Why Parliament Is Full Of Abusers

This week the New Zealand mass consciousness has been obsessed with the issue of Parliamentary bullying. The cases of Sam Uffindell and Gaurav Sharma have revealed that there are some deeply abusive and sadistic people among our Parliamentarians. This essay explains why this is, and why we would be foolish to expect anything else.

Parliament is the top of the social dominance hierarchy in New Zealand. The people in there get to decide what the rest of us are allowed to do, and if we defy them they can set the Police onto us. Parliament are above laws. They can lie, they can slander, they can cheat, and no-one can touch them. This great power creates a great incentive for people to fight their way into Parliament, to the top of the social dominance hierarchy.

There are two ways to get to the top of any dominance hierarchy, whether it’s a family, tribe, country or empire: intimidation or inspiration.

In a state of Nature, there is only intimidation. The alpha chimpanzee is invariably the one with the greatest combination of strength and aggression. He rules by fear. Anyone who challenges him is liable to have his scrotum torn off or his eyes gouged out. A wide range of submissive behaviours evolved so that non-alphas could demonstrate their lack of threat, and thereby earn the alpha’s mercy.

Pre-civilisational human life was not much different to chimpanzee life today. The one at the top of the dominance hierarchy was also the one with the greatest combination of strength and aggression. But the advent of civilisation changed everything. Civilisation transformed the human being from a wild animal into something else.

In a state of civilisation, there is inspiration. It’s possible for individuals in possession of a divine spark to gain the allegiance of their fellows not through cruelty and fear, but through the promise of leading them to greatness. The greater the civilisation, the more inspirational the leaders are. The greatest of all civilisations give us leaders like Alexander, Marcus Aurelius and George Washington.

Inspiration is by far the best way to lead, because it provokes the least amount of blowback. Rule by intimidation makes people feel fear, which often calcifies into resentment. This resentment, as Machiavelli observed, is liable to spill over into unrest and violence. Much better, he concluded, to be loved than to be feared.

Intimidation is easy. It’s mostly a matter of what’s called social dominance orientation, or SDO. The will to dominate is the main quality that intimidates other people. Research has found that “higher SDO was associated with pursuit of hierarchy-enhancing jobs”. For the reasons mentioned above, politician is one of those jobs. So people who are naturally intimidating often strive to become politicians, creating a selection bias.

Inspiration is hard. No-one is really sure how to do it, or what’s necessary. A belief in God might be necessary in order to truly inspire, or fearlessness in the face of death, or high intelligence, great wealth or a favourable birth. No-one really knows. Good leaders don’t need to know the specifics, because they can intuit the way forwards.

It’s fair to say that good leaders rule by inspiration and bad leaders rule by intimidation.

Unfortunately, New Zealand is beset by bad leadership. Not only are we near the bottom of a historical nadir, but we are also crippled by democracy, the remnants of cultural Christianity and a peculiar resentment-fuelled anti-elitism, all of which combine to keep our best people down.

The end result is that there are no real leaders in Parliament. All they’ve been since the Third National Government is just a pack of scum-sucking grifters doing the bidding of international banking and finance interests. That doesn’t inspire anyone. So our Parliament is full of abusers because there are no good leaders to inspire people to follow them, leaving abusers to battle their way into the top positions.

Our political system selects for psychopaths because any dominance hierarchy without one or more psychopaths at the top of it is inherently unstable. If the person at the top of a dominance hierarchy is not a psychopath themselves, they are liable to get dislodged by more aggressive underlings. So, from the point of view of the Establishment, putting abusers into top positions promotes stability.

Almost everyone in Parliament is an abuser, and that goes triple for those at the top of Parliament. Can anyone listen to Jacinda Ardern or Andrew Little justify their continuation of cannabis prohibition, and not realise they are psychopaths? Can anyone listen to Christopher Luxon or Brooke van Velden bay for cutting the benefits of the poor, and not think likewise?

Given all this, it’s not hard to understand why National selected Sam Uffindell as a candidate despite his history of bullying: a history of bullying is a qualification for a job that requires grinding five million other people into submission. This is why National never disavowed Nick Smith, even though Smith regularly turned up to meetings drunk and abused his staff, or any of the countless other alcoholics, narcissists and sex pests that have floated through National’s ranks over the years.

In summary, our political system is full of abusers because we have no leaders good enough to inspire people to follow them.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). 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!

Nationalists Won 10% in Aussie – Could They Do The Same in New Zealand?

The Australian Federal Election earlier this month saw incumbent Prime Minister Scott Morrison thrown out for Labour Leader Anthony Albanese. Although this was predicted by many, few predicted how little support the two major Establishment parties would get. Even fewer predicted such a strong nationalist vote.

Australian dissatisfaction with the ruling class has not been this high ever. In 1910, Labor and the Coalition combined won 95.1% of the vote. In 1949 they won 96.3%. As recently as 1993 it was 89.2%. But after the advent of neoliberalism, support for Establishment parties has collapsed.

By 2010 the combined vote for the Establishment Left and the Establishment Right had fallen to 81.3%. By 2013 it was 79%, by 2016 it was 76.7%, by 2019 it was 74.7% and by 2022 it was 68.9%. The pattern is stark and unidirectional. Support for the Establishment in general is falling fast in Australia, as it is in most other Western countries.

This falling support for the Australian Establishment reflects the falling standard of living across the Western World. People are less satisfied than ever about the way their countries are being run. Housing is rapidly becoming unaffordable even in countries as wealthy as Australia – the average house price in Sydney is now AUD1,600,000, which is an enormous amount of money even with Aussie wages.

Like most Westerners, Australians feel like they’re getting poorer, and have done for a while. Not only is the increasing cost of living making it hard for Australian families, but there is no sign on the horizon of things getting any better. Elections are often won or lost on economic perceptions. As such, it’s not surprising to have seen a swing against the incumbent powers this year.

A more surprising feature of the 2022 Australian election was the resurgence of nationalist movements.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party was the 4th biggest party, with 628,254 votes, and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party was 5th with 522,283. Adding Bob Katter’s Australian Party takes the nationalist vote to over 9%. Considering the nationalist sentiments of some of the independents it is fair to suggest that the full nationalist vote was around 10%.

This nationalist vote is the result of increasing awareness of the failures of globalism. Australians, like most Westerners, have now figured out that globalism just means lower wages, higher rents, and more crime. All the benefits that we were promised accrued to those who already had wealth. The rest of us just lost out.

The globalist Establishment doesn’t care about the electorate swinging back and forth on the left-right spectrum. They control both the left and the right anyway. What they’re really worried about is a resurgence of nationalism. This creates the possibility of putting someone in power who the Establishment doesn’t already control.

The two major nationalist movements in Australia together won about 10% of the total vote, which raises the question: could a similar nationalist movement win 10% of the vote in New Zealand?

The collapse of the New Zealand First Party (polling at a mere 1% according to latest numbers) means that nationalist narratives have fallen out of the popular consciousness in New Zealand. The mainstream media, on behalf of its globalist owners, presents us with a choice between the globalist left and the globalist right. Nationalist ideas are unthinkable.

But if nationalist movements can get 10% of the vote in Australia, there’s every reason to think they could do similarly well in New Zealand. Kiwis have also been poorly served by globalism, which has also sent our productive capacity overseas while flooding our neighbourhoods with cheap labour. We have very similar attitudes to Australians when it comes to such things.

It would certainly be an uphill struggle.

Because nationalism is equated so closely to Nazism in the propaganda and brainwashing machine that is the mainstream media, any new nationalist movement in New Zealand could expect to get smeared as white supremacists immediately, and compared to Brenton Tarrant.

But nationalist movements have done well in New Zealand before. New Zealand First won 10% of the vote as recently as 2002, as voters realised that Helen Clark was happy to destroy the New Zealand working class through the mass importation of cheap Third World labour, and sought an alternative.

The Establishment has worked hard to smear New Zealand First as a racist party (despite Dan McGlashan showing that pro-NZF sentiments are stronger among Maoris than among anyone else). If Peters’s party makes a resurgence, as some are predicting it to, or if a new nationalist movement rises up, the wrecking machine will surely swing into action again.

If one unified nationalist movement won 10% of the seats in the New Zealand, they could easily draw concessions from either of the globalist right or the globalist left blocs. An end to the War on Drugs as well as an end to the mass importation of Third World cheap labour might be possible.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 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 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!

Own Or Be Owned

Most Westerners are starting to realise that their positions are little better than those of chattel slaves. The average Western worker now understands that they will never own their own home, no matter how hard they work, because the house price to income ratio is too high. Awareness of this state of affairs is causing widespread misery.

If you control land, you also control the people on that land. It follows that anyone who doesn’t own land is the slave of those who do. Non-landowners, as a class, are effectively put to work by the landowner class. Proof comes from the fact that the average hours worked to pay rent alone is not much less today than the average hours worked full stop during the medieval era, despite centuries of labour-saving technological advancements.

If you don’t own land, you have to pay rent to someone who does, otherwise you die of exposure to the elements. If you try to live on land that you don’t own without paying rent, the Police will come to smash you and throw you out into the street. So in order to make money to pay rent, you have to labour for a second landowner, who takes profits out of your productivity. Then you have to pay income taxes to the Government, representing the landowner class in the abstract.

This arrangement was tolerable when the worker had enough money left over, after profits, taxes and rents, to enjoy a decent standard of living with a decent amount of leisure time. But this hasn’t been the case for decades now. Moreover, it is getting worse. The average worker now labours all week, often 50-60 hours, and is left with almost nothing after the landowners have taken their cuts.

The reason why this state of affairs is so heavily resented is because it’s reminiscent of a state of barbarism. To labour all week and be left with nothing is similar to the system that existed when we were earlier primates, where might makes right and anything you can extort out of another person is legitimately yours.

In a state of Nature, your options are: own or be owned.

Males of sexually reproducing species compete for territorial dominance, because this implies control of the resources in that territory. Whoever can establish that he is willing and able to kill the other also wins the ability to control all the resources of that other. Because females of sexually reproducing species are primarily concerned that their mates demonstrate a capacity for resource acqusition, there is a strong incentive for males to own as much as they can.

In human society, the most valuable thing you can own is other people. Ownership of women allows you to control reproduction. Ownership of men allows you to control resources. Ownership of both allows you to control society. Owning people is heavily incentivised because the more people you own, the more secure your position.

Most people in our supposedly free societies are owned, little different from livestock. This is especially true of those who labour all week but are left with nothing after profits, taxes, rents and basic living expenses are paid. This isn’t categorically different to how a unit of livestock produces e.g. a certain volume of milk but is not paid for it.

Some other people are owners. In every stable society, this ownership class raises a police force from among the owned. This police force is then paid, and paid well, to enforce the ownership claims of the ownership class. Without such a system, a society will collapse into violence over control of land. As such, a police force that smashes anyone who questions land ownership rights is essential for stability.

Wealth, throughout history, was primarily a matter of how many other people you owned. If you were the patriarch of a large family, you might control a dozen other people. A chieftain of an average village might control a dozen dozen. The lord of a fiefdom might control a dozen dozen dozen.

Today, people are owned indirectly, through owning the land underneath them. This allows for great profits without having to go through the hassle of managing people. The owners of tenement housing don’t have to worry about what their tenants do with their days, as long as they pay the rent and don’t damage the housing stock.

If life as a non-human animal is kill or be killed, life as a human is own or be owned. Class and caste systems can be seen as ways to formalise the ownership arrangement so that societies suffered less internal conflict.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 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 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!

Why The Government Lets Violent Criminals Run Rampant

Many were stunned by the news this week that Daniel Havili, who killed Fau Vake with a coward’s punch in Auckland, was sentenced to a mere 33 months’ imprisonment. Havili will, in all likelihood, be released after serving a little over a year. Considering the historical severity of sentences for killing people, this is very close to getting away scot free.

This incredibly light touch comes in the wake of other soft sentences for violent assaults. In one notorious recent case, Mongrel Mob chapter president Terry Berryman was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment for an 18-man gang home invasion that stomped on a man’s head in front of his children. Most of the gang members involved were not prosecuted.

This has prompted many to ask: why such light sentences for such barbaric crimes?

These sentences seem incongruous with the fact that cannabis growers such as Harley Brown get a similar amount of time in prison for growing medicinal cannabis. Brown was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for a piddling amount of cannabis – at most $100,000 worth. This is for an “offence” that not even 51% of the New Zealand population believes should be an offence.

Other working-class whites, like Philip Arps, don’t even have to grow cannabis. Arps was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for sharing the Christchurch mosque shooting video.

So why do violent criminals almost get a free ride from the courts, when peaceful people get smashed? Why would sharing a video attract a similar sentence to a gang leader doing a home invasion in which children are subjected to the sight of their father getting his head stomped?

The answer lies in understanding the motivations, intentions and aspirations of the ruling class.

Everyone who knows anything about psychology knows that violent criminals cheer at such weak sentences as the ones listed above. For professional criminals, arrests and prison time are just part of the cost of doing business. The lighter the sentencing, the lower the expenses. Therefore, the lighter the sentencing, the more crime pays.

These weak sentences mean that criminals can freely intimidate other people with threats of violence, knowing that the judicial consequences will be minimal. When sentences are as weak as they are in the West today, violent criminals get to reign in terror over the vulnerable (usually working-class) communities in which they reside. Even if the Police deal to them, they’ll be out again soon enough, and in most cases barely inconvenienced.

This end result – widespread terror – is not accidental. It is, in fact, the entire goal of having a justice system in which violent criminals are left to run rampant. In a state of terror, both individuals and populations are unusually willing to forfeit their rights, needs and desires. As such, it’s easier to rule over a terrorised population than a free one.

The Government allows violent criminals to run rampant in New Zealand for one simple reason: to terrorise the rest of us into submission.

VJM Publishing wrote in a previous article why the Government lets in terrorists like the New Lynn supermarket stabber Ahamed Samsudeen. The reason is the same. They let violent criminals run loose for the same reason that they let terrorists run loose: to maximise the degree of fear the average person feels.

Widespread fear makes the population submissive, and is necessary for any authoritarian government to maintain control. Without the fear, the population would rise up against authoritarianism and overthrow it. The fear beats them down and makes them suspicious of their neighbours and workmates, so that no-one organises any resistance.

The control system has many ways of spreading fear through the populace – the foremost of which is the mainstream media – but violent criminals serve this purpose as well as terrorists do.

The surge of adrenaline people get from seeing a patched gang member in public, and the adrenaline fatigue that inevitably follows it, primes people’s minds to submit. Engendering this submission, as George Orwell showed us, is the end goal of all political action and is the ultimate aspiration of the control system.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 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 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!