futurism – Page 42

New Zealand Should Only Let Female Refugees In

The hordes of refugees that Europe has let in have mostly been male, and the results have been catastrophic – let’s do the exact opposite

New Zealand, like much of the rest of the Western world, is stuck between a rock and a hard place on the refugee issue. On the one hand there are humanitarian concerns, on the other there is evidence that letting people from certain cultures into your own country drastically lowers your own quality of life. This essay explores a middle ground: only let female refugees in.

With regards to the humanitarian concerns, it can fairly be stated that one refugee life saved is equal to any other refugee life saved. Therefore, if New Zealand could take an extra 1,000 female refugees at the cost of taking 1,000 male refugees, it would not be a net loss on utilitarian grounds.

So this policy is neutral in terms of humanitarian impact. But with regards to lowering one’s own quality of life, it’s obvious that the refugees who do lower the life quality of their host societies are almost always men.

The European experience has demonstrated that to open the door to males from the sort of cultures that are currently producing the majority of refugees is to betray your own womenfolk.

It’s now common for European women to report feeling too afraid to go outside at night – an absolute disaster from the perspective of law and order, let alone the perspective of needing to protect your society’s most vulnerable.

Given that letting male refugees into your country has had the proven effect of inviting the sexual harassment and rape of your own women, why not simply refuse to let in male refugees full stop?

Female refugees don’t commit crimes at anywhere near the rate of males, and they almost never commit the violent sex crimes that often create life-long psychological trauma. So why not cut the supply of these criminals off at the source?

Doing so would also have the effect of greatly allaying the entirely reasonable fears that members of the host society have about mass resettlement of refugees in their neighbourhoods. Banning men would have the effect of banning virtually all crimes of sexual or physical violence, which ought to make the host population much more receptive to the humanitarian needs of the women who would be let in.

So if there are genuine humanitarian reasons that obligate the West opening its borders to the world’s rejects, it’s best to do so in a way that minimises the potential blowback from the host society. This means filtering out those among the refugees who cause most of the blowback.

After all, not much makes a person want to burn down a refugee shelter more than hearing news about another young girl molested by an adult male refugee.

From the perspective of the other side, nothing would incentivise the remaining men in fucked-up countries to unfuck themselves more powerfully than raising the spectre of a future without women.

They would be forced to choose between settling their petty squabbles and religious shitheadedness and finding a way for everyone to live in peace, or living in a world where sexual opportunities were limited to goats and camels.

Some critics might contend that such a policy will just make those places crack down on women’s rights harder and restrict their freedom of travel even more.

If that was the result, that would simply prove that the culture of these places was fundamentally opposed to women’s rights and to freedom in general, and thereby demonstrate the moral obligation that we have in the West to give women shelter from the men enforcing the values of that culture.

Perhaps the best aspect of this policy is that it appeals to the innate sense of justice that most people have. After all, it is the men of these places that are creating all the conflicts that are causing each other to flee, so why should women be punished for any of it?

Let the men sort it out in the absence of women, as they were forced to do in Lysistrata.

Beneficiaries Are The Only True Environmentalists

The only truly environmentally responsible way of life is to consume less than a sustainable level of the world’s resources. In the West, it’s mostly only those on welfare who manage this

Humans now need the equivalent of 1.5 planet Earths to sustain our current level of consumption, and if we all lived like Americans it would take four. In 2013 we reached “Earth Overshoot Day” – the day by which we had used an amount of the Earth’s resources equal to what it can replenish in a single year – by August 20, and every year it draws closer.

The reason why we would need four Earths to all live at the same standard as Americans is because Americans consume so much more of the planet than the average human. The average American consumes 25 tons of the world’s natural resources every year, and they operate 25% of the world’s motor vehicles, despite only being 4% of the population.

This is broadly true of Westerners in general.

We buy big cars, often with every family member having their own, we buy boats, we go on overseas holidays, we buy enormous amounts of plastic, especially in packaging, and we recycle electronic appliances well before they become obsolete.

One thing can be said for certain about all this consumption – namely, that it will end. The planet is finite whether we like it or not. Sooner or later, like sand through an hourglass, the supply will run out and activity will diminish.

Let’s be honest: we don’t work to live anymore, at least not in the West. Technological advancement has made it unnecessary. The average Westerner has so much accumulated capital increasing the value of their labour that a surplus exists easily large enough to feed us all.

We work because we want more stuff. Fuck Earth Overshoot Day! We want an even bigger car, the latest Playstation, and to upgrade to a McMansion – and we want it now!

We could collectively cut down to working half the number of hours that we do, but we won’t, because the need to accumulate stuff is its own moral imperative.

The GDP per capita in America is around USD57,000 per year, which is close to $75,000 in New Zealand dollars. If Americans use four times as much of the Earth’s resources than what the Earth can sustain, then we can put a dollar figure on the upper bound of possible consumption.

One quarter of $75,000 is $18,750 per year. This figure represents the maximum level of consumption that humans would have to limit ourselves to in order to collectively avoid ecological collapse.

Curiously, $18,750 is a level of consumption roughly equal to what New Zealand beneficiaries are already forced to live on, which raises an interesting point – in the long run, environmental laws dictate that the average person on Earth cannot be any wealthier than the average New Zealand beneficiary already is.

In other words, almost every Westerner with a job – who in almost every case will be spending far more than $18,750 a year – is consuming an amount of the world’s resources that is not sustainable in the long run.

In the long run, the average person cannot consume the world’s resources at a rate greater than that of the current average New Zealand beneficiary.

Considering that all of us will eventually have to cut down to this level of consumption, whether we like it or not, the people who are currently beneficiaries are actually giving us a glimpse of what level of wealth is realistically sustainable.

In that sense they are harbingers of the future, unlike the rest of us currently consuming an unsustainable amount of resources. Thus it could be argued that beneficiaries are the true environmentalists.

National and the Greens Could Form A Globalist Alliance Post-Election

A recent leaked poll suggests that the Green Party might find themselves snookered after the election on September 23rd. Although they are polling fairly well, Labour is not, and so the Green-Labour alliance might find themselves dependent on New Zealand First, who the Greens have intimated they cannot work with.

The Greens have also suggested that they would not like to support a Labour-New Zealand First minority Government on the grounds that New Zealand First is “racist”.

This raises the disaster scenario of New Zealand First choosing to go into coalition with National, which would form a comfortable majority, with the Greens left out in the cold again.

Sounds like an everyday drama at a girls’ high school – and the participants are every bit as catty – but for us plebs out there in New Zealand it’s what decides whether we eat at the end of the week or not.

One scenario, however, has been relatively ignored – the Greens can always come around from the other side and form a globalist alliance with the National Party.

National wants to remove capital controls; the Greens want to remove border controls. This makes the two of them natural bedfellows.

After all, the only reason why the Greens are making noises about how “racist” New Zealand First is is because New Zealand First represents the nativist axis on the great globalist-nativist spectrum (that may define the politics of this century).

In other words, New Zealand First represents the people who are born in New Zealand – principally the Maoris and the majority of the white people.

But as Understanding New Zealand demonstrates in the section about Maori voting patterns, the Greens are themselves clearly more of an established power structure party than New Zealand First.

The correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2014 and being Maori was 0.66, whereas between voting Greens in 2014 and being Maori it wasn’t even positive, being -0.09.

So why would the Greens make a big song and dance about how not wanting tens of thousands of “refugees” is racism when the racism in question is an expression of the will of the indigenous Maori people?

Globalism.

The commitment of the Green Party to the globalist dream of destroying any connection between land and ethnicity is so great that they’re willing to further water down the Maori presence in Aotearoa by bringing in 5,000 “refugees” a year.

This may be so strong that, by itself, it tips the true home of the Greens away from the Maori they claim to be taking care of (and subsequently from New Zealand First and Labour) and towards the wealthy white people in the National Party, for whom any connection between land and ethnicity is merely an impediment to business.

Furthermore, as is also discussed in the Understanding New Zealand section about Green voters – “…the correlation between voting Green in 2014 and median personal income is 0.31, which is not as strong as National’s 0.53 but is much closer to that than to Labour’s -0.51…”

The Greens are, simply put, a much wealthier and whiter group of people than either Labour or New Zealand First.

The Greens essentially represent the urban wealthy, and as such it’s arguable that they could more naturally form an alliance post-September with the rural wealthy in the National Party, rather than the urban poor in the Labour Party.

Of course, an alliance with the rural poor – the diametric opposite of the Greens – in New Zealand First would be the most difficult of all.

Dan McGlashan is the author of Understanding New Zealand, published by VJM Publishing in the winter of 2017.

An Anarcho-Homicidalist Primer

Homicidalism is a new branch of anarchist thought. The essential belief is this: authoritarianism will always arise unless dominance hierarchies are actively resisted by killing the people at the top of them. The impetus behind this line of reasoning comes from a passage from the great author Aleksnder Solzhenitsyn.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

In essence, homicidalism recognises that individuals have the ability to kill each other by exercising their free will, and that homicide (and fear of homicide) is the basic social tool keeping authoritarianism in check.

Consider this thought experiment. Try to think of a law that would not change that day if the people who were to be arrested all behaved in the manner that Solzhenitsyn described above.

A practical example of homicidalism in action was given in the case of the cannabis laws by Jan Molenaar, who was responsible for a Police siege that led to the death of one Police officer. Considering that there were 10,487 total cannabis offences in New Zealand in 2014, and that the total number of Police officers is fewer than this, it’s clear that cannabis prohibition could not continue for more than a few days if every victim of it resisted “Molenaar-style”.

Of course, Molenaar did not survive long after taking guns to the Police. This is both obvious and a crucial point.

The first law of homicidalism is this. All tyranny exists because the people oppressed are unable or unwilling to kill their oppressors. This is because it is in the nature of oppressors to tighten the screws further and further until the population begins to resist, and then to release them a little so that the population is oppressed but not enough to revolt.

Thus, homicidalism recognises the psychological reality that tyrants tyrannise to the degree that they can get away with it.

Therefore, all oppression exists because the people oppressed have set the point at which they will revolt and kill their oppressors too low. Had they “loved freedom enough”, as Solzhenitsyn put it, they would have revolted earlier, would have killed their oppressors before the oppressors could have established a stranglehold.

Anarcho-homicidalism is explicitly anti-Christian. The very message of Christianity is, as Friedrich Nietzsche taught us, a slave morality, in which people submit to authoritarians out of fear and then try to drag all others down by way of resentment.

To the homicidalist, the admonishment to “turn the other cheek” is to encourage tyranny by lessening the consequences of trying to oppress a population. “Render unto Ceasar” is the same as accepting the rule of tyranny in the world.

The real difficulty with homicidalism is that it is something of a taboo subject, for the obvious reason that anyone with an intention to commit tyranny instinctively fears anarcho-homicidalists. It is unlikely that homicidalism will ever be taught at a Government-funded school, for example. It is also very likely that anyone publicly promoting homicidalism will get a visit from the Police.

Homicidalism is explicitly anarchistic because it is considered immoral to kill anyone weaker than yourself. This inverts the usual pattern of things, and provides a clear distinction between homicidalism and serial killing. It is also a bridge between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism, as both of these sides implicitly concede that the means of production always belong to those most willing to kill to control them.

It also has an immune system built in. One of the great problems with most anarchist solutions is that, when the power structure is abolished, there are no mechanisms in place preventing it from arising again.

Homicidalism gets around this by simply continuing to kill anyone who tries to take charge. The ruling class are killed until they stop ruling, and then anyone who tries to disrupt the ensuing anarchy by creating another dominance hierarchy is summarily executed by the nearest homicidalist.

This is an excerpt from Viktor Hellman’s upcoming Anarcho-Homicidalist’s Manifesto.