The Twitter Files

With the release of the Twitter Files recently, it’s now official that the US Government colluded with major social media to manipulate public perception. We now know that the US Government, through the FBI, was able to request Twitter to take down posts they didn’t like. This is not only a violation of the American First Amendment, but contravenes the very spirit of free speech laws.

That the governments of the world collaborate with the mainstream media is not a new idea. Operation Mockingbird demonstrated almost 50 years ago that the US Government planted intelligence officers in mainstream media entities, for the specific purpose of pushing pro-Establishment propaganda. The Twitter Files are just another example of this long-established pattern.

Domestic propaganda was openly used by George W Bush to manipulate public perception in favour of his adminstration’s policies. Doing so was illegal, but that didn’t concern Bush any more than the legality of invading Iraq did. Then the open use of domestic propaganda was given a massive boost when Barack Obama made it legal.

Ten years ago, in the middle of the Obama reign, the alternative media dominated what were then the alternative media platforms. The mainstream media was still clinging to print, television and radio. But the mainstream media came to realise that the Internet was the future. They began to take social media seriously.

However, an obstacle remained. People preferred alternative media. They enjoyed the more casual interactions with smaller media entities. This led to high levels of trust, something the mainstream media no longer enjoyed since acting as cheerleaders for the Iraq War. It meant that all the intelligence operatives embedded in mainstream media could no longer control the narrative.

The solution? Ban the alternative media.

Once the Establishment realised that the horse of narrative control had bolted, they retreated to their fallback position of banning all alternative narratives. Mass censorship was the strategy used by authoritarians in the past, whether Nazi or Communist, so it’s no surprise that neoliberal authoritarians would do the same.

The image above shows what happened to the Google traffic of VJM Publishing on the 5th December 2020, after the Establishment decided they’d had enough of us. Our organic traffic was restricted from 200 or so hits per day to less than 50. It was as if someone reached into the Google algorithm and pressed a button that said “Throttle traffic to VJM Publishing.”

Joe Biden’s America considers dissenters to be domestic terrorists. Jacinda Ardern’s New Zealand is no different. Agree with the authorities and fall in line, or you’re a terrorist. Given this attitude, it’s not surprising that Western governments are doing everything they can to destroy those who will not submit.

The Twitter Files are proof that little has changed since Operation Mockingbird in the 1970s. Western governments still use embedded intelligence agents to control the narrative, only they now do this with social media as well as legacy media.

Indeed, little has changed since 1928, when Edward Bernays wrote that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”.

That invisible government, now global, still intends to manipulate the opinions of the masses. So now that the opinion-forming mechanisms have transitioned from radio, television and newspaper to social media and search engines, the invisible government has taken over the Internet.

The ongoing Twitter Files saga is utterly undeniable proof that all of the major social media portals are heavily infiltrated by Establishment operatives. It turns out that, as Joy Pullmann put it, “Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al., are part of government propaganda operations.” Whereas the US Government used to plant intelligence officers in CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, they now plant them in Twitter, FaceBook, Google and Reddit.

Predictably, the Establishment will scream about how all this is conspiracy theory, and how none of the mainstream social media platforms or search engines have intelligence officers on the staff, and how even if they did they’re not censoring anything. But people who have followed the history of governmental interference in mainstream media will understand that the Twitter Files haven’t shown proof of anything unexpected.

What the Twitter Files have shown proof of is government officials working to destroy free speech rights, which are protected under human rights legislation in Western countries. This is therefore proof of a human rights abuse – but don’t hold your breath waiting for prosecution.

Thanks to widespread censorship pushed by Western governments, it’s now impossible to trust the narrative coming from mainstream Internet sources any more than the narrative coming from legacy media. Smart people will follow alternative media outlets, such as CounterSpin Media and VJM Publishing, to get facts and evidence instead of a globalist, corporatist, Establishment agenda.

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!

Whose Baby Is It Anyway? The Ethics Of Child Upliftment

The case of Baby Will has received international attention in recent weeks. Will needed heart surgery and his parents, quite reasonably, requested that the surgeons use blood that did not contain a Covid vaccine. The logic of Will’s parents was that the Covid vaccines have not been adequately tested, and therefore are not safe to put into an infant. The Government disagreed.

The Government’s position, as it always is, is that the Government decides what you’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. It doesn’t matter if you’re the one that ends up suffering from getting it wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got a postgraduate degree in the topic under discussion. Might makes right, and the Government has the might, therefore the Government is right.

The Government didn’t want Baby Will to be given unvaccinated blood. No official reason was given, but from unofficial statements it appears their chief concern was the logistical expense and hassle of needing to give unvaccinated blood to everyone who wanted it. As is often the case, the Government was reluctant to treat people humanely in case it set a precedent that they would be expected to live up to.

However, there was an impasse. Will’s heart surgery was urgent. Any delay waiting for official permission to use unvaccinated blood risked his death.

Rather than accede to the parents’ request, the Government uplifted Baby Will, sending Police officers in to rip him out of his mother’s arms. The surgery was performed with vaccinated blood, and Will was returned to his parents. As far as the Government is concerned, the story ends there. But questions remain.

If Baby Will had been given vaccinated blood, and if this blood turned out to have been harmful on account of that the vaccine had not been properly tested, and thereby may have had unexpected side-effects, the Government would have taken no responsibility for any of it. But Will’s parents – and Will – would be the ones who had to wear the consequences.

All the hypotheticals reduce to one question: whose baby is it anyway?

In the ancient Roman pater familias system, the fathers of the family exercised absolute control over the individual members. Not only did those fathers have the legal right to kill members of their own family, they were even obliged to in some cases, such as obvious deformities. Life was cheap in the ancient world.

Today we don’t have the same resource scarcity that Ancient Rome did. There is no longer a fear that feeding deformed children will lead to famine. So now we have a compromise position. The popular opinion today is that parents may exercise authority over their children, subject to certain exclusions that are widely agreed to cause harm.

Difficulty arises when it comes to areas where the existence of harm is not widely agreed upon. The real question is who gets to decide, in these edge cases, what constitutes harm. Like so many social issues, this question tends to break down into two sides: one authoritarian and the other libertarian.

The authoritarian position is that the Government should get to decide. In the case of Will, that means that the Government decides whether Covid-vaccinated blood is safe or not.

The libertarian position is, of course, that the parents, having the closest kinship bond with the child, ought to decide. It is the parents who will end up suffering the most if the Covid-vaccinated blood kills the child or not.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian side of social issues is in the ascendancy thanks to various recent outcomes like the cannabis referendum. With that referendum, a narrow majority of us said, yes, the Government can lock us up if we presume to decide for ourselves what goes into our own bodies. Because of outcomes like this, and others, the authoritarians within the Government have become emboldened.

As a result of the weak pro-freedom sentiments among Kiwis, the Government has seen fit to override the wishes of Will’s parents, reasoning that the New Zealand population will accept such authoritarianism. And we mostly have. The authoritarians in the New Zealand public howled for Will to be taken away and his parents prosecuted. So far, there have been no prosecutions, but a precedent has been set.

A predictable risk for the New Zealand people is that the same logic is next used for gender reassignment surgery. Globohomo likes to make the argument that denying gender reassignment surgery is risking that the trans person commit suicide. So in the eyes of the Government, denying gender reassignment surgery can carry a similar degree of risk to delaying Will’s surgery. And they were willing to uplift a baby over that.

Being torn away from one’s parents is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can go through. In order to justify it, the Government has to have excellent reason to believe that they’re preventing significant harm. In the case of Baby Will, the only potential for harm came from the Government itself. As such, they are very much the bad guys in this story.

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!

Left-Wing Nationalism, Right-Wing Nationalism, Left-Wing Globalism and Right-Wing Globalism

For many people – especially Germans – nationalism is equated with right-wing politics. We are told that nationalism is necessarily ethnosupremacist, and that nationalists must necessarily hate and want to destroy outsiders. Like most aspects of the popular narrative, this is total bullshit. This essay explains.

Following their victory in World War II, Communist forces realised that they could silence all of their enemies by calling them Nazis. So they did. Anyone opposing the globalist left – whether nationalist right, nationalist left or globalist left – was called a Nazi, and hounded into silence.

When those same Communists completed their Long March Through the Institutions at the turn of the century, and took control of the mainstream political narrative, the Communist weltanschauung was normalised, to the exclusion of all others. By today, we’re expected to believe that the left wing are inherently globalist and that the right wing are inherently nationalist.

The truth is more like the following:

The globalism vs. nationalism axis and the right vs. left axis are orthogonal. So it’s entirely possible to have left-wing nationalists and right-wing globalists. Having one Nazi/Commie right-wing nationalist/left-wing globalist axis only tells half of the story.

Nationalism comes from the word ‘nation’, which is a cognate with ‘natural’, ‘nativity’ and ‘nature’. It refers to the fact that, as tribes expanded beyond provinces, they came to organise themselves as nations, so that it was possible to speak of French, English, German, Russian etc. nations.

A nation, then, is the natural organisational model of a people.

Like everything else natural, a nation has a masculine, yang aspect and a feminine, yin aspect. In microcosm, this is reflected in the way that families have a father and a mother. Analogous to parents, there is a right-wing nationalism that reflects nationalist approaches to masculinity, and a left-wing nationalism that reflects nationalist approaches to femininity.

Right-wing nationalism, then, is about being a father for the nation. In the same way that the father of a family protects that family from external threats, and gathers the resources that family needs to survive, right-wing nationalism is primarily concerned with defence, immigration and economics.

That right-wing nationalists have a reputation for opposing mass immigration is not surprising. The father of the family is the one tasked with keeping dangerous outsiders away from the family home, and, by analogy, the right-wing nationalists are tasked with keeping dangerous outsiders away from the national home.

Left-wing nationalism, by contrast, is about being a mother for the nation. So in the same way that the mother of a family creates and nurtures the next generation, left-wing nationalism is primarily concerned with education, health and housing.

Taxation is not a concern for left-wing nationalists. Right-wing nationalists don’t like paying taxes, reasoning that it’s better for families to learn how to be self-reliant. But left-wing nationalists are happy to crank taxes up, reasoning that the children of the nation need taking care of now.

In any case, whether right-wing or left-wing, nationalism is the natural form of governance.

Globalism is an unnatural form of governance. Only in the case of empire does a person become subject to decisions made by others who are neither blood nor language kin. Indeed, it can be argued that globalist consciousness is inevitably the enemy of the natural, nationalist, consciousness.

Right-wing globalism is about plundering and exploiting the nations in the service of international capital. Right-wing globalists want low corporate taxes, few regulations and reduced barriers to the flow of international capital and labour. The more immigration, the higher the house prices and the lower the labour costs, so the greater the bank profits.

Modern slavery was created by right-wing globalists looking for people to exploit for profit. The transatlantic slave trade, involving African slaves, Jewish merchants and white plantation owners, was one of the first major globalist enterprises. The East India Company was another famous one. Both were concerned primarily with maximising return to shareholders.

Left-wing globalism is about plundering and exploiting the nation in the service of international communism. So the left-wing globalists will demand that the nations burden themselves with refugees, and will demand that local workers be taxed to pay for it. They will constantly push for refugee resettlement and foreign aid.

The left-wing globalists don’t use economic arguments to convince nations to take in foreigners, but rather moral ones. Much like Christians (their fellows in slave morality) left-wing globalists heap shame on those unwilling to accept their logic. Anyone who doesn’t want the refugee quota is labelled cruel and callous. The fact that people already in the country need resources is of no matter to the left-wing globalist.

What both right-wing and left-wing globalists agree on is importing foreigners. This always serves globalist interests because foreigners only rarely have true solidarity with their host nations, and so mass immigration reliably weakens national consciousness, and weakening national consciousness makes it more difficult for nations to organise to resist globalist depredation.

Nationalists don’t actually have a problem with foreigners in general, any more than someone who cares about his family has a problem with people outside his family. They merely demand that the foreigners that do come provide a net benefit to their host nation. In practice, this primarily means: no cheap labour driving down working-class wages and driving up working-class housing.

In summary, it’s entirely possible for a left-wing person to call themselves a nationalist, and to oppose both right-wing and left-wing globalism. Understanding this requires that people look past the crude Nazi vs. Commie narrative and realise that globalism vs. nationalism is the true political struggle of our times.

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!

Are (You) A Domestic Terrorist?

The New Zealand Government took another leaf out of the authoritarian playbook recently. The NZ Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) published a guide for Kiwis keen to rat out one of their friends or neighbours for wrongthinking. Titled ‘Know the signs – A guide for identifying signs of violent extremism‘ (link goes to .pdf), the booklet marks another step in New Zealand’s descent into dystopia. VJM Publishing examines.

The document opens with a foreword by the ghoulish Director-General of the NZSIS, Rebecca Kitteridge. She explains that the NZSIS wants “to help New Zealanders feel more confident about stepping forward” to rat out their friends and neighbours. Apparently this is necessary in order to combat violent extremism, as one of the NZSIS’s core missions “is to detect violent extremists”.

The reader must note here that violent extremist has a very specific definition (as we will get to later). Mongrel Mob members, for example, are not considered violent extremists. The Government is happy to let violent extremists run free if they’re in gangs, because gangs mostly prey on working-class people. The NZSIS is after a different sort of violent extremist.

“We all have a role to play in keeping each other safe,” Kitteridge proclaims. To that end, we’re all obliged to report to the NZSIS any behaviour that might be concerning. “If you see something, say something,” the booklet demands, in an ominous echo of the wartime admonitions to help uncover enemy spies.

On page 6 it states the NZSIS’s wish for people “to report any behaviours or activities they come across that resemble any of the indicators described in this guide, or that feel concerning.” As we will see, the net has been cast so wide that almost every Kiwi with an original thought is now a suspected terrorist.

On page 8 we are informed that “Extreme ideologies can be based on faith, social or political beliefs that exist on the fringes of society, outside the more broadly accepted views and beliefs of most people.” This normative approach to extremism reveals that Kitteridge and the NZSIS are doing the Establishment’s bidding. If society believes that the Earth is flat, then saying it’s round is extremism.

More alarming is the assertion that violent extremists may seek “to create a community based on their ideology.” The fact is that you, the reader, are a head of human livestock, and you’re not allowed to seek out self-governance, any more than a slave is allowed to leave a plantation. Your community is that of the New Zealand Government, and they speak for you, as the sole source of truth.

The booklet gives the game away when it says “Extremists may seek to radically change the nature of government, religion or society.” This demonstrates that the NZSIS has no interest in truth, freedom or justice. Their interest is simply to maintain the status quo. Therefore, whoever has power is assumed to deserve to have power. The NZ Government is infallible, and so anyone wishing to radically change it is an extremist.

We are warned that “Violent extremists take these ideologies further and justify using violence to achieve radical changes.” Note that only violence used to achieve radical changes is considered bad. Violence used to maintain the existing order is of no concern. As such, the Government’s violence against the people, such as during the Wellington Protest or during the War on Drugs, is of no concern here.

The real material of interest begins on page 12, with the section titled ‘The indicators of violent extremism’.

Under ‘Mindset and ideology’, the booklet asks us to watch out for the person who “Consumes violent extremist videos, media, music or messaging”. The irony here is that the vast majority of violent extremist media consumed in New Zealand is consumed through watching the television news, and Normie television-watchers are far more dangerous than anyone else.

On that topic, we’re told to watch out for the person who “Develops a hostile ‘Us-Versus-Them’ worldview” and who “Makes dehumanising, hostile or violent statements against individuals or groups they perceive as ‘the enemy’ or the ‘other’.” Never in New Zealand history were people dehumanised as much as people who didn’t take the Coronavirus vaccine were in recent years – but the NZSIS isn’t interested in that.

Under ‘Association and relationships’, we’re told to watch out for anyone who “seeks a following to promote their cause.” Realistically this means anyone with even the remotest chance of having successful political influence. The subtext of this booklet is by now becoming clear: anyone who doesn’t submit to The Powers That Be is a security concern.

Even more worrying is being asked to watch out for anyone who “Becomes involved in a group […] where extremist ideas are discussed.” No VJM Publishing Chan Chat TeleGram channel. No 4chan. Not even an Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party forum. No politics are to be discussed by you at all, pleb! Just turn on the television and receive your thoughts for the next 24 hours.

Under ‘Research and planning’ comes the warning to watch out for anyone who “Searches for offshore conflicts related to their ideology.” So anyone with an interest in history is now a terrorist suspect. If you want to broaden your knowledge of the practical realities of your ideology – terrorist. Interested in World War Two? Terrorist.

After these hysterical and paranoid sections come a couple of sections of sanity. Under ‘Gathering knowledge, skills and resources’ the booklet asks us to look out for anyone who “Suddenly or unusually develops a stockpile of knives, firearms or explosive materials.” Under ‘Preparation’ it calls for us to be wary of anyone who “Declares intent to conduct a terrorist or violent extremist act.”

Entirely reasonable – but this hardly had to be asked for. Surely any sane person would contact the authorities if they heard someone else say they were going to commit an act of terrorism?

The next section, ‘Security awareness’, returns us to the madness, asking us to watch out for anyone who “Uses fake names, aliases or pseudonyms when online or within specific communities” (90% of Internet users) or “Creates exclusive groups on secure forums or messaging apps” (80% of Internet users). Again the common refrain: almost any of your neighbours, friends or workmates could be a terrorist waiting to strike.

Even more psychotic is the request to watch out for anyone who “Becomes secretive about their activities with associates” or “Provides limited or false information when questioned about future plans”. In Ardern’s New Zealand, just like in East Germany under the Stasi, secrecy is itself guilt. If you don’t want people prying into your affairs, you’re a terrorist suspect.

Hilariously, this section comes with a proviso that security awareness on its own is not enough to suspect that a person might be a terrorist. The obvious reason for this is because almost all NZSIS officers themselves would fall foul of almost all criteria here (which is why you’ve never spoken to an NZSIS officer using their real name on the Internet).

The final section, ‘Unusual changes in behaviour’, asks us to keep an eye out for basically anyone with a mental illness. Actions such as “Withdraws from or abandons close relationships”, “Appears withdrawn or prone to sudden outbursts” and “Stops participating in regular and established commitments” are all classical signs of depression or anxiety, which most of us are suffering from acutely in the 22nd year of Clown World.

In summary, the ultimate effect of this document will be to spread suspicion, mistrust, hate and fear between and among all communities in New Zealand. This may have been its intent, or the Government might still be chimping out in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings.

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!