The Real Stochastic Terrorism

The Western ruling class has invented a term – stochastic terrorism – as part of their ongoing effort to silence all dissenters. The term has been invented specifically to shut down challenges to that ruling class. Mainstream media has even defined stochastic terrorism as “when Trump or his allies encourage violence”. But this, like most things the ruling class say, is a monstrous lie.

The term is used whenever a terrorist attack occurs, to link the attack to anyone the ruling class doesn’t like. So when Christian supremacist Brenton Tarrant shot up a mosque in Christchurch, anyone who had ever spoken out against mass Muslim immigration became a stochastic terrorist.

The Western ruling class uses the term so broadly that it even covers “misinformation” and “conspiracies”. Because the ruling class is our “sole source of truth” (as per Jacinda Ardern), misinformation is defined as anything the ruling class doesn’t agree with. A conspiracy theorist is defined as anyone who suspects their government of lying about anything.

In reality, the Western ruling class are the stochastic terrorists, and they commit acts of stochastic terrorism every single day.

The most notable recent example of this was the live television broadcast of the shooting of a Donald Trump doll on the Breakfast show in New Zealand. The presenters of the show took it in turns to shoot the doll with a plastic shotgun that fires salt, a device invented to shoot flies.

The entire point of this display was to normalise violence against Donald Trump, and by extension nationalists, who are the only real enemies of the Western Establishment. Our rulers would love nothing more than for someone to murder Donald Trump. Hence, by process of “monkey see, monkey do”, they plant thoughts of killing him in people’s minds with stunts like the Breakfast show shooting.

If I had recorded a video of myself shooting a Jacinda Ardern doll, or a Joe Biden one, or a Muslim one, I would have had the Police at my doorstep by the end of the day, and I would probably appear in the global news. Probably I would face terrorism charges, and at the very least I would be arrested and interrogated. But, in the same way that Kathy Griffin faced no consequences for her Trump beheading stunt, none of the Breakfast show hosts will be so much as inconvenienced by a Police officer.

Why? Because stochastic terrorism is only a bad thing when ordinary people can be accused of doing it against their oppressors. Like all other human rights abuses, it’s considered legitimate when the rulers to do it against the people.

The blueprint for the Western Establishment’s use of stochastic terrorism to take out their political enemies is the murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002.

The Dutchman Fortuyn sent shockwaves through European politics by standing up for his own people in the face of international banking and finance pressure to open borders. He enraged the globalists by declaring that the Netherlands was “full”, and did not need any more Third Worlders. In particular, he derided Islam as a “backwards culture” and promoted closing the border to further Muslim immigration.

His most provocative move was to found a political party called the Pim Fortuyn List and run for power in the 2002 Dutch General Election. He was pilloried for this in the European media, and labelled a “far-right extremist” despite being a homosexual who campaigned for gay rights in the face of Abrahamic oppression. Those media stirred up an atmosphere of hate against Fortuyn like nothing ever seen outside of wartime.

However, reflecting the massive latent support for nationalism and anti-globalism among Western peoples, Fortuyn’s Livable Rotterdam party (the local equivalent of the Pim Fortuyn List) became the largest party in Rotterdam, Fortuyn’s home town, during the municipal elections that preceded the national one. Shortly afterwards, Fortuyn had a pie thrown at him, leading him to accuse the Dutch political establishment of fomenting violence.

Panicked at the possibility of losing power to nationalists, the globalist ruling class convinced one of their minions, a left-wing extremist named Volkert van der Graaf, to shoot Fortuyn dead on the 6th of May 2002. This murder led to the collapse of the Pim Fortuyn List, and, with it, any hopes that the Dutch had of resisting the globalist onslaught.

The murder of Pim Fortuyn is as clear-cut an example of stochastic terrorism as it’s possible to give, coming as it did after months of hysterical fearmongering. But the media never mentions the Fortuyn case when bleating about it. Like racism, stochastic terrorism is a crime that only the enemies of the Establishment can commit. When they do it, it’s fine.

The real terrorists are the mainstream media and the international banking and finance interests who own them. These people will lie about absolutely anything in order to keep the rest of us in fear and submissive. Any nationalist who stands up for their own people will be targeted with the real stochastic terrorism: the relentless campaign to demonise anyone not following the globalist 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!

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 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!