How We Will Lose Our Free Speech Rights

Because we’ve had peace and prosperity for so long now, it’s a common belief that both states are natural and no special effort is required to maintain either. This is a grievous delusion. It’s possible that, as per Phaedrus, the natural state of consciousness is incarnated in a higher dimension where there is no suffering. But down here on Earth, the natural state of life is brutish, nasty and short.

The tribal and violent nature of pre-civilisational life has been ameliorated, post-civilisation, chiefly through the invention of marriage, which has allowed supertribal consciousness to manifest through homogenising existing tribes in their shared offspring. The more tribes that married into each other, the more this higher consciousness was brought into being. Eventually clans formed, and then city-states.

These city-states had plenty of what Aristotle called philia. This was a kind of neighbourly solidarity that served as the mortar holding the edifice of society together. This philia created a sense that people were on the same team, moving in the same direction, and this goodwill allowed them to agree on things, e.g. that free speech would be important.

For most of human history, there has been a widespread understanding that the standard of living afforded by this homogeneity was a good thing, and so that homogeneity ought to be defended. So when new blood was introduced from the outside, it was married in to the existing stock so as to avoid factionalisation. Aristotle wrote, in Politics, that “heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate.”

This factionalisation is what destroys freedoms, as freedoms only exist when everyone can agree on their importance. Absent this agreement, any and all freedoms can and do become banned on the grounds they are destabilising, corruptive or degenerate influences. The sad truth about the human animal is that we are panicky, skittish beings prone to contagions of fear and hysteria. Hence we like to ban things, especially if we don’t understand them. If there isn’t general agreement that a particular freedom is important, it tends to get banned.

The freest country in the world, America, is the way it is because of general agreement on the importance of free speech, free assembly, free trade and various other freedoms. Children are taught at the earliest school that freedom is a foundational American virtue, and that only America’s enemies oppose freedom.

Unfortunately, this mentality is not universal.

New Zealand had a referendum on freedom with the cannabis referendum in 2020. NZ-born voters voted Yes, for freedom. Those born outside of New Zealand voted No. Their cultures don’t have freedom, they don’t understand it. So they voted ours away.

Kiwis responded with a shrug, and just got on with life. Another freedom gone, who cares?

We will lose our free speech rights the same way.

The image at the top of this article is a screenshot of a recent press release from a coalition of religious groups in New Zealand: the highest authorities for each of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs in this country. They have combined forces to agitate for further free speech crackdowns. This is in response to some of the statements made by Brian Tamaki (see 2:00 in this video for examples), in particular claims that Modi was purging India of Christians and that New Zealand ought to retaliate in kind, burning down mosques and temples and purging New Zealand of Hindus, Sihks and Muslims.

Tamaki has said several heinous things, and could rightly be charged with being a nuisance to public order. But if hate speech laws are introduced, they will soon become blasphemy laws. It’s no secret that some religions, particularly the Abrahamisms, would like to make criticising them illegal. Adherents of these religions will tirelessly push to widen any hate speech law that gets passed.

The main long-term danger is that, as New Zealand becomes less Kiwi through mass immigration, the population becomes less interested in freedom.

Free speech became a core Western value in the 1950s, as neither the Nazi opponents in World War II nor the Commie opponents in the Cold War believed in it. We were told that free speech was why our societies were better: it allowed them to self-correct, thereby avoiding the extremes of the totalitarian systems.

This worked out excellently for some decades, up until the end of the 20th Century. After then, there was mass immigration from countries with no traditions of free speech. Consequently, popular support for free speech started to waver. Having little of value to say, the immigrants could not see the value in free speech. So support for free speech is now declining. It will continue to decline as the West continues to muttify.

There might not be a referendum in New Zealand about free speech per se, but about a free speech-related issue. It might be about a proposed hate speech law. In any case, the Chinese, Muslim and Pacific Islander voters who voted away our cannabis freedom will (in all likelihood) vote away our free speech rights as well. They can’t be expected to vote for freedom because it’s not valued in their cultures.

If New Zealanders lose our free speech rights, it will be through the mass immigration of people who don’t value them.

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 2024-25
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!

Semi-racism

Race and racism are the hottest topics on the Internet today. Unfortunately, because of all the garbage spoken over the years, people are more confused than anything else.

Standard racism, we are told, is the most evil thing in the world. Standard racism did slavery, colonisation and even The Holocaust, the unholy trinity of historical atrocities. It’s why brown and black people underperform at school and at work, and why they are overrepresented in crime statistics. It’s presented as the underlying cause to almost everything bad in the world.

Now it’s true that a certain kind of racism is stupid. It’s stupid to hate 90% of the world for no reason other than they are a different race to you. This sort of deeply antisocial racism doesn’t help anyone. It narrows horizons, impoverishes social life, poisons the vibe and ruins social cohesion. It’s often a sign of a fear-based psychological fixation, such as an unresolved trauma, and not an expression of good mental health.

Anti-racism, however, is just as stupid. The anti-racist is suicidal instead of homicidal, but equally anti-social. Only a fool would deny that there are significant differences between human populations such that people from some populations are much better suited to Western societies than others.

The anti-racist assertion that colonisation is responsible for Third World poverty can be easily refuted: Tonga and Samoa are extremely similar countries, and Tongans and Samoans have extremely similar levels of academic and financial success, whether at home or overseas. Yet Tonga was never colonised, while Samoa was colonised heavily. It’s the same with Hong Kong and Japan: similar levels of academic and financial success, yet one colonised, the other not. This is not hard to understand, which underlines the fundamental stupidity of the average anti-racist.

There’s an intelligent and fair middle ground between these two extremes. This middle ground is based on the most dispassionate anthropological observation of human populations. This observation – which many Westerners have had decades of opportunity to make – suggests that some races are basically decent, and can be trusted, whereas others are not decent and cannot be trusted. And, it follows, the decent ones can fairly be treated much better than the not decent ones.

The reality of racial prejudice (among whites, at least) is that it is less caused by inherent racist tendencies and more caused by patterns of antisocial, criminal, hostile and selfish behaviours by certain races, which are then experienced and observed. This is a truth that the mainstream globalist media is loath to admit.

Not all non-white races are antisocial and criminal, which is where it gets complicated.

People have long since noticed, for example, that Japanese and Korean people are very different to Africans, Afghans and Pakistanis. Japanese and Koreans tend to be polite, respectful, clean, non-violent, non-aggressive, non-hostile. For these reasons, plenty of so-called “racists” don’t hate Japanese and Koreans, despite hating Africans, Afghans and Pakistanis.

This approach to racism doesn’t fall neatly into either the racist or the anti-racist box. Treating people on their merits is unfashionable in a time when we’re supposed to pick a team and back it to the bitter end. But this approach is also common, and becoming more common. It can (and will herein) be argued that it’s an inevitable approach for a rational person to adopt given enough exposure to human biodiversity. So, because this exposure is happening to everyone now, it’s an attitude that most people will soon have.

It can be called semi-racism.

Semi-racism has evolved to solve the problems unique to today’s Clown World. One of the foremost of these is the outright denial, especially by globalists, of any human biodiversity relating to intellectual characteristics. The charitable interpretation of this denial is that it constitutes a noble lie that could serve as the theoretical basis for a cohesive society. In truth, however, it’s an evil deception intended to lull Western people into passivity as their countries are destroyed by globalists.

The core approach of semi-racism is treating each race on its merits, particularly by whether individual members of that race raise or lower the local standard of living. Highest regard is reserved for those races that create or maintain wealth and prosperity. Lowest regard is reserved for those races that commit crimes or live on welfare.

Essentially, semi-racism is based on facts and reality, not dumb feelings of either hatred or moral self-aggrandisement. It’s an intelligent, sophisticated philosophy fit to navigate the complications of modern life. Most experienced world travellers naturally become some kind of semi-racist, as do intelligent people who grow up in multicultural environments. Even people from 98% white environments will become semi-racist if they are intelligent and honest enough.

Semi-racism acknowledges that, while race has a massive influence on behaviour, ideology does as well. Thus, Muslim Indians can be significantly worse people than regular Indians, such that the semi-racist might take the side of a Hindu or Sikh over a Muslim Indian every time, yet want neither in his country (certain kinds of semi-racist might have different preferences for different castes).

Semi-racism is about giving other races the level of racism they deserve. Hatred for those who deserve it, and respect for those who deserve that.

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!

VJMP Anzac Day Address 2026: It’s Time To Make Good On The Promise Of Gallipoli

As Anzac Day dawns in 2026, the situation in the Western World is exceptionally dire. Our fertility rates have collapsed, and our economies are following them. Populations are in total despair. But, despite the immanent disaster, the ruling classes of the West appear to have no idea about either the suffering their people are in or what to do about it.

It’s time to make good on the promise of Gallipoli.

When the British Empire attacked the Ottoman Empire in World War One, Australia and New Zealand went with it. The reasoning back then was that we were British, and therefore wherever the motherland went we had to go as well. Across all the theatres of World War I we lost over 66,000 killed in action, from a population of just over six million.

While our boys died at Gallipoli, British commanders remained aloof. Some legends have it they relaxed drinking tea while the combat was raging. It was soon apparent to the Anzacs that their lives were worth very little to their overlords. The sentiment naturally arose that we would be better off in charge of ourselves.

What we learned at Anzac Cove, in theory, was that we ought to be making our own decisions instead of blindly following orders from the other side of the world. This learning was the beginning of our ethnogenesis. Thus it was at Anzac Cove that we started to transform into the Anzac nation. This was the Promise of Gallipoli: that we would one day become an independent and free people.

These theoretical learnings were sort of put into practice. During World War II, John Curtin chose to defend Australia with Australian troops instead of defending Britain. New Zealand, unfortunately, broke ranks with Australia and sent troops to defend Britain instead. But the thought was established: Anzac troops ought to defend Anzac territory as a first priority. We ought to put ourselves before Britain or anyone else.

After World War II, Europe and America opened themselves up to the madness of replacement migration. That could have been the cue for Anzac civilisation to plot a different course, like Eastern Europe did. Today, Poland has a larger economy than Australia, and they did it without mass immigration of Third World cheap labour and the resulting crime and misery. We could have done the same.

We still can. Only our will prevents us from doing so. We can take a cue from Eastern Europe – and from other places – and take a path away from Anglo-American neoliberalism and its attendant social chaos. It’s time for us to stand up, as an independent people, and to think for ourselves, and to blaze our own trail into the future.

For instance, we could say to ourselves, as Anzac Civilisation, that there shall be no more mass immigration of cheap labour to the Anzac Empire. Let America, Europe and Britain import all the cheap labour if that is what they wish to do. We don’t need to follow them. We never imported slaves like America did, so why not double down on the tradition of doing our own labour, and refuse to import Third Worlders?

Why not go even further, and get rid of globalist neoliberal immigration policy full stop? We could open immigration up to culturally compatible people if we wanted. We could even make an effort to only attract the high-IQ white people that once made the West great, and who still exist in large numbers, neutered by insane politics. Once we achieve psychological independence, we can do anything!

If the European and North American parts of Western Civilisation are to collapse into ethnic-based civil war, as several professors of conflict studies suggest they will, Anzac civilisation needs to stop thinking of ourselves as merely the juniormost partner in the Western coalition.

We will always be part of Western Civilisation. But, as the Romans once looked at the Greeks and saw a great people weakened by age and degeneracy, we Anzacs now look at Europe and America and see great peoples weakened by age and degeneracy. As the Romans surpassed the Greeks, so too will we surpass Europe and America. We just need to cut ourselves loose.

The Promise of Gallipoli is that we Anzacs are not bound by cultural links to the rest of the Western World. Those links exist and we are pleased for them, but they do not bind us. We are not forced to accept a miserable fate merely because the British decided that it would be that way. We can think for ourselves! We can rise up as one Anzac nation!

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!

Low-IQ Morality Vs. High-IQ Morality

All of the debates around morality can be summarised by reference to one of two schools of thought. There is a low-IQ morality, and a high-IQ morality.

Low-IQ morality is binary. It is “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not”. No thought is required to follow it – children and slaves could both easily understand. The essence of low-IQ morality is simplicity. The fear is that, if morality was too complicated, it would just be ignored.

Those following low-IQ morality speak as if life was a battle between their morality and evil. Everything outside of themselves and their mindset is evil. They even consider high-IQ morality evil, on the grounds that the nuance of high-IQ morality fails to provide a sufficiently firm defence against the dark forces of the world.

High-IQ morality is ternary, with an extra dimension compared to binary morality. High-IQ morality is “deficiency”, “mean” and “excess”. This is the morality of Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius: the Doctrine of the Mean or the Middle Way. It is moral philosophy for adults.

Those following high-IQ morality understand that life is more subtle than low-IQ people can appreciate, and that black-and-white thinking is usually low-resolution and inaccurate. Worse, the us-and-them mentality inherent to binary morality leads to vendettas, bloodfeuds and all-out wars as people hunker down against the out-group.

Despite this, high-IQ morality doesn’t see low-IQ morality as necessarily evil. Socrates, for example, argued that human misdeeds were the result of ignorance rather than evil. The low-IQ are considered more in need of guidance than punishment.

The most common low-IQ moralities in the world are the Abrahamic religions. These are the archetype of “thou shalt” mentality. They threaten eternal hellfire and brimstone, in contrast to the subtle punishments of the high-IQ moralities, which warn of less happiness. There are billions of followers of Abrahamic religions, mostly in low-IQ scumholes.

Wokism is also a form of low-IQ morality, in that it has an endless list of things that people aren’t allowed to do or say (or even think). The exaggerated sense of caution that people are forced to adopt today is common to both the wokist regime and the Soviet Union. One must live in constant fear of moral judgment, for the slightest error might see one, like Solzhenitsyn, sent to the gulag (the wokist equivalent being cancellation).

Atheist materialism is also a binary morality, because it amounts to following the herd. The morality can be summed up as “The herd is natural, and therefore the herd is good”. Atheists consider themselves to have transcended low-IQ morality, but in reality they have just exchanged one form of it for another: the “thou shalt” comes from groupthink instead of a priest.

High-IQ moralities are rare in the West. Very few people have read the Nicomachean Ethics, much less applied it. Many high-IQ people are aware that Buddha promoted a philosophy called the Middle Way, but not many have tried meditating every day for a month. Those who do apply a high-IQ morality to their lives, however, are the world’s true master race.

The West generally acts as if “more is always better”, which is, in fact, a low-IQ morality. It’s presented to us as masculine and assertive, but is really the mentality of a baby grasping for the tit. A high-IQ morality would resist mindless consumption while still saying Yes to life. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to see the rise of a movement that can achieve this before the system collapses.

Many people stumble upon something like the doctrine of the mean, but make little use of it. After all, children often learn with their first bee sting that too much bravery is as bad as too little. But high-IQ morality will never become popular, because the masses are low IQ. Perhaps 5% of the population can fully apply high-IQ morality under normal circumstances. This may have been as high as 25% in Aristotle’s time and might be as low as 1% in today’s Clown World.

Binary morality is better for low-IQ people because it’s simpler to apply. The difficulty with ternary morality is that it requires a lot of thought to know where the right middle ground is (as Aristotle wrote in Nicomachean Ethics, the correct middle ground is sometimes closer to one extreme than to the other). Trying to teach ternary morality to low-IQ people would just confuse them.

Perhaps the best approach is to teach binary morality to children, and then teach ternary morality once the children hit about 15 years of age. If a person isn’t smart enough to understand ternary morality, they can be taught a binary form until the end of their schooling. The difficulty is that existing low-IQ moralities (e.g. Christianity) are no longer persuasive, so a new one will have to be invented.

People ought to adopt a high-IQ morality if they can, but there are so many low-IQ people that humanity has to make do.

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!