society – Page 90

Why New Zealand Is So Fucked Up

A lot of thought has seemingly gone into answering the question of why this country is so fucked up. Most of it coalesces around ideologies, with liberal capitalism, globohomo, ethnonationalism and anarcho-nihilism being the foremost. None of these theories have as much explanatory power as the psychohistory model, as this essay will show.

The British Empire found itself with some severe problems in the 18th century. Because of industrialisation and modern science leading to advances in medicine and sanitation, there was a population explosion in Britain. This led to overcrowding, a problem that was alleviated by emigration. In some cases this was voluntary, in the form of gentleman settlers; in other cases it was involuntary, in the form of penal transportation and indentured servitude.

Like Australia, New Zealand came into being as a place for the rapidly expanding British Empire to dump some of its surplus cannon fodder, in case it needed to be called upon later. With the American Revolution of 1776, it became a lot harder for them to dispose of their convicts in North America, which is why, 12 years later, the First Fleet landed in Sydney Harbour to begin the colonisation of Australasia.

Within a few decades, the strategic imperative of colonising New Zealand had become apparent to the commanders of Empire back in London. Not only would it facilitate the projection of British military force into Asia, but it would also prevent the French from getting hold of it (as they later would New Caledonia).

To that end, Britain resolved to populate this new territory with some of its surplus people. This was not done with convicts, as Australia, but with free settlers exclusively, many of who were victims of the Highland Clearances (a little-known truth about New Zealand history is that many of its early settlers were people who were “encouraged” to emigrate to New Zealand because of unusual sexual proclivities that weren’t technically illegal in Britain, but which made the others want to get rid of them, such as homosexuality and pederasty).

This means that New Zealand is not, and never has been, a nation. Right from the very beginning it was nothing more than an artificial construct – a company. Indeed, the people chiefly responsible for the early settlement of New Zealand were called The New Zealand Company. Like Australia, and America before it, the people it initially attracted were Britain’s expendables.

Real nations don’t know who settled them or why, or where their name comes from. In a real nation, the people have been there since the beginning of time as far as they are concerned, and the stories of their ancestors are not hard historical facts but myths. Their founders are demigods, not Colonial Secretaries.

A nation is a group of people who are united by ties of kinhood, and who therefore all share a common goal (the perpetuation of their kin). Nation refers not to a geographical space (as does country) but to the people who populate that space. Consequently, one speaks of France and the French nation.

The beautiful thing about nations is that, being based on extended kinhood, each one is like one large family. Consequently, the ties that bind each citizen to each other are strong. In places like Japan and Sweden this leads to an unwillingness to commit violent and property crimes against other people, and a willingness to pay taxes for the sake of other people getting proper healthcare and a proper education.

In a place like New Zealand, the ties that bind are weak. As a result, people don’t care very much about the suffering of the other members of the collective. Although bullying exists in all other countries, it’s rare that it’s quite as vicious as what is tolerated in New Zealand, one reason why we have the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world, and the second-highest rate of workplace bullying in the world.

The other reason why our suicide rates are poor is because we don’t have a mental health system. In 2016, our mental health funding was a pitiful $1.3 billion – for the entire country. This is why many New Zealanders who present to the mental health authorities are just told to fuck off and die. When you’re a company and not a nation, the death of an unproductive person is preferable to paying out a long-term benefit to them.

Simply put, being expendable, it’s not considered important if we suffer and die – and it never has been.

This is why New Zealand troops went to Europe to fight the German Empire in World War II, instead of fighting against the Japanese Empire in the Pacific. Had New Zealand been a nation, we would have defended ourselves, and dealt to the main threat to us, which was Japan. It’s also why we fought in World War I and the Boer War, instead of staying at home, which would have been far better.

Because we are a company and not a nation, we do what our shareholders tell us to do, which was to attack who they tell us to attack. It doesn’t matter if its the Boers, the Ottomans, the Germans, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Afghanistanis or the Iraqis – if it serves the interests of global financial capital, we’re ready to pick up our rifles and die for it.

Australia and New Zealand lost around 1.5% of our entire population in World War I, almost as much as Belgium, where many of the battles took place. Australia suffered more combat deaths than Belgium, despite a smaller population and despite being 20,000 kilometres distant from the fighting. 42% of all New Zealand men of military age served with the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces in World War One, meaning that experience of mortal combat was almost normal for an entire generation of men.

The reason for all this was that our men were conscripted into battle by ruling classes that served imperial interests, and not national ones. This national history of being used as cannon fodder for imperial military adventures (despite it being the reason for us being brought into existence in the first place) is the main reason why Aussies and Kiwis have so many psychiatric problems.

The immensely heavy exposure to combat fucked up our country in two major ways.

The first is obvious: the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Called “shellshock” in World War I and “battlefield fatigue” in World War II, this refers to the dissociation that can arise from the trauma of combat. It is because of the heavy incidence of PTSD that we developed a culture of drinking ourselves to oblivion and indifference to domestic violence. Unfortunately for us, this is the sort of trauma that gets passed on down through the generations.

The second was that it created our infamous “harden up” culture. The deprivations of war are no place for preciousness. Any man who expressed grief at what he had seen or done had to be made to shut the fuck up in no uncertain terms, lest the morale of the unit become affected. The battlefield is no time to talk about one’s feelings. While in the realm of iron, the ability to suppress emotions is often the difference between life and death.

This is all well and good if there is a war that needs to be won, but our cultures seem to have made permanent what should have been a temporary indifference to the suffering of our fellows. Genuine nations don’t do this. Because New Zealand isn’t a proper nation, however, the New Zealand Government doesn’t take this into account when it makes decisions.

If we had a proper nation, we would have spent the money to fix our psychiatric casualties. As it is, we have a nation where crying children are as likely to be bashed or sworn at as comforted. Young people seeking mental healthcare are excoriated for being weak. This is brilliant for raising a country of warriors, but it isn’t how a nation naturally raises its next generation, which is with firm, but relentless, compassion.

Not having a proper nation to keep check on them and to inspire their will, the New Zealand Government runs the country according to the will of foreign moneyed interests. These are essentially the same interests that own the New Zealand media, and just about everything else.

The New Zealand people never, ever wanted to double the refugee quota, and especially not when the number of New Zealand families on the housing waitlist already exceeds 12,000. The New Zealand people also wanted cannabis law reform decades ago. The New Zealand people wanted a sharp cut to our immigration intake. None of it matters.

The fact is that, not being a nation, Kiwis have very little solidarity with each other, and so we don’t stand up for each other. This is why it’s so easy for politicians like the Sixth Labour Government to strip away our rights to free expression and to firearms ownership. Because we don’t stand together, we have no way to resist aggression, whether from outside or inside the country. Thus, we remain divided and conquered.

There is only one way to unfuck New Zealand, and that is for us to come to operate as a nation. This is impossible as long as multiculturalism and mass immigration exists, and stopping those things are all but impossible as long as an industrial society with an economy based around eternal growth exists. But if we can come together as an extended kin group, we can develop the solidarity necessary to make ending each other’s suffering a primary goal.

The reality is that this will take several hundred years, and will not begin until after the collapse of the current economic paradigm. Some hundred years after this, both Kupe and Captain Cook will be mythological figures, and most of the rest of the world, Britain included, will be forgotten. At that point, a great race of bronze and copper will arise, and the nature of their influence will be to move inwards, towards the centre of the world.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 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 2017 is also available.

Clown World Chronicles: What is A ‘Dhimmi’?

With a world being thrown into upheaval, many concepts once thought forgotten are making a resurgence. This is often a good thing, as VJM Publishing has tried to show with our work on alchemy, elementalism and esotericism, but it can also be a bad thing. As this essay will explain, one of the concepts we will again have to familiarise ourselves with is that of the dhimmi.

Growing up with stories about World War II, an idea of what constituted an awful person arose. It wasn’t good to be a coward, and it wasn’t good to be the sort of person who shot prisoners, but the worst sort of person was the kind that collaborated with the enemy. These collaborators were a particular kind of traitor, but of the lowest possible sort.

The actions of men such as Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian who collaborated willingly with the Nazis during the Norwegian Occupation, became infamous. When Germany invaded Norway in 1940, Quisling volunteered to lead a local version of the Nazi Party, with him as head. This was considered such an obscenity that Quisling was executed as soon as the Nazis were expelled.

Warfare has always had collaborators, a consequence of the depravities that it inflicts upon soldier and civilian alike. The first enemy of warfare may be the truth, but the second might be common decency, as people are flung into situations where they are forced to do terrible things or die. The conditions of warfare mean extreme shortages of food, medicine and safety, and that means desperation.

Sometimes there is so much warfare and so many collaborators that a specialist vocabulary arises to describe them. During the Islamic conquests, collaborators were so common that they were given the title dhimmis (“protected person”). A dhimmi was given certain rights, such as exemption from persecution, as long as they paid the jizyah, or special tax. This was a form of protection money and therefore a sign of submission.

A dhimmi, then, is one who collaborates with an invading Islamic force to secure personal benefits at the expense of their people as a whole. Because the Islamic conquests were so vast, there are many stories of dhimmis in different cultures, but all of them share the quality of being considered execrable cowards.

Becoming a dhimmi isn’t necessarily a dumb move, even if it’s a morally deficient one. As many of the Norwegian women who hooked up with Wehrmacht soldiers during the Norwegian Occupation discovered, collaboration can secure food and other resources if the enemy ends up being triumphant.

Dhimmitude could be considered a kind of prostitution. As can be seen by the image above, anyone who becomes a dhimmi can expect to be praised in the most effusive of terms. The most gratifying thing a jihadist can experience is to see an infidel submit to the will of Islam, whether that be conversion or paying tribute. It’s the same sort of gratification a man feels watching a woman suck his cock.

A lot of Westerners feel that they can already see the writing on the wall, and believe that some form of Islamic conquest is inevitable. It was being seriously asked 15 years ago if France was on its way to becoming a Islamic state; now people just shrug their shoulders and await the inevitable.

A dhimmi in a modern context would be someone who actively supports Islamic interests ahead of those of her own people, in exchange for the hope of goodwill from Muslims as a whole. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as votes from the Muslim voting bloc within the country or support from Muslim countries when it comes to fulfilling future United Nations ambitions.

British Member of Parliament Jo Cox was a classic example of a dhimmi. Elected to serve the Batley and Spen constituency of West Yorkshire, she instead spent most of her time campaigning for refugees and ethnic diversity. Many considered her assassination a predictable response to her support of foreigners over her own people.

Jacinda Ardern is another example of a dhimmi. Ardern could be said to be “The world’s favourite dhimmi” on account of her response to the Christchurch mosque shootings, which was to excoriate white men in general while opening the door to further Muslim immigration. Her crackdowns on the rights of New Zealanders to possess firearms and to free expression made every jihadist in the world grin from ear to ear.

These young women have calculated that Islam will be much more influential, perhaps even dominant, in a few decades, and therefore the time to ingratiate oneself with them is now. They want to show themselves to be great friends of Islam, in the hope that Muslims will treat them more favourably when they assume power. They have deeply internalised a sense of dhimmitude, the condition of accepting being a dhimmi.

The left-wingers who prioritise Muslim refugees over their own homeless are deep into dhimmitude. As is often the case with slaves, dhimmitude can become so deeply internalised that the dhimmi thinks their behaviour is natural, even admirable. But the actions of women like Cox and Ardern are little different to those of the women who prostituted themselves to the victorious Nazi armies. After all, human nature hasn’t changed in many thousands of years.

In any case, the West is likely to see a lot more dhimmitude in coming decades, as the Muslim population – and therefore their militancy – continues to increase. Soon it will become important to identify dhimmi politicians like Cox, Ardern and Angela Merkel, so that they can be counteracted before they destroy our societies from the inside.

Why The Left Doesn’t Give A Shit About Drug Law Reform, Gun Rights or Free Speech

For many of us in Generation X, it was easy enough to associate the right with authoritarianism. The association was so obvious that it was near enough to a universally held belief for those born between the mid 60s and early 80s. As this essay will describe, the sands have shifted under us, and the left is now the authoritarian side.

In the 1990s, Christian fundamentalism still had a powerful grip on the moral consciousness of the West, especially the Anglo part of it. Age restrictions on television and movie content were standard. Music was made to carry labels that warned of explicit lyrics. Purchasing restrictions on alcohol were commonplace.

All of these restrictions were driven by a religious fundamentalist sentiment that not only believed that pleasure was sinful, but that those same religious fundamentalists had the right to force laws restricting those pleasures on the population at large. This self-righteous indifference to the will of others engendered a great deal of hatred for the right among those who grew up at the end of the 20th century.

Generation X hit adulthood, therefore, with the near-universal belief that the right wing, and anything associated with the right wing, was the authoritarian side, and the path to liberty and freedom lay in opposing them.

This worked out pretty good for about a decade. It inspired Generation X to resist the Iraq War, in part by organising history’s largest ever protests. It also inspired them to resist the PATRIOT Act, the West’s first example of true mass surveillance. By the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, many had a sense that a golden age awaited the world once the Baby Boomers ceded power to the Gen Xers.

It wasn’t until Barack Obama was elected, ironically, that things really started to go to shit.

Obama was the first Generation X American President (more or less). He had taken office with a lot of fanfare about a new age of democratic politics, where Presidents listened to the people instead of mysterious, unelected advisers. Exemplifying this new era was a website where the American people could submit their concerns directly to the political class by way of Internet petition.

The most popular petitions on this site generally related to cannabis law reform, for the reason that cannabis prohibition is arguably the most egregious modern example of Western governments abusing the human rights of their people. To the surprise of many, Obama just completely ignored all of these pleas, and went about instituting the agenda that he had had long before running for the Presidency.

A recent mainstream media piece made an appeal to Helen Clark to intercede on the side of cannabis law reform. This appeal is misplaced, because the left hasn’t cared about freedoms for a long time. They didn’t have to, mostly because the right so conspicuously didn’t care for so long that the left won the libertarian vote by default.

The New Zealand Labour Party’s total refusal to campaign for the repeal of prohibition has astonished some and disappointed others. Many of us expected Clark to make a move on medicinal cannabis 20 years ago, when she was in power and had the chance. After all, California made medicinal cannabis legal in 1996 and the Fifth Labour Government came to power in 1999.

Their flat refusal to do is, however, just part of a wider pattern of leftist indifference to human rights. The left has now completely sold out to corporate interests, as evidenced by their support for the mass importation of cheap labour, by their working hand-in-glove with the corporate media and by their refusal to accept the result of the Brexit referendum.

When the Sixth Labour Government came to power, many had similar hopes for them to the ones they had for Obama. But like Obama, the Sixth Labour Government has done less than nothing to bring freedom to the people they represented. One can write ‘less than nothing’ because they have taken freedoms away.

Gun rights have been stripped, and the right to express political opinions without interference has been thrown out the window. Kiwis are now facing a protracted campaign of Police harassment for anti-Government posts on social media, so much so that one can now seriously ask if New Zealand is a police state.

The reason for all this is that the left, now being authoritarian, demands ideological purity with the same kind of bone-headed ruthlessness that the Nazis once demanded racial purity. Therefore, any and all measures that increase ideological diversity must be opposed. Anything that increases a person’s propensity to generate novel thoughts or ideas is right out.

They don’t want people using cannabis because then people come to think freely, and they want to be the ones dictating what people think (for the greater good, of course).

When the left champions diversity, they mean the sort of superficial diversity that makes a people easier to control. They mean the diversity that allows them to divide the population into numerous teams and to set those teams against each other through their control of the apparatus of propaganda, in particular the mainstream media.

They don’t mean ideological or intellectual diversity. This constitutes a threat, such that all ideological and intellectual diversity must be suppressed. This has reached its worst expression in countries such as Britain and New Zealand, where regular citizens face increasing Police harassment for the content of their social media posts.

In summary, the reason why the left doesn’t care about human rights any more is because they are now the authoritarians. One entire generation has passed since the right were the authoritarians, and now the political landscape is very different.

The right, for their part, have been extremely slow to capitalise on this by moving towards libertarianism. If the right would set its flag on the libertarian side of the fence, as a few politicians have done (David Seymour of the ACT Party being the most prominent), they could benefit heavily from it. If Donald Trump would call for legal cannabis, the right would achieve a masterstroke of propaganda.

Is New Zealand Now A Police State?

The Great New Zealand Chimpout appears to now be a permanent state of affairs, as the Sixth Labour Government has doubled down on its suppression of free speech. Far from once having been the world’s leader in human rights, things are now worse than anyone could have thought possible. This essay asks – is New Zealand now a Police state?

The term “Police state” is used to describe a political regime that employs the Police to intimidate or destroy their political enemies. This is widely considered a moral obscenity for the reason that the Police are supposed to be there to keep the peace in a morally neutral fashion.

One defining characteristic of a Police state is “The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions […] on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.”

The home of VJM Publishing Vice President Vince McLeod was visited by two Police officers on Friday. Although they were asked to leave the property immediately on the grounds that they didn’t have a warrant, one of the officers had the time to mention something about “concerning posts made on the VJM Publishing FaceBook page”.

VJM Publishing is far from only one to have been targeted in this manner. Many Kiwis are aware of the current ongoing campaign of Police harassment targeting the alternative media and outspoken freethinkers. Alt-media mogul Vinny Eastwood has been targeted five times already, and a video of one particular harassment attempt has been viewed over 100,000 times on YouTube.

The purpose of these visits is, and can only be, to intimidate certain sections of the citizenry into silence.

Ideally, the targeted citizen will feel such an unpleasant sense of fear at armed Police coming to their house that they will begin to censor themselves, and no longer express views critical of the Government. The knowledge that they are being monitored is supposed to cause the citizen to think twice about which opinions they express, lest the Police come back.

This logic has underpinned all Police states and dictatorships throughout time. It’s the basic abuser logic of punishing any and all displeasing behaviour. Dissenters must be punished so that dissent is quelled.

New Zealanders are generally happy to glibly declare themselves a free people. After all we have such a thing as a Bill of Rights, and in that Bill of Rights it says in Section 14 that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

However, if New Zealand Police officers are visiting members of the media for the purposes of intimidation, then New Zealand qualifies as a Police state. There’s no other way to describe a country in which the Government sends Police officers to intimidate people for expressing their opinions, when their right to express those opinions is enshrined in law.

Perhaps even more concerning is the willingness of the mainstream media to go along with this repression. Not only are the mainstream media happy to distract the people from this mass human rights violation, but they work hand-in-hand with the Government to manufacture public consent for the Police harassment campaign.

Indeed, Stuff admits that the Police have shared the secret watchlist with them, which is tantamount to an admission that the Government, the Police and the mainstream media are all working together. If that’s not a sign that the New Zealand Establishment is rotten with corruption, then no such sign is possible.

Some will be asking: where to from here?

New Zealand is likely to proceed along the lines of the East German Stasi model. This version of a Police state emphasises building a massive network of informants who are motivated to rat out wrongthinkers. Thanks to FaceBook, such a thing is trivial to achieve – it’s only necessary to appeal to the public to dob people in.

Much like New Zealand, the East German censorship system was applied despite the freedom of expression being enshrined in law. East German censorship was applied so that “Content which was considered harmful to the regime, or to communist ideologies in general, was strictly forbidden.”

The content that is and will be suppressed under the Ardern regime is content that criticises left-wing globalism.

It can be predicted that in coming years the Government will try to censor reports about the state of homelessness in New Zealand, because they want to import as many refugees as they can, and awareness of the housing crisis reduces the people’s will to do this. They will also want the media to not report on crimes such as Muslim grooming gangs or gang rapes, because this also affects public sentiment towards globalism.

New Zealand now effectively has the same thing as the Stasi, because Kiwis who share content considered harmful to the Ardern regime are getting Police visits. New Zealand doesn’t have a gulag system yet, but it could be argued that we have political prisoners. There are individuals sitting in prison for sharing a video of the mosque shooting, even though the video was shared before it was declared objectionable (and therefore the sentence is retrospective and not legal).

Philip Arps is not a very nice person, according to a number of accounts, but that’s specifically why the Government targets people like him first. They want to create the idea that everyone else they target belongs in a similar category. If they can manufacture the impression that independent media outlets like VJM Publishing belong in the same category of person as Arps, half the job of suppressing dissent is done.

There are also reports that Police have visited schools to intimidate pupils who have joked about the shooting or about sharing footage. This intimidation campaign amounts to an attempt to socially engineer the population into a more submissive and compliant state.

It can be seen that the Sixth Labour Government has introduced a Police state along the lines of Socialist East Germany. Expression of political opinions that the Ardern regime wants suppressed may well result in an intimidatory visit from the Police. The only way out is to ensure the coming to power of a force that respects the inherent rights of every New Zealander.