Why The New Conservatives Could Get 5% In September

Following overseas trends, it’s apparent that an intense degree of discontentment exists among Western voters. There are protests all over the West – some violent, most confined to the ballot boxes for now. This article explores the possibility that discontentment in New Zealand could see the New Conservative Party get 5% of the vote in this year’s election.

It’s all but official that the neo-Nazi Sweden Democrats are the most popular party in Sweden now. Five opinion polls in a row, all from different polling companies, have established that the Sweden Democrats have more current support than any other party. A moving average of recent polls suggests that their support is at least 25%.

The Sweden Democrats might be the most aggressive of the European alt-right parties, having been founded by former Waffen-SS members. Although it’s not an official position, prominent elements within their membership speak of repatriating everyone of a non-Swedish background. They are taking full advantage of the fact that support for the Social Democrats is at its lowest ever level.

In France, opinion polls suggest that the National Rally’s Marine Le Pen, long decried as an extremist, is threatening to win the French Presidential election in 2022. She is polling equal to Emmanuel Macron on the first round, and is polling at 45% to his 55% on the second. This is well up from Le Pen’s 33% result in the second round of the previous Presidential election.

In Germany, the Alternative fuer Deutschland is polling at around 15%. In the Netherlands, Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy is the second-strongest party right now, having briefly been the strongest earlier this year. In Italy, the nationalist Lega Nord is now dominant. In Spain, the right-wing populist bloc is now polling at 17%, up from 10% in the general election less than a year ago.

The mainstream New Zealand media will never report on any of this.

The reason for all this discontent is the increasingly apparent failure of the Establishment to manage the Western World in a way that reduces the suffering of the Western people. The ruling class of the West transparently stopped giving a fuck about their people’s suffering many years ago, and the ensuing resentment has become bitter.

The mass immigration to Europe of Muslims and Africans over recent decades has heavily lowered the standard of living of the average European citizen. On the flipside, however, it has generated immense profits for those who benefit from this suffering. Those with an interest in hiring cheap labour, selling accommodation to the highest bidder or profiting from ethnic strife and division have seen their stocks rise handsomely.

This oversupply of cheap labour has made it all but impossible for young, working-class people to get into a position where they own a home suitable to raise a family in. Young people in New Zealand have less than 40% of the house-buying power that their parents had, and it’s getting worse. Most aggravating of all, the Western Establishment has shown no interest in changing this state of affairs.

This refusal to change course, when the current course only benefits 5-10% of the population, is the ultimate reason for most of the current discontent in the Western World. We can conclude from the examples in Europe that any party taking a meaningful stand against the New Zealand Establishment has the potential to win up to 25% of the vote.

The New Conservatives are the most prominent of the parties on the right that oppose the Establishment. Therefore, they are the only party appealing to the Kiwi equivalents of the Sweden Democrats, National Rally, Liga Nord etc. voters. Their constituency is angry, white, rural and male – the same demographic that won the World Wars.

It’s obvious to most by now that there is no meaningful difference between National and Labour, both being business-as-usual neoliberals whose overriding concern is keeping the economy going at full tilt.

The big problem is that there’s no meaningful difference between these two parties and any of the Greens, ACT or New Zealand First. The Greens are even more globalist than Labour, and ACT are even more globalist than National. For anyone who opposes globalism the traditional choice has been New Zealand First, but their close co-operation with Labour and the Greens has now made clear to all that they are as globalist as the rest.

In the minds of most dissenters, this leaves few options. Leftist discontents have been fond of throwing a vote towards the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, and no doubt many who turn out for the cannabis referendum will do so again this year. Most of the discontent at the moment, however, is inspired by right-wing sentiments, and people motivated by this tend to despise cannabis users and consider them subhuman.

For the right-wing discontents, the realistic options are ACT and New Conservative.

As this column has previously argued, ACT could get 5% if they were willing to step into the alt-right niche, instead of merely following puppy-like behind the National Party. However, they are clearly not willing. ACT is perfectly comfortable being the party of big-money corporate neoliberals, because that ensures that they get plenty of funding. David Seymour flirts with anti-Establishment positions, but his heart isn’t in it.

For this reason, the New Conservatives are the only party that are primed to take advantage of the wave of discontent that is sweeping the West.

At the time of the most recent poll, the New Conservatives apparently had less than 1% support. However, that poll was almost two months ago. Since then, several things have happened, and all of them follow the general trend of stoking discontentment towards the Establishment. If they keep happening – if that great wave of populist discontent reaches New Zealand – the New Conservatives might rise all the way to 5% before September 19.

As Dan McGlashan showed in Understanding New Zealand, there is a very strong correlation between voting Conservative and voting National (0.77), and therefore a strong New Conservative vote is likely to significantly weaken the National vote. If it does, it will not shift the balance of power in 2020. In fact, it could even strengthen Labour’s position if the New Conservatives get less than 5%, thereby causing the votes of many people who would otherwise have voted National to be wasted.

The far-right populists have shown in Europe that, in times of high discontentment, it’s possible for them to attract voters from otherwise left-wing demographics. New Conservative will attract anti-Establishment voters from National, but they could also attract a significant number of voters from those who would otherwise have cast their lot in with Labour, New Zealand First or ACT. If they succeed at this, New Zealand could be in for an electoral surprise in September.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Clown World Chronicles: Who Are The ‘Alt Left’?

Because Clown World is a failed system, there are many people proposing alternatives. A previous article here discussed who the alt-right are. There’s equally as great a need to explain their opposites on the alternative spectrum – the alt-left. Like two cheeks of the same arse, one doesn’t find the alt-left in isolation from, but rather in symbosis with, the alt-right. This article explains.

The alt-left, basically speaking, are those who reject the Establishment on the grounds that it’s not horizontalist enough. Like the alt-right, the alt-left considers the left, the right and the centre all to be much the same thing – one corrupt, monolithic entity. They consider that the left, the right and the centre are all represented by the same ruling class, so that all three groups are too cozy with each other to ever change.

What the alt-left wants is more horizontalism. That means anyone calling for hierarchy, separation or division of any kind is considered evil. The alt-left are the loudest voices calling for open borders, on the grounds that physical restrictions to movement are immoral. They are also the ones calling for a dissolution of the boundaries between genders.

Unfortunately, this extreme form of horizontalism necessarily implies getting rid of some borders that are there for good reason. The alt-left has no time at all for arguments about the disproportionate number of sex crimes committed by immigrants to the West from Muslim and African countries. Mentioning this is racist, and we should hold the borders open to all no matter how much sexual abuse they commit.

More insidiously, the alt-left also seeks to dissolve the sexual borders between adults and children. Wherever you have alt-leftists, you almost inevitably have people who are sympathetic to the argument that adults having sexual contact with children can be healthy for the children. The idea that sexual boundaries between adults and children are immoral is very persuasive to the alt-left.

The alt-centrist perspective is that both the alt-left and the alt-right are dangerous extremists.

This is reciprocated by the alt-left, who consider the alt-centre the same sort of Nazi as everyone else. Because the alt-centre agrees that the alt-right is correct about some things, the alt-left lumps the two in together. They do not realise that there is such a thing as the Fifth Rejection, according to which alt-centrists reject alt-right thought as fundamentally lacking empathy. Anyone not with the alt-left is against them.

The alt-left has authoritarianism in common with the alt-right. However, whereas the latter longs for another authoritarian figure, perhaps an avatar of the white race, the former enforces horizontalism with the same authoritarian zeal. It’s an extremely aggressive form of slave morality, in which any individual or group who excels at anything has to be ripped down.

The morality of the alt-left could be summed up with the following maxim: in every conflict, always take the side of the weaker party. The logic is that no weaker party would purposefully start a conflict, therefore the aggressor in any conflict must be the stronger of the two sides. Since morality demands that one oppose aggressors, it follows that one must take the side of the weaker party in every conflict.

This logic leads the alt-left to, for example, take the side of the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestine conflict, to take the side of the natives in any conflict against settlers and to take the side of women any time they accuse a man of anything. The alt-left does not brook any disagreement with the maxim that weakest is best. For them, it’s vulgar to make the argument that the stronger party in any given conflict might be the morally superior one.

The authoritarianism of the alt-left is part of the reason for the Fourth Rejection. The alt-centrist doesn’t have a problem with authoritarianism, in and of itself – but it has to be correct, proportionate, necessary and grounded in an accurate understanding of reality. The authoritarianism of the alt-left is none of this.

The authoritarianism of the alt-left is every bit the psychopathically controlling hate ideology that caused so much suffering to the people of the Soviet Union, and whose horrors were detailed in writings such as The Gulag Archipelago. The alt-left would happily recreate a gulag system, so absorbed are they in their own moral certitude.

The alt-left and the alt-right are in a state of conflict, and this will grow more intense as the Establishment fades. Both sides are gagging for a final, climactic and decisive battle so that they can forever crush their enemy or be destroyed in the attempt. As the individuals populating the Establishment continue to die of old age, the pro-war individuals will continue to grow in influence.

In summary, the alt-left is mostly made up of those who reject (and/or are rejected by) the Establishment. They are mostly the kind of freak that couldn’t fit into the system, although they often genuinely want to do so. This leads to the resentment that underpins all slave moralities. This resentment manifests as hatred for the oppressor class, where ‘oppressor’ is defined as anyone with wealth, influence or privilege.

The alt-left responds to this with oppression of their own, usually in the form of a swarming multitude of shaming attacks from as many people as possible. A favoured tactic is trying to destroy the reputation and livelihood of wrongthinkers by reporting them en masse to the authorities. The shadows of the Stasi informer network can be seen behind the alt-left’s constantly ratting out their enemies.

Whereas the old left looked to find accommodation with their opponents, the alt-left wants to annihilate them. They use tactics such as cancelling and deplatforming, preventing their enemies from communicating with an audience. They see no shame in this, reasoning that the more their enemies get to speak, the more powerful those enemies are.

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

VJMP Reads: Religion, Property, Violence I

The next edition in the VJMP Reads column is Religion, Property, Violence: A Revolutionary Idea For Society by Horst Niclaus. This book was purchased cheaply from TradeMe. The back cover asks the question “Is the creation of God the reason why equality between human beings has not been achieved yet?”

After a short introduction, in which Niclaus recounts his early upbringing in wartime Germany, the first chapter begins. It is called ‘Does God exist?’

Niclaus mentions here that God was silent during the Holocaust and that “he” has no problems with things like the mass child rapes of the Catholic Church. It’s apparent that Niclaus is arguing against a conception of the Abrahamic God, in particular the Christian one. He lists a number of Biblical contradictions here.

In this chapter Niclaus cites Albert Einstein as saying that the Jewish religion is “an incarnation of the most childish superstition.” He then cites a list of arguments against the Abrahamic God and against religion in general, such as the fact that ignorance and fear underpins much religious belief. These arguments all proceed from a materialist perspective, and should be convincing to someone who has fallen at the second hurdle.

This list of arguments is duplicated from elsewhere, and any materialist ought to find them agreeable. One of the arguments copied here is Epicurus’s one, that makes that claim that if God has the power to end all suffering, but not the Will, then God must be malevolent.

The problem here is that Epicurus makes the assumption that the end of suffering is the highest value. The reality is that God encourages an unpredictable degree of suffering for the purposes of entertainment, on account of that infinite bliss is infinite boredom, and therefore more suffering than a the madcap mix of pleasure and pain that is life on Earth.

Many of the arguments listed here suffer from similar problems. They are attacking a Christian conception of God and therefore attack the characteristics that Christians claim that God has. These arguments do not address (e.g.) Luciferian or Hindu conceptions of divinity. As is true of many Western commentators, Niclaus appears to believe that disproving the Abrahamic conception of God is sufficient to prove the non-existence of God.

Most of the arguments in this chapter proceed on this basis, i.e. they are worthwhile criticisms towards Christianity or Abrahamism, but no more. The quoted section makes one cutting observation of missionaries in particular: while their work is risky, the rewards are to be worshipped by those who accept his guidance.

This chapter ends with the mention of some scientists who advanced the materialist world view, and then some letters to the Christchurch newspaper The Press arguing against Christianity.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Where In The World Does New Zealand Rank On Cannabis Law Reform?

New Zealand was once looked to for moral leadership. We were the first country to give women the vote and the first to institute a universal old-age pension, but these were 19th Century issues. On 21st Century issues, such as cannabis law reform, we are no longer close to the frontrunners. This article attempts to determine how far we have fallen.

Perhaps the first major crack in the cannabis prohibition dam came with the legalisation of medicinal cannabis in California in 1996. In the near quarter-century since then, a tidal wave of cannabis law reform has rolled around the world. New Zealand has made a determined attempt to resist this wave, and has stayed loyal to the idea that cannabis users are scum who should be persecuted.

Cannabis is now recreationally legal in California, as it is in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Colombia. That makes for 12 places in just one country that are more enlightened than New Zealand on the cannabis issue – over 100 million people.

Even if a person would say, uncharitably, that all these places are just one country, there are now several other countries that have legalised recreational cannabis. Uruguay did so in 2013 and never looked back. Canada did so in 2018. Georgia and South Africa have also legalised recreational cannabis for possession and consumption (although not yet for sale).

So that makes five countries that have legalised recreational cannabis to some extent – but they’re not the only ones ahead of New Zealand on cannabis law reform.

Many other countries have legal arrangements where cannabis is tolerated without being fully legal. The most famous example is the Netherlands, where cannabis is openly sold from licensed cafes, on the proviso that the cafe is willing to operate under a strict set of conditions. This is not de jure legal, but there is an understanding on the part of the Police that such activity is to be tolerated (provided it stays within certain limits).

Spain has a similar arrangement, where cannabis is legal if kept to private areas such as the personal home or in cannabis social clubs. In this sense, many countries have decriminalised cannabis to a greater extent than what New Zealand has done.

Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovenia, Switzerland and Trinidad and Tobago have all decriminalised cannabis to some degree.

It might come as a blow to the Kiwi ego that several Third World countries are now more advanced than us when it comes to a major moral issue such as cannabis law reform. But it gets worse – even Australia is ahead of New Zealand in this regard now. Cannabis will be legal in the ACT as of next week, and it has already been decriminalised in the Northern Territory and in South Australia.

So that makes 40 countries that have either legalised or decriminalised cannabis to some degree – but the true picture is even worse than this, because New Zealand doesn’t even have medicinal cannabis yet.

Since becoming legal in California 24 years ago, medicinal cannabis has now become legal in a further 32 American states and four territories. Even if we apply the rule from above (according to which all these states and territories only count as one country) there are still many other countries with more tolerant medicinal cannabis laws than New Zealand.

Even Zimbabwe has more enlightened medicinal cannabis laws than New Zealand does – they legalised it in 2018. It might sound incredible to some Kiwi ears that a place with the reputation for corruption and backwardsness of Zimbabwe could be ahead of New Zealand in a major area of medical knowledge. Alas, it’s the truth.

In reality, every single country already mentioned is ahead of New Zealand when it comes to cannabis law reform. We have neither legalisation nor decriminalisation of recreational cannabis, and medicinal cannabis is de facto illegal on account of that virtually no-one can afford what’s on offer.

We were first in the world to repeal the prohibition on women voting. When we eventually get around to repealing elements of cannabis prohibition, we will be no earlier than 70th in the world to have begun to do so. If you count the American states separately, New Zealand will be no earlier than 100th or so.

It might not be easy for the Kiwi ego to accept, but not only are we years behind backwards American states like Louisiana and Alabama, but we are also years behind Third World nations such as Uruguay, South Africa and Zimbabwe. If we ever had any special ability to read the winds of change, or to provide moral leadership to a world desperately in need of it, that is now gone.

By 2020 New Zealand is, morally speaking, right back in the pack. Far from being leaders, we now respond with sheep-like herd instinct to patterns that we’re not intelligent enough to understand. The only way to lift this state of disgrace is to legalise cannabis immediately and across the board.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.