order with the consent of the policed?

We could base such a policing model on the example of the Commando used by the Boers in the Boer Wars.

This would involve all of the able-bodied men from a particular community or neighbourhood getting together on occasion to elect officers. Perhaps for every hundred able-bodied men, ten officers are elected, and these officers choose a sergeant from among themselves.

This sergeant would then be tasked with enforcing peace and order. His rights and responsibilities would be little different to that of a regular Police constable, but with one major difference. The sergeant would serve at the pleasure of his fellow officers for the sake of the community, and could be dismissed at any time by those officers. This would be very different to today’s model, where he serves at the pleasure of the ruling class for the sake of the ruling class.

As such, our hypothetical community sergeant would not enforce laws such as cannabis prohibition, or prohibition of psychedelic sacraments. Anyone who came into the community from the outside, however, and started selling something the community did not approve of, would get dealt to. So would anyone who broke any actual law, such as thieves, rapists, thugs and murderers.

These community sergeants could come together on a town level to vote for a captain of police, who could in turn come together on a regional level to vote for a regional inspector, who could in turn come together on a national level to vote for a national superintendent. The captains, inspectors and the superintendent would have their own separate budgets with which to hire detectives and other specialists.

Should the community sergeant require, he would be able to deputise the other officers previously elected by the community’s menfolk. This would occur in cases of public disorder, or if a violent criminal needed apprehending safely.

This is entirely different to today’s model, where the ruling class appoints a caste of political administrators through a sham process called democracy, who in turn appoint lackeys to the highest ranks in the Police Force, who in turn hire arse-licking dogs willing to enforce laws against the population without their consent.

This model has led to an unaccountable paramilitary who operate more like a horde of goons than a community peacekeeping force. It’s little wonder that the world is currently wracked by protests against police brutality. The time is perfect to replace today’s top-down model with a community policing model under which officers operate with the consent of the policed.

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!

Hold Fast Good People! Our Time Comes

It’s common to feel blackpilled today. Anyone following world news is aware that the structure of society seems to be disintegrating, and that the human race appears to be regressing back into savagery. This is a terrible reality to confront but, underneath it all, there sprouts the seed of what will one day grow to be a new and healthy order. This essay explains.

Yes, this is how the Romans felt when the barbarians overran them. Watching helplessly from afar as mobs of strange young men beat people to death in the streets and the law enforcement authorities kneel in submission. The Westerners of 2020 share this experience with Romans from 1,600 years beforehand.

It’s an exceptionally depressing feeling, knowing that the great peace is over and that many years of war and deprivation lie ahead of us. A great many people feel it physically, in the form of restlessness, anxiety, loss of appetite and insomnia. The dread that so many feel is little different to the dread of a student approaching the date of an important exam that they haven’t studied for. We aren’t prepared for what’s coming.

All things go in cycles.

It is true that the world is falling into chaos and the old order is collapsing. We have been wealthy for so long that we have forgotten what it means to truly suffer. As such, our desires are no longer grounded in reality. Conflating our instinctual and artificial desires with our true will, we no longer have any common conception of morality.

Having lost a common conception of morality, there is no longer any way to unite in furtherance of a common goal. No-one can appeal to any value that is shared by all, and anyone who tries to is attacked by those who don’t share it. Anyone who tries to lead is torn down, and true leaders get replaced by opportunists, grifters and demagogues.

The inevitable result of this is disintegration, as the subfactions of society battle to impose their conception of morality on the others, while the genuine leaders who could bring unity are marginalised. Painful failure is the eventual outcome as the social fabric, the skin that holds the body politic together, is torn asunder.

Yet life will go on. The pain will burn away people’s ego-driven unwillingness to co-operate. The prickly narcissism that keeps people apart in wealthy times will fade away. A shared experience of great suffering will have the effect of creating both solidarity and humility. This combination will be the bricks and mortar that constitutes a new order of the world.

The factors that are today co-operating to spear tackle the West into the ground are the same factors that will co-operate to lift it up again. The Great Pendulum of History swings from the masculine to the feminine, and then back again, for ever. As there have been prevailing tendencies towards order, and then towards chaos, so will there be tendencies towards order once more.

The suffering of the coming years will make people snap back to reality. Wealth and prosperity allows delusion to go unpunished. Poverty and misery force people to see the world accurately and to think clearly. Reality is about to shirtfront us, and the end result will be much harder, sharper minds.

In the meantime, it has never been a better time to meditate. When things are easy, there’s little need to meditate, because one would rather be enjoying life. And why not? Life is hard enough as it is, so if there’s a chance to enjoy it one might as well take the opportunity.

When things are hard, meditation is immensely beneficial. In the same way that physical hygiene becomes extremely important during wartime lest one become physically sick, psychological hygiene becomes extremely important during times of stress lest one become psychologically sick. As the world is collapsing around us, it becomes imperative that we learn to control our emotions.

Here we speak of meditation in the pure sense, performed with no intent to achieve anything. One simply sits comfortably in silence and observes the rising and falling of one’s thoughts, without judgment and without getting too attached. Allow them to rise and fall, rise and fall, and practice observing them with dispassion and detachment.

Over time, one learns in this manner not to react strongly to thoughts and desires. The ideal is to allow thoughts and desires to enter consciousness without making an emotional impact. One learns to be the unwobbling pivot, around which all the impressions of the mind revolve. Eventually, one learns that the prima materia is consciousness itself, infinitely resolute and utterly unaffected by mere physical phenomena.

A person who knows how to meditate will have a much easier time of the coming few years. They will find the incessant media hysteria much less aggravating, and will be less inclined to participate in chimpouts. This relative absence of stress will leave them much happier and healthier than the average person.

Then, when the pendulum swings back towards order, the skilled meditator will find themselves in possession of spiritual knowledge. In the new age of order, spiritual knowledge will be as gold nuggets. Thus, the person who takes measures now to win the spiritual battle will find themselves in a strong position in the new order of the world.

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!

How God And Evil Can Coexist

One of the great philosophical and theological conundrums is how God and evil can coexist. This question has been discussed for over 2,500 years, and no resolution has been agreed upon. This essay will describe how the conundrum is resolved by the philosophy of Elementalism.

This conundrum is usually expressed in the words of Epicurus (see image at top of page). Believers in God often make the claim that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This creates a paradox in the mind of non-believers, on account of that evil and suffering exist in the world.

If God is unable to prevent evil, then God cannot be omnipotent. If God is able, but not willing, then God cannot be omnibenevolent. This paradox could be called Epicurus’s Fork, on account of that the believer in God cannot easily reconcile their belief in God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence with the fact that evil and suffering exist.

Reconciliation of this paradox is easy for the Elementalist, however.

The first thing to state is that Elementalists have a particular conception of God and creation. The Elementalist believes that all individual consciousnesses are fragments of God, and therefore God is not something separate to ourselves. It’s more accurate to say that we, collectively, are God.

Likewise, Elementalists have a different conception of creation. The material world is not something that we woke up in – the material world is a dream that we collectively manifest through our will and karma. More specifically, our experience in the material world is considered to be an infinitely small subsection of something called the Great Fractal.

So how does that relate to the coexistence of God and evil? The answer lies in understanding what existence would be like without the illusion of a material world.

Our consciousnesses only feel suffering because we identify with our bodies. Our bodies are transitory phenomena, and like all transitory phenomena they are in a constant state of flux. This flux is usually painful. As a consequence, we need to act to balance it out. When our bodies get hungry we eat, when they get tired we sleep, when they feel pain we need to attend to it.

Without the illusion of a physical body in a physical world, our consciousnesses would exist in a state of perfect bliss, united with God. Absent a body, we would not have any cause to feel pain or fear of death. Absent a mind, we would not have any cause to feel anxiety or fear of the future. The only thing that would exist would be consciousness.

And it would be as boring as shit.

What would it be like to not suffer? It would be to live a life that was utterly devoid of meaning. Without the possibility of suffering, it wouldn’t matter what actions we chose. Every choice would lead to an identical outcome, at least as far as suffering is concerned. As such, our choices would be totally meaningless. We’d simply drift senselessly through life, like a leaf on a river.

This absence of meaning is the root of spiritual suffering, a worse affliction than any physical suffering could be. People rarely kill themselves from physical suffering, but they kill themselves from spiritual suffering every day. The physical suffering inherent to life, then, is not the worst thing in the world. Neither is the emotional suffering that is also inherent to life on account of that we cannot possibly satiate all of our desires.

We might have to act like physical and emotional suffering is ultimately terrible in order to give life meaning, but the reality is that an absence of meaning would be an even greater suffering.

It’s possible, then, for an omnibenevolent God to allow a minor suffering in order to prevent a major one. If the meaninglessness that accompanies existence in a state of perfect bliss can only be overcome by casting individual fragments of consciousness into a world of eternal misery, then so be it. Cast us, O God, into eternal misery!

At this point, some people will ask: “If Elementalists think that suffering is good, what’s stopping them from deliberately acting to increase suffering? If suffering gives life meaning, then why not go around raping and murdering? After all, it would create plenty of meaning in people’s lives as they struggled to resist you.”

Such questioners must be referred to the Law of Assortative Reincarnation. Elementalists believe that the energy one expresses into the world becomes the energy of one’s consciousness, and that the energy one receives from the world is a reflection of that same consciousness. As within, so without, and as without, so within.

An Elementalist would only act to increase the level of suffering in the world if they themselves wished to incarnate in a world of beings who behaved in that manner. Because this is extremely unlikely, it’s also extremely unlikely that an Elementalist would knowingly act to cause more suffering. The Elementalist belief is that there is enough suffering in the world naturally to give everyone’s life meaning, and so it doesn’t need to be added to.

In summary, Elementalists see no contradiction in believing in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God despite the presence of evil. It doesn’t matter that a will to cause suffering exists in this world, because that will ameliorates a greater suffering: that of living a meaningless life.

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!

Clown World Chronicles: What Is An ‘Ethnostate’?

The term ‘ethnostate’ comes up again and again, and it will come up even more often as Clown World intensifies. People like talking about whether instituting one is possible, and they like arguing about who would be let into one if it existed. This article tells you what you need to know.

Of all the thoughtcrimes that people get accused of nowadays, being a racist is the worst. Of the all the racist thoughtcrimes one can commit, the worst is supporting an ethnostate (one would think that supporting genocide would be the worst, but in Clown World overt hatred is sometimes not considered actual hatred, for reasons mysterious).

An ethnostate is a country where citizenship is limited to members of one particular nation or ethnicity. The countries of Europe started out as ethnostates, as did most of the nations of the Old World. It’s only in empires, such as Rome or the countries of the New World today, where different races are tasked with living in harmony.

America is not an ethnostate, and nor is any other Western nation today. As such, the concept only exists as an ideal – one that existed in the past, and which some wish would exist in the future.

The ethnostate is usually thought of as an imagined liferaft that will keep white people safe from The Muttening. This term refers to the continual increase of people with undefinable ethnic ancestry, to the point where Western nations are no longer identifiable separate breeds but rather a mass of mongrels.

In its American conception, the usual idea is that white people would pull back to the Pacific Northwest, this being the furthest away from where the bulk of the blacks and Hispanics live. The reasoning is that this part of North America is so cold and rainy that only white people could handle living there. This would also allow for California to be used as a buffer zone.

In its European conception, the usual idea is that all non-natives will be encouraged to leave, otherwise expelled. An ethnostate will thus be created from within. In principle, it doesn’t really matter where the non-natives are expelled to, but the usual idea is “back to the Middle East and Africa.”

The Alt Right, in particular, is obsessed with the idea of an ethnostate, believing it to be the solution to most of society’s problems. They believe in resegregation, which would entail American whites and American blacks living apart from each other. For the Alt Right, blending together different human groups is a recipe for social chaos. Segregation is as necessary to good order as private property laws.

They are particularly fond of quoting crime statistics that demonstrate black Americans committing homicide at a much higher rate than white Americans. “13/52” is a popular phrase, referencing the fact that blacks make up some 13% of the American population but commit some 52% of the homicides. Multiple studies show that American blacks are some six times as murderous as American whites.

They are also fond of quoting sex crime statistics. In Sweden, native Swedes make up some 97% of victims of sexual homicides but at most 58% of the perpetrators. A Norwegian study found that 36% of rapes in Norway are committed by men born outside of it. Another study showed that the number of first-generation immigrants in a European country was significantly positively correlated with the number of rapes in that country.

The Alt Right argues that if Western nations would simply get rid of all their non-whites, everything would be golden. Removing this 10-15% of the population would reduce by half the number of sex crimes and homicides, they argue.

It’s certainly true that there are scientifically documented disadvantages to a lack of cohesion.

As Aristotle described, a lack of commonalities leads to infighting within groups that would otherwise be harmonious. Diversity leads to factionalisation, which is when one subgroup starts putting its own interests above that of the wider group. This inevitably leads to everyone else doing the same, meaning that overall social solidarity and trust are lessened.

Even worse, diversity gives tyrants the ability to play factions of the people off against each other. Aristotle noticed already 2,300 years ago that multicultural societies were inevitably ruled by tyrants, as their inability to agree on anything was exploited by demagogues. It’s often as simple as favouring one group unfairly, and the whole population can be induced to fight itself.

Despite all this, problems with the ethnostate idea are multiple.

For one thing, many non-whites occupy a lowly niche in Western societies that would otherwise be filled by whites. In Western countries, there’s a need to completely shit on one segment of society, so as to induce the others to stay in line. This is usually the cheap labour segment, which must necessarily be filled by whites in any white ethnostate.

This is true at the other end of the scale as well. If all of the Jews were kicked out of the West, the niches that they currently occupy would end up being filled by white people. Evidence for this comes from the fact that Japan and South Korea have also descended into Clown World, in many ways even worse than what the West has. But Japan and South Korea already are ethnostates, with hardly a Jew to be seen anywhere.

Even more crippling to any ethnostate proposal is the fact that, even with a will to institute one, the existing presence of mixed-race people would make it impossible to draw ethnic boundaries that could be agreed upon. Apartheid in South Africa had the advantage that whites and blacks were distinct people. But in America, the number of mixed-race people is so great that no clear lines could possibly be drawn.

If there is to be any hope for future dreams of an ethnostate, it might have to be run on a Selectionist basis. Some dwellers of cyberspace joke about a “Hapa ethnostate”, but the groundwork for one has already been laid in Hong Kong, Singapore, British Columbia, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland and a few other places.

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

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!