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 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!

Understanding Nationalism vs. Globalism Is The Key To Understanding The Political Landscape of 2022

Mainstream political commentators, most of them wingcucks, are having extreme difficulty understanding the global politics of 2022. The common reaction to the recent electoral success of the Sweden Democrats and the Brothers of Italy is to shriek about far-right-wing extremism. But this is not an accurate way of understanding the phenomena at play.

The truth is that anyone still thinking in terms of left vs. right has a grossly flawed understanding of the political landscape. The relevant political axis in 2022 is globalist vs. nationalist. Only those who think in terms of globalist vs. nationalist can understand the patterns shifting through the mass political consciousness right now.

The only reason why anti-immigration sentiments are considered “far-right” is because Communists were on the winning side of World War II, and assumed control of the Western media shortly afterwards. Because they won, their enemies had to be dismissed as extremists, and because they were left, their enemies had to be dismissed as right. As such, nationalism became incorrectly conflated with the far-right.

This is why, in recent years, we’ve been spun a narrative of the pro-immigration left and the anti-immigration right.

In reality, the right is more than happy to support the mass immigration of cheap labour. Incoming British Prime Minister, Conservative Leader Liz Truss, has promised to open the immigration floodgates, with today’s “Conservative” logic apparently reduced to a simple equation: migration = growth.

So if the conservative right wing is in favour of the mass immigration of cheap labour, on account of that it pushes rents up and wages down and thereby makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, then the left wing must be against the mass immigration of cheap labour. Right?

Wrong. Apparently the left wing is also in favour of the mass immigration of cheap labour, as is the far-left. And so, by some twisted logic, opposing the mass immigration of cheap labour is far-right.

Moreover, the globalist religious elements of the right wing also want mass Third World immigration. For many Christian fundamentalists, borders and national sentiments are an impediment to God’s command that all are one in Rabbi Yeshua. To that end, they’re happy to import as many non-whites as possible, reasoning that the blending of the nations will hasten Rabbi Yeshua’s return.

If far-right corporate interests want mass Third World immigration, and if far-right religious interests want mass Third World immigration, then it does not make any sense to say that opposing mass Third World immigration is a far-right position. If far-right nationalist interests oppose it, then the relevant aspect is the nationalist one.

When it comes to immigration and labour rights, it’s time to forget left vs. right. Adherence to neither left nor right has much predictive value in this matter. The only logical approach to such questions is to think in terms of nationalist vs. globalist.

The nationalist approach to immigration is that it must serve the interests of the nation. This is not inherently an anti-immigration attitude. It means that immigration from low-IQ countries must be forbidden. Those immigrants tend to produce low-IQ offspring who cannot meet the cognitive demands of Western societies, and who end up becoming net drains on their host societies.

A reasonable nationalist would not necessarily disagree with immigration from high-IQ countries, unless it was of sufficient volume to disrupt social cohesion. Most nationalists make a clear distinction between ‘compatible’ and ‘incompatible’ cultures when it comes to immigration, but one thing is always agreed upon – immigration of low-IQ people from incompatible cultures has to stop.

The globalist approach to immigration, by contrast, is the more the merrier. Every extra labour unit pushes up house prices by increasing demand for housing, and pushes down wages by increasing the supply of labour. In other words: the more immigration, the more the rich get richer and the more the poor get poorer.

Globalist logic is that it doesn’t matter if the native working classes earn enough money to own homes and raise families. The most important thing is the profits of the international banking and finance interests, and these profits are maximised by maximum immigration. Any disruption this might cause to the ordinary lives of working-class people is not considered important.

This globalist arrogance has led to nationalist sentiments, not right-wing sentiments, rising all around the Western World.

It’s important to note that the globalist far-right is not rising much, if at all. The ACT Party is doing reasonably well in New Zealand, polling at about 10%. But this has less to do with the rise of the far-right and more to do with the lack of confidence in the mainstream conservative National Party.

Few of the young men who are flooding into the alternative right (to which ACT belongs) are agitating for more cheap labour or greater corporate control, much less for medieval-style theocracy. As such, their sentiments are best understood as the masculine expression of a nationalist mentality. That masculinity is associated with the right is secondary; nationalist interests are primary.

The electoral success of Giorgia Meloni’s party demonstrates that a feminine expression of nationalism is now rising to join the masculine expression. With both masculine and feminine aspects of nationalism rising, the return of nationalism to the main stage is inevitable. Understanding today’s political reality requires that one think in terms appropriate to these developments. The future is nationalist vs. globalist.

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!

Valuation

There has always been much discussion around the appropriate legal status of things. Just a couple of years ago, New Zealand had a referendum on the subject of repealing cannabis prohibition, and the crudeness of the processs angered many. This essay suggests a more sophisticated approach.

The system suggested in this essay assigns all goods, services and non-economic actions into one of five categories of permission: prohibited, discouraged, indifferent, encouraged and mandatory. The legal status of any good, service or non-economic action falls into one of these five categories, and can be shifted up or down the spectrum of permission as the situation demands. This system has the advantage of solving many of the problems with existing valuation systems.

Most common valuation errors come from assigning something to the wrong category of permission.

Cannabis prohibition is an obvious example of this (as was alcohol prohibition). Because of misinformation about its medicinal value, cannabis was prohibited all over the Western World. As more accurate information came to light, cannabis has been shifted into the ‘Discouraged’ category in most places, where it sits alongside alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol and tobacco were once in the ‘Encouraged’ category, but as medicinal information about their harmful long-term effects became widely understood, they have gradually been moved into the ‘Discouraged’ category. To some extent, cannabis itself is further up the spectrum of permission than both alcohol and tobacco, as there are now hundreds of varieties of medicinal cannabis, whether THC-based, CBD-based or otherwise.

Other common failures of accurate valuation stem from overcorrections of previous errors.

For instance, just because something that was prohibited is no longer prohibited, does not mean that it must become encouraged or mandatory. Homosexuality was prohibited up until 1986 in New Zealand, and since then, through the ceaseless encroachment of pride fashion into every aspect of life, it has gradually progressed to becoming officially encouraged.

The danger with this is apparent to everyone who understands the extent to which morality follows the whims of fashion. The official encouragement of homosexuality disgusts a large number of people, who now want to see it banned again. So there exists an ever-present danger of overcorrecting. As the Kybalion states: the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left.

Another class of failures of the current valuation system stem from incorrect subgroupings of the population.

For example, hippies in Nelson should not lose their rights to grow cannabis just because god-botherers in South Auckland believe it causes demonic possession. There’s no reason why a country with the diversity of New Zealand needs to have uniform laws from Cape Reinga to Bluff. But all of New Zealand is currently legally administered as a single unitary zone.

To give another example, the South Island is much less diverse than the North Island, and as such has a much higher degree of kinship intensity. This may mean that wealthy South Islanders are less resistant to paying taxes than wealthy North Islanders. It could be argued therefore that overall tax rates should perhaps be slightly higher in the South Island, and a commensurately greater investment made in education and health.

A future system of valuation might look like the following.

All final decisions about national matters would be made by the National Valuator, who would otherwise be known as the Valuator-General. This person may or may not have a council of advisors, and these advisors may be elected or appointed.

The Valuator-General would have the final say on all national matters, i.e. those issues which impact the entire nation, such as defence, foreign affairs and immigration.

Underneath the national level would be a regional level akin to what existed during New Zealand’s Provincial Parliament era. Here the system is replicated, fractal-like, from the national level above to the regional level below.

As such, the final say on all regional decisions would be made by the Regional Valuator. If the region was Canterbury, this person would be known as the Canterbury Valuator.

Regional decisions would relate to all the moral issues that are not matters of national security. The legal status of drugs, homosexuality, abortion etc. would all be set by the Regional Valuator, who could move them up or down the spectrum of permission as needed. Such moves would perhaps come after a vote by the Regional Council or a referendum of local residents.

This regionalisation of permission is a solution to the crudeness of the current centralised approach. The diversity of the various regions of the New Zealand nation would be enabled to express itself through a diversity of legal approaches to various moral issues.

Certain issues, like taxation, would be both national and regional. Such a split already exists in America and Sweden. The national government would levy a uniform national tax, and each regional government would levy a regional tax that would vary. This way, each region can pay and receive the most appropriate level of funding.

Underneath the regional level would be a ward level, which would be another step of the fractal: from nation down to region down to ward. This would be similar to what already exists with city and town councils. At this level, issues of minor importance would be decided.

The Ward Valuator would make local decisions such as speed limits on certain streets, noise injunctions, what trees and flowers are planted on public property in the area, where to place monuments and paint murals, alcohol and drug licencing, etc.

This tripartite division of the responsibilities of government should allow for greater sophistication when it comes to passing laws impacting the cultural needs of the local populations. It would make it much easier for a government to, in the spirit of the American Founding Fathers, return power to the people through regional and ward councils.

Whether the various Valuators and their advisors are elected by the populace, appointed by a superior (such as a king), or chosen by sortition is a matter for another essay.

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!

What The Sweden Democrats’ Electoral Success Could Mean For Nationalism Elsewhere

Globalism suffered a shocking blow this week when the Sweden Democrats, the long-decried nationalist party, won the second-largest share of the vote in the Swedish General Election. Party Leader Jimmie Akesson has now become the most influential man in Swedish politics, if not Western politics. What he and his party have achieved was thought impossible by most as recently as a decade ago.

Akesson’s party won 20.5% of the total vote, which made the Sweden Democrats the largest faction within the majority centre-right bloc. As the largest party within the largest bloc, Akesson has an excellent chance of becoming Prime Minister. If so, he would be the first Swedish Prime Minister outside the Establishment parties for almost 40 years.

It’s a result that could have implications for the entire world.

Decades of relentless globalist propaganda has convinced the West that anyone who believed in their own nation was a war criminal waiting to happen. Opposing immigration, we are told, is the first step on a slippery slope that leads to gas chambers. It is therefore the moral imperative of every human being to open their country’s borders as wide as possible.

In recent years, the brutal reality has hit home. Supporting immigration, it turns out, was not actually the morally superior choice, as it amounted to supporting mass violence and rape against one’s own population. Far from being grateful for the opportunity to live in a wealthy country, the Muslims and Africans who were let into Sweden took every advantage they could from the locals. The ensuing long-simmering rage is what has pushed the Sweden Democrats to their current heights.

Akesson is a genius who has very skillfully managed to walk the tightrope between self-respect and supremacism. In the 17 years he has led the party, he has successfully purged it of most of its unreasonable elements, while maintaining enough support to remain in the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament). Accusations of ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi’ no longer have much electoral impact.

His party has won most of its support through its criticism of Sweden’s insane immigration policy, which is based on the Jewish Position of all human subgroups being identical in all intellectual and behavioural measures. This policy has seen the Swedish Government flood the country with over a million Muslims and Africans over the past 25 years, causing immense suffering.

Globalists such as Jerry Sarnecki, Barbara Spectre and Peter Wolodarski strenuously denied the reality of the immigration disaster, smearing all critics as genocidal supremacists. But, as the Buddha noted, the truth cannot be long hidden. People eventually came to realise the truth about the mass immigration of Third Worlders.

The bitter truth is that intelligence is mostly genetic, and education has only a limited impact. As such, it’s impossible to import large numbers of low-IQ people and simply educate them to be as smart as high-IQ Westerners or Far East Asians. The reality is that low-IQ people will mostly produce low-IQ offspring, and those offspring will inevitably end up criminal delinquents at a rate far exceeding that of the native population.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, because it’s commonly understood that low-IQ white people cause far more suffering than high-IQ white people. Low-IQ white people commit more violent crime, more sex crime and more property crime than high-IQ white people, and most people accept this without question. So it shouldn’t have been a surprise that other low-IQ people would also commit high amounts of such crimes.

The globalists gambled that the new Swedes would end up identical to the old Swedes through accumulating social capital over time. After all, globalist dogma states unequivocally that we’re all the same underneath the skin. Unfortunately, they risked the whole Western World on this, and lost. Now we have to pay the price – a brutal reduction in living standards.

Akesson was dead right when he claimed that the Third Worlders would end up causing chaos and misery for the European natives. Over the past 15 years, his predictions have been proven correct time and time again. Today, when there are 19,000 English girls raped by foreign grooming gangs every year, Akesson looks like a visionary.

Akesson has demonstrated that nationalism can be mainstream. Nationalism doesn’t have to be about the disaffected, the resentful and the anti-social. To the contrary: those who genuinely love their own people will begin by loving themselves, and will allow that love to radiate outwards to their family, community and nation. Akesson has managed to present nationalism in a way that appeals to a herd heavily brainwashed to reject it.

The main consequence of the Sweden Democrats’ success will be the legitimisation and normalisation of nationalist sentiments all across the Western World. Vast numbers of people have always suspected that the globalists weren’t telling them the truth – the Sweden Democrats’ success is a physical manifestation of how many others think the same way. If they can get 20% in Sweden, many will reason, we can get at least 5% here.

Akesson and the Sweden Democrats have shown that none of us are alone.

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!