government – Page 72

Is New Zealand Now A Tyranny?

In the Greco-Roman world, tyranny was defined as a form of government in which the rulers were unrestrained by laws. If the rulers are unrestrained by laws, then they are capable of inflicting any amount of cruelty upon the people, without there being any obvious way to stop them. This is widely agreed to be a terrible and evil form of government. This essay asks: is New Zealand now a tyranny?

One of the clearest examples of a tyranny is the presence of arbitrary and seemingly random punishments. New Zealand man Philip Arps is facing 14 years imprisonment for sharing a video of the Christchurch mosque shootings last month, on the grounds that the video was “objectionable content”. This is an incredible potential punishment if one consider the seven years imprisonment that Myron Robert Alf Felise got earlier this year for punching teenager Eli Holtz to death.

If New Zealand would bring in a 14-year maximum sentence for common assault or petty theft, it would be an obvious case of tyrannical overreach. So how can it be possible for them to introduce equally as severe a punishment for an action that did not harm anyone? It seems especially bizarre if one considers that New Zealanders are sharing and viewing videos of murderous terror attacks every day, but none of these are likewise criminalised.

A second example of tyrannical behaviour is the numerous laws and actions carried out by the New Zealand Government without the consent of the people, or even in cases when the people had explicitly withdrawn their consent. A current and ongoing example of these is the campaign of harassment currently being conducted by the New Zealand Police against anyone thought to be right-wing.

There are several anecdotal reports on social media about people having Police officers come to their house, often without warrants, in order to intimidate them and to gather intelligence (and one hilarious recording of such by New Zealand alt-media legend Vinny Eastwood). According to these reports, Police officers are demanding information about other right-wing people, and demanding to know if people are racists or if they supported Branton Tarrant.

One of the worst examples was what happened to Adam Holland in Queenstown (see image at top of article). Holland had two airguns and a crossbow removed from his possession on the grounds that Inspector Olaf Jensen had personally decreed Holland was “not a fit and proper person to be in possession” of such, and that “Police hold serious concerns regarding [Holland’s] mental and emotional wellbeing”.

Police officers have zero psychological education to justify any serious concern about anyone else’s wellbeing, and their whimsy is nowhere near a sufficient basis to remove possessions from a private citizen who has not used them in commission of a crime. What sort of country strips citizens of possessions on the basis of one Police officer’s judgment? How long until they take machetes and kitchen knives away?

Holland’s experience is just a further example of a process that started before the Sixth Labour Government. The Fifth National Government was happy to sell national assets, despite a referendum that explicitly declared the public unwillingness to do so, and all recent Governments have refused to acknowledge the clear public desire for cannabis law reform.

If a clear and direct expression of the public does not constrain our rulers, then what does?

A third example is the ongoing free speech violations. Justice Minister Andrew Little currently has a giant warboner over the possibility of introducing so-called “hate speech” laws, in which criticism of certain power structures becomes a criminal offence. As has been seen in Austria, where a woman was given a criminal conviction for saying that Muhammad was a pedophile, hate speech laws soon lead to the criminalisation of dissent.

The Government hasn’t started stripping our rights to speak away quite yet, because they are currently in the process of sounding out how much they think they can get away with, but the process of using propaganda to soften public resistance to such tyrannical laws is in full swing. The mainstream media is busy acclimatising the public to no longer being allowed to speak freely.

The really frightening thing is that such laws directly violate Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which guarantee New Zealanders the right to impart opinions of any kind in any form. If the Government is not bound by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when taking our rights to speak away, what are they bound by? And if they are bound by nothing, as appears to be the case, then how are they any different to the literal definition of tyranny?

A fourth example is given in the image above. The Spinoff regularly runs articles attacking the enemies of the Government and making apologies for unpopular Government actions (although rarely are they so blatant as in the example above). The worrying thing is, as they admit on their company page, The Spinoff “works with NZ on Air and Creative New Zealand to fund our work” – in other words, they take Government cash to produce propaganda.

When the Government works hand-in-hand with the free press to create propaganda pieces, you don’t have a free press. In fact, the need for an authoritarian government to totally control the narrative was even mentioned by Josef Goebbels in his Principles of Propaganda. So the Government funding a media enterprise that pretends to be independent, but which in reality attacks enemies of the Government and propagandises for Government policies, is something fully in line with tyrannical Nazi principles.

The only way New Zealand can get out of this is to come together as individuals, ignoring the government, and to decide on a set of our rights that are inviolable and which must be respected by anyone who wishes to rule us. A starting point could be the essay published here expounding a seven-fold conception of inherent human rights. If all Kiwis agreed that every other Kiwi possessed such rights, we would be free of tyrannical measures.

If this doesn’t work then we’re left with anarcho-homicidalism.

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

The Case For Cannabis: It’s Easier To Stop Using Cannabis If It’s Legal

Many people take an overly simplistic approach to cannabis law reform and assume that cannabis prohibition leads to less use and less desire to use. In truth, much like the fact that people don’t use more cannabis in places where it is legal, cannabis prohibition doesn’t even help addicts. As this article will show, it would be easier for people to stop using cannabis if it was legal.

The logic appears to be that making cannabis illegal will make people decide to stop using it. If it’s not possible to openly grow and sell cannabis, some people reason, then it won’t be as easy for a person to maintain a cannabis habit, and therefore people will be incentivised to quit.

Many people who support this theory seem to assume that cannabis users, many of who are using the substance for medicinal reasons, will just sit and mope for a while and then go and do something more productive. Not only does this ignore the obvious fact that it’s easy to get hold of cannabis pretty much anywhere in New Zealand, it also ignores human psychology.

The reality is, thanks to the wonders of something called variable interval reinforcement, prohibiting cannabis actually makes addicted cannabis users more addicted. Under prohibition, because a person can never be sure if they can maintain a supply, they come to cherish cannabis a lot more when they do get it. So when they do use it, the reinforcing effect is much more powerful.

There are two major reasons why legal cannabis would make it easier for those who are cannabis addicts to quit.

It might not be easy for the average educated, middle-class person to appreciate, but not everyone trusts their doctor or mental health worker. Just because the average Normie considers their doctor to be an intimate confidante doesn’t mean that the average cannabis user feels the same way.

Attitudes have changed sharply compared to some decades ago, but there’s still a lot of distrust on the part of many cannabis users towards health professionals. So if they are honestly advised to quit cannabis for good reasons, they are less likely to pay heed, because they can’t be sure if the advice is coming from a place of honesty or is a formality due to the law.

It’s not easy for a doctor to say that cannabis would be beneficial if it is not legal. For one thing, they don’t want to get a reputation for being the local cannabis doctor. For another thing, there are potential professional consequences. None of them want to explain to a professional board why they recommended an illegal drug to a patient.

If cannabis were legal, it would be possible to trust your doctor if they would say that you wouldn’t benefit from using medicinal cannabis. As it is, if your doctor does not recommend medicinal cannabis, it’s impossible to know if they say this because they believe cannabis would be harmful, or if they believe cannabis would be beneficial but are afraid of potential professional or legal consequences for saying so.

The second major reason is that legal cannabis would make it easier for a user, who accepted that they were addicted, to taper down their use with the intent of stopping.

This relates to the reinforcement schedules referenced above. In the same way that it’s better to use variable interval reinforcement to strengthen a response, it’s better to use fixed interval reinforcement to weaken one. This is because it leads to a gradual weakening of the craving, rather than taking it full force and risking a relapse.

Anyone who has tried to suddenly stop using tobacco or alcohol knows how difficult it is to just make a clean break with it. In most cases, if there is not an immediate threat of death, a person will be advised by their doctor not to quit cold turkey but rather to taper down over a few weeks or a month. As mentioned above, this is partly to avoid relapse, but it’s partly because this is less painful.

People who were interested in stopping their cannabis use could, if we had a sane system, get a prescription for a fixed amount of cannabis with a view to tapering off. They could be given a number of joints and told to smoke x for the first week, x-1 for the second week, x-2 for the third week – or whatever worked.

This would prevent the disaster scenario familiar to people who have tried to stop smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol, in which one sits there while the craving for the drug rises and rises, until one finally caves, at which point using it feels like a divine gift. As mentioned above, this variable interval reinforcement only makes it much harder to quit.

Legal cannabis would be much better for those addicted than prohibition is. It would encourage addicts to trust their doctors when they suggested that cannabis had no medicinal value for them, and it would enable those doctors (or psychologists) to provide a schedule of decreasing fixed reinforcement that would allow for a relatively painless transition to sobriety.

This article is an excerpt from The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, compiled by Vince McLeod and due for release by VJM Publishing in the summer of 2018/19.

How Mass Immigration Causes Us To Lose Freedoms, And Why It’s Being Pushed

The cultural tensions brought about by mass immigration have claimed several casualties over the past six weeks. From the 50 deaths in the Christchurch mosque shootings to the numerous losses of civil liberty at the hands of the Sixth Labour Government, much has been destroyed. This article explains how the people who advocated for mass immigration of incompatible cultures have provoked this, and by design.

There is now ample scientific research that increasing ethnic diversity has a negative effect on the society. Increased ethnic diversity reduces trust. Social trust is negatively effected by ethnic diversity. Increased diversity causes people to disengage from public life. Ethnic diversity causes people to trust their neighbours less. Even among children, ethnic diversity erodes trust.

The science is reasonably straightforward. Human beings naturally have in-group favouritism and out-group prejudice, and naturally see in-group members as more trustworthy than out-group members. The greater the number of encounters with out-group members, the greater the sense of distrust and suspicion. Increasing diversity then, leads directly to decreasing trust.

The big problem, though, is that decreasing trust leads to a measurably worse society. It leads to people disengaging from the political system, leading to a lower grade of politician, and to politicians with less oversight. It also leads to them disengaging from public life, and from the voluntary associations that society depends upon. These withdrawals mean that society becomes a much lonelier and more depressing and stressful place.

In other words, increasing diversity causes more suffering. However, just because increasing diversity causes suffering among the populations that are forced to become more diverse, doesn’t mean those those populations can avoid it. The diversity is usually forced on them by factors outside their control, such as people who benefit from exploiting those populations.

There are two major forces that benefit from the tensions caused by mass immigration. One is the Government, and the other is religion.

The Government knows that jamming incompatible cultures together will cause conflict. Any idiot knows this, because it’s a simple matter of looking around the world, either physically or through a history book, and one will see that wherever you have different cultures meeting you have violence. Unfortunately, the members of our current Government are autocrats.

Being autocrats, and being control freaks, they want to take as much freedom away from the population as possible. The more freedom we have, the less power they have. So events like the Christchurch mosque shootings are like lottery wins for the people in the Government. They make it possible for the Government to strip away any freedom they want, and anyone who disagrees is made to feel moral culpability for the 50 deaths.

The blueprint for this can be seen with the introduction of the Patriot Act in America after 9/11, which was widely criticised for its multiple civil liberty violations. No intelligent person can doubt that the Sixth Labour Government will use the excuse of white nationalist terrorism and possible Muslim reprisal terrorism to further chip away at our rights to privacy and freedom of association.

Theocrats are the other major group who benefit from “hate speech” laws. Muslims, for their part, know that hate speech legislation is an open door through which they can bring blasphemy charges on infidels. This they have already successfully done in Austria, where a woman was convicted and fined in a criminal court for saying that Muhammad was a pedophile.

Muslims in New Zealand are among the strongest supporters of destroying our tradition of free speech. Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand President Hazim Arafeh was instrumental in having Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux banned from speaking in New Zealand, and Manawatu Muslim Association President Riyaz Rahman is on record as saying “I think the freedom of expression that we have does not allow for hate to be curbed”.

Muslims would love nothing more than for criticism of their hate ideology to become illegal, and the possibility of sneaking in anti-blasphemy laws under the guise of anti-hate speech laws is also why Christians are broadly supportive of such laws. Every religious fundamentalist will be rubbing his hands at the thought of hate speech laws, because this would give them all a weapon to strike down any criticism.

A conviction for saying that Muhammad was a pedophile is only a tiny step away from a conviction for saying that the Pope protects pedophiles.

This means that New Zealand risks slipping into a double dark age. We have both theocratic authoritarians and secular authoritarians joining forces to destroy liberty among our people. Any real Kiwi ought to be extremely concerned by this alliance, because both parts are possessed of self-righteousness enough to justify any amount of cruelty.

The reality is that “hate speech” laws and blasphemy laws are essentially the same thing. The ruling classes get offended by anyone disrespecting their sacred cows, and so they make such disrespect illegal – it doesn’t matter if those ruling classes are theocratic, secular, or an alliance of both. The plebs shall not be allowed to criticise their betters.

As was the case in Austria, further mass immigration will provide excuses to strip more freedoms away. Even if there are no more mass killings in New Zealand, the control freaks will go after free speech, and greater ethnic diversity creates the distrust that makes it possible for them to do so. “Preserving the religious peace” will be one of the excuses used to crack down on criticism of religions and religious groups.

Fundamentally, it’s important to never forget that these freedoms were only lost because of mass immigration. Had we never opened the borders to cultures that did not respect our values of free speech, we would never have lost our right to practice it. There would never have been the tension that created opportunities for free speech crackdowns. We would never have lost the basic trust on which our society is built.

The worst part is that we were warned about this by intelligent people, and did not listen.

The only way to prevent further loss of freedom is to close the borders to incompatible cultures until such a time as all the people currently in New Zealand have learned to accept and appreciate freedom and liberty. This will mean a complete and total stop to the further immigration to New Zealand of men like Riyaz Rahman and those who share values with him. We’ve already lost too much.

Why Jacinda Ardern Is Collaborating So Closely With Emmanuel Macron

Establishment media sources reported this week that Jacinda Ardern had been speaking at length to French President Emmanuel Macron about anti-terrorist measures during Ardern’s most recent European junket. Considering that the only example of state-sponsored terrorism ever carried out in New Zealand was carried out at the behest of the French, this alliance seems unexpected, to say the least. This article explains.

In France, Macron has faced half a year of intense protests which have often led to rioting. The Giles Jaunes (“Yellow Jacket”) movement has paralysed Paris and some other metropolitan centres for 23 weekends in a row. Despite a near-total absence of coverage by the Establishment media, the movement has aroused intense passions which have threatened to spill over into widespread violence.

The frightening thing about this movement, from the perspective of the Establishment, is that it has seen the coming together of far-right and far-left elements. Because most governments work to play both of these sides off against each other, it’s an ominous sign for the government when they come together. It means that the guillotines aren’t far away.

Some security analysts are predicting that these protests could boil over into widespread riots this European summer, as it becomes possible for the protesters to remain active overnight. Once this happens, the resources of the French Police might become stretched to breaking point (they are already forced to employ 8,000 officers to deal with the weekly protests alone). This is expected to presage increasingly desperate attempts to maintain order.

Ardern has good reason to suspect that some very bad times are coming to New Zealand as well, as a previous article here has discussed. This is partially because she is causing them, and continuing to cause them, through such measures as doubling the refugee quota, which necessarily lead to an increased number of Kiwis going homeless. But it’s partially because of wider economic and strategic factors that she does not control.

It’s likely that fuel prices are going to continue to rise this year because of Donald Trump’s escalating efforts to isolate Iran, as well as the inexorable squeeze of increasing demand and decreasing supply. This will be a worldwide problem, and it is almost certain to exacerbate the French situation.

The price of fuel in New Zealand is yet to cause any protests, but significant discontent can be seen in a number of FaceBook groups, accompanied by phrases such as “GET THE GAS ROBBING BASTARDS OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!” Further price increases might see this discontent develop into the same street protests that have befallen France. Ardern will be getting advice from Macron about how to deal with any such movement in New Zealand.

Another reason why Ardern and Macron are working so closely together is that both are globalists. The two rulers have both made a point of ruling from a global perspective, even if this explicitly harms their own people at the expense of foreigners. Ardern sees herself more as a United Nations-appointed governor of New Zealand than a representative of the New Zealand people, and that sort of arrogance has traditionally served to spark civil unrest.

Both rulers have a clear plan to destroy national sentiments and national culture within their respective territories, and so both rulers are terrified of a nationalist fightback to their globalist schemes. Branton Tarrant put the shits up them in a way that no other action had ever managed, once again proving that the only language the Establishment speaks is violence. Ardern and Macron will be discussing how to reduce the propaganda value of any further such attacks through social media restrictions.

The truth is that France is descending into civil war, and this is happening as a direct consequence of unsustainable globalist policies. Their decision to allow millions of Muslims and Africans to immigrate to France over recent decades, and to claim welfare benefits as if they were native Frenchmen, has left the French workforce with an impossible burden to carry. The fuel taxes that inspired the past six months of protests were the last straw.

Ardern has every intention of going full throttle on the globalism. She has already demonstrated this with her decision to double the refugee quota, and with the way she exploited the Christchurch mosque shootings to force through gun control measures and Internet censorship. She is blatantly a United Nations puppet, and is ruling in a manner that all is all but guaranteed to spark outrage and resistance.

Therefore, Kiwis should have every reason to be suspicious at the news that Ardern and Macron are collaborating closely, because it suggests that New Zealand will rapidly follow France into a state of collapse.

Ardern and Macron, and their fellow globalists such as Justin Trudeau in Canada and Angela Merkel in Germany, will continue to collaborate closely together so as to fulfill their aspirations of subjugating every country in the world to a single world order. In this effort they will be aided, not only by a compliant mass media, but by a myriad of other anti-nationalist interests such as religion.