politics – Page 108

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘Brown Communism’?

A new political alliance is forming out of the spatterings of gutter vomit that is globalism. This motley crew of grifters, race-baiters, religious fundamentalists, social justice warriors and other shit-stirrers are united by little apart from their hatred of the white man, but they are united under one ideology. This article describes what will become one of the foremost hate ideologies of the 21st century – Brown Communism.

Original Communism began in Europe after the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This short tract summarised the basic tenets of Communism. Among others, this includes the ideas that history is the story of class struggle, that private property should be abolished and that Communism is explicitly a globalist movement.

Like all other hate ideologies, Communism needed an enemy. In the case of the original European Communism, the enemy was the bourgeoisie – the men of silver, or what we would today call the middle class.

The original Communism appealed explicitly to the men of iron, or the working class whose labour built the factories and railways of the Industrial Revolution. It told a story about how the men of silver had stolen the rightful wealth of the men of iron, who were fortunate that the men of gold (Communists) had enlightened them as to who the true enemy was.

After uniting under the wise and benevolent guidance of the Communists, the working-class would come to reclaim their rightful property and rightful position in society.

Brown Communism is a very similar memeplex. The difference is that, instead of appealing to the Western working class, it appeals to non-whites as a quasi-racial bloc. Its major proponents are usually young/youngish women such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar in America, and Golriz Ghahraman and Marama Davidson in New Zealand.

In the case of Brown Communism, the enemy is the white man. The basic story is the same as regular Communism – evil, intelligent people have tricked the good-natured but naive worker out of his wealth – but the white man has replaced the bourgeoisie, and the non-white has replaced the proletariat. All of the honest labour is done by non-white people, according to this mindset, while whites cheat and swindle unearned income.

The means of production have been replaced here by land. ‘Seizing the means of production’ now means the same thing as opening the borders (this leads to one major point of disagreement between Brown Communism and non-white nativist movements). Jumping the border is equated to a revolutionary act, like occupying a Police station, the border being a delineation of property and therefore bourgeois.

Brown Communists have no time for the argument that mass immigration of cheap labour should be restricted to shore up working-class wages. As long as a brown person wins and a white person loses, it’s all good. The irony, of course, is that holding this position causes Brown Communists to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the same capitalists that the original Communists rejected.

In Brown Communism, white people are the kulaks. The greater wealth of white people has nothing to do with valuing education or working hard – it’s simply been stolen from the non-whites (Asian people are also kulaks, but as of yet there is no mass immigration into Asian countries. With Chinese involvement in Africa now imperial in all but name, chances are good that Brown Communism will come to China in the future).

This means that the property of white people, being the neo-bourgeoisie, can fairly be expropriated. This is achieved in two major ways: immigration (as mentioned above), which serves to share the social capital of Western societies, and taxation, which serves to share the financial capital.

Much of the electoral appeal of Brown Communists comes from their promises to tax “the rich” (i.e. the kulaks) and to redistribute this windfall to non-whites. This is achieved by means of a long march through the institutions – in other words, to strive for high positions in government, academia and media and to use those positions to benefit the ideology and its supporters.

Brown Communists try to get into Government and use their influence there to agitate for open borders and shifting the tax burden to rural areas (where white people live). Opening the borders also has the ancillary effect of increasing the voter base. Because the sort of person who votes for a communist movement very seldom has the initiative to get a degree and go through regular immigration channels, Brown Communists consider raising the refugee quota to be of utmost importance.

A central tenet of Brown Communism is that all of the ills of the world can be traced back to white people. The white man replaces the devil as the font of all evil. His pale hand lies behind all suffering on Earth. This means that the ultimate origins of all underachievement by non-white people can be traced back to the malicious actions of whites at some point.

If Africans score poorly on IQ tests, this is because the tests are biased to favour whites on account of white racism. And if Japanese people score higher than whites, thus proving the tests are not biased, then the lower performance of Africans is due to the poverty inflicted upon them by whites. And if poverty can be accounted for by an analysis of variance that proves most of the difference comes from genetic causes, then you are a racist.

Another central tenet of Brown Communism is that any of the property of white people can be fairly expropriated by non-whites at any time. In the same way that the kulaks were believed to be hoarding all the wealth to the detriment of the common good, and therefore that it was righteous for the masses to confiscate it, so too Brown Communists feel about the wealth of white people.

Only in Zimbabwe and South Africa (thus far) have Brown Communists achieved so much power that they were able to expropriate white people directly, but in many places they are able to do so indirectly. In almost every Western country, taxation acts to ensure a net transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites. Brown Communists who achieve government in the West inevitably seek to both raise the tax burden on whites (thus expropriating them) and to increase welfare spending on non-whites.

Essentially, Brown Communism is an anti-white movement that is every bit as much a resentment-fuelled slave morality as the original Communism. Not only does it use the same narratives as Communism, but it appeals to the same sort of rejects and misfits who cannot find a place in decent society. The only major difference is that it explicitly rejects the white working class, and embraces non-white people of all but the most egregiously aristocratic bent.

This ideology will inevitably continue to rise in the West as the West continues to become more polarised along racial lines. If the social democratic movements keep demonising white people, they will keep losing support among the white working class. Those working-class people, finding that mainstream conservatism also rejects them, may find they have no other home but fascism.

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.

Should We Sell New Zealand to China on A 99-Year Lease?

Many Kiwis are concerned about the amount of New Zealand land being sold into overseas hands. This concern has been heightened by last week’s sale of Westland Milk to China for $588 milllion. This essay asks an extremely controversial and unpalatable question: should we sell the country to the Chinese on a 99-year lease?

Thomas Porter of the Colonial Defence Force was a famously close ally of Ngati Porou war chief Ropata Wahawaha. When a captain, he served with the Ngati Porou contingent under Wahawaha that hunted down mass murderer Te Kooti in the Uruwera ranges. From the 1870s onwards, he was involved with work as a land purchase officer, a job made easier by his fluent command of Maori and his marriage to the daughter of a chief who had once paid for Wahawaha’s release from slavery.

Porter knew that the settler thirst for land was insatiable. The British Empire was possibly the most rapacious enterprise ever created by humans, and it had its eyes set on New Zealand. The Maoris would have to give up most of their land or be annihilated, as the Aborigines had been in Australia and the Native Americans before that on the other side of the Pacific.

However, Porter had a trick up his sleeve.

He was aware of the Highland Clearances, where the relentless desire for maximum profit had led to the evictions of tens of thousands of people from communal land in Northern Scotland from the middle of the 18th century. Some of the original landholders had survived the clearances by giving up their land on 99-year leases rather than selling it. By the time 99 years were up, the original pressure to sell had gone.

A great friend of the Ngati Porou, Porter did them a great favour. Instead of arranging for the land to be sold outright, he arranged for much of it to be sold on 99-year leases. This meant that the land was returned to Ngati Porou control in the years after World War II. Hindsight would prove this to be a stroke of genius.

A 99-year lease, Porter reasoned, would give the leaseholder all the security they wanted, as well as all the freedom they needed to use the land for whatever purpose. Consequently, there would no longer be any pressure on the Ngati Porou to sell it forever. So at the end of the 99 years, much of the original Ngati Porou holdings were still in their hands – and worth a packet.

This decision is part of the reason why the Ngati Porou are doing so well today compared to many other Maori tribes. Rather than accept a windfall that was inevitably squandered, the land was effectively put into a 99-year investment account. When that account matured, the whole tribe shared in the profits.

The Chinese demand for food products to feed their population of 1,400,000,000 is as difficult to meet as the Western demand for land once was. The Chinese population might not be growing any more, as birthrates have declined sharply since 1980, but Chinese wealth has been growing strongly since then, and their demand for food products has increased commensurately. The pressure to sell our land in the coming few decades will be immense.

This was a similar situation to what the Ngati Porou faced in 1870, and the factors that apply to us were considered by Captain Porter in his decision to arrange 99-year leases. We ought to ask ourselves if we should do the same. Would it not be better, instead of selling it for good bit-by-bit, to lease the whole country to the Chinese on a 99-year contract?

We wouldn’t be the first to have the idea. The Northern Territory Government has leased Darwin Port to the Chinese on a 99-year lease. This move has been criticised severely on account of its strategic implications, but the fact remains that Australia will get the port back after 99 years, the same way that the Chinese got Hong Kong back. So there is precedent, among other places faced with Chinese expansionism, to consider this option.

Some might not like the idea of selling the country into Chinese leaseholdership. They might reason that China is a human rights abuser, a corrupt, totalitarian dictatorship that strangles honest aspirations and which is incompatible with the Western desire for personal freedom.

However, these sentiments have to be balanced with the fact that the whole country is being sold into Chinese ownership anyway. Chinese nationals purchased $1,500,000,000 of New Zealand residential real estate in 2017 alone. Eight-figure sums are not uncommon for land purchases made by Chinese interests, many of which are owned in part by the Chinese Government.

Moreover, the old Western traditions of freedom are gone. Zimbabwe has legal medicinal cannabis, and Malaysia has announced that it will decriminalise it. New Zealanders are, therefore, less free than citizens of either Zimbabwe or Malaysia in important ways. Uruguay, South Africa, Chile, Mexico and even North Korea are further examples of countries with greater cannabis freedom than New Zealand. Our time as a human rights leader is long over.

Perhaps worst of all, New Zealanders are now going to prison for years for sharing videos, or getting harassed by the Police because they might like Donald Trump. There is ample evidence that we are no longer a free people, so there’s nothing to lose on that front.

Maybe it’s time to concede that it’s better to lease the whole country to China on a 99-year term today, get them to build some proper houses and infrastructure, and then to get it back in 2118, than to have it sold piece-by-piece into Chinese hands permanently. We would probably not suffer more under Chinese leadership than we already do under our own.

Hate Speech Laws Will Lead New Zealand to Misery and Servitude

The Sixth Labour Government is in no hurry to change the cannabis laws, which has seen New Zealand fall behind Zimbabwe and South Africa in terms of personal freedom. This reluctant approach to liberty helps explain why Andrew Little is so enthused about bringing in hate speech laws. As this essay will show, hate speech laws will only increase the suffering of the New Zealand people – but that may be by design.

Last week, Danish politician Rasmus Paludan was sentenced to two weeks in prison for breaking the Danish hate speech laws. He received this conviction after speaking in a video where he said that the average IQ of South Africans was 70, and that this intelligence level was too low to properly run the country. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

The video of him saying this was available on the homepage of Paludan’s party, Stram Kurs, and someone who viewed it reported it to the Police (some readers will have already sensed a red flag here – yes, in Denmark you can rat other people out for racism, and they’ll go to prison if they’re found guilty of it).

What Paludan said about the IQ of South Africans is accurate, as shown in the table below, taken from Professor Richard Lynn’s latest book, The Intelligence of Nations. Accuracy and truth, however, will be no defence against a hate speech accusation. The case of Paludan shows that New Zealand risks losing basic freedoms to speak if we introduce hate speech laws.

*The scientific facts suggest some unpalatable truths – now stating these truths is illegal in Denmark*

If hate speech laws were introduced in New Zealand, we could expect to see headlines like “Don Brash/Brian Tamaki/David Seymour Convicted of Racism” as certain political statements became illegal. It might sound ridiculous, and the Government will deny it, but literal facts will become grounds to put people in prison. This is the inevitable consequence of bringing in hate speech laws.

As shown by Paludan’s example, it won’t matter if you can back up what you say with science. A bunch of politicians and their assorted arse-lickers, none of who have any background in the science of intelligence testing, will decide what you’re allowed to say and what you are not. The definition of hate will be entirely up to them, and they will choose the definition that best suits their interests.

In the judgment against Paludan, the judges decided that it was not illegal to say “neger” (c.f. ‘Negro’), as he does several times in the video. The fact that they considered the possibility, however, is telling. It exposes that such a prohibition is under consideration: there are many who would like to make it illegal to say certain words, or to state certain things.

Imagine a world where it’s a crime to say a word that your Government has forbidden you to say, or a crime to draw logical conclusions that your Government has forbidden you to draw. If you dare do either of these things, you have to go in a cage.

It sounds like the kind of law that might have been parodied by Monty Python or Comic Strip Presents as an example of cruel and unreasonable punishment. But it’s the world that we are heading towards if we let Andrew “The Ditherer” Little and his fellow short-sighted control freaks override our right to free speech.

Hate speech laws mark the death of free speech. Once they are introduced, eventually anything that goes against the Government’s agenda will be classified as “hate speech”. Saying things that are scientific facts, backed up by decades of research and by the experts in the field, will be classed as hate speech if they alert people to the failures of the Government.

The reason why the Government wants to make it a crime to point out facts – like the low IQ of Africans – is because they want to import cheap labour. They are in bed with the globalist corporations. They know that if we’re allowed to openly speak the truth about the effects of globalist immigration policy on the well-being of our nation, more and more people will come to resist that globalist policy.

Every globalist knows that a nation will sooner-or-later go down the toilet if it imports large numbers of people with an IQ of 70. But they don’t care about that. All they want is cheap labour so that they can extract a quick profit from New Zealand. Then they move on, and leave us to clean up the mess. This is parasite capitalism, and it’s the pre-eminent paradigm of our age.

Hate speech laws will lead to people getting sent to prison for pointing out scientific facts that the Government doesn’t want attention given to. They will also lead to a culture of snitching as the Government employs people to handle the complaints. The end result is an East Germany-style hell society plagued by snitches and secret police. We should resist the introduction of hate speech laws at any cost, on the grounds that they are a violation of our inherent human rights.

The Case For Cannabis: Prohibition Does Not Serve The Good of Society

Cannabis prohibitionists have a fallback position when none of the usual rhetoric succeeds. It’s a vague appeal to some kind of “good of society”. This argument encompasses a variety of different sentiments, most of them fear-based. As this article will examine, this argument is no more true than any of the others.

At the time this article was being composed, it was in the news that a Dunedin man named Harley Brown had just been sentenced to two years and three months in prison for growing over a hundred cannabis plants. Meanwhile, another man named John-Boy Rakete had been sentenced, two weeks previously, to two years and two months in prison for bashing a man into a coma from which he is expected to never recover.

Imagine going to prison for growing a medicinal flower at the same time as a gang member who beat someone into a vegetable state, and seeing that gang member get out of prison before you. It sounds like something out of a Kafka novel, but it’s the reality of our current legal approach to cannabis. Can it fairly be argued that this arrangement serves the good of society?

It’s hard to see where the benefit to society is in this arrangement. Brown will be incarcerated at the cost of $100,000 per year, which is greater than the total value of the cannabis plants he had, even if this value is calculated using Police maths. As a result of his incarceration, a number of people will be made to suffer without the medicine they would otherwise have had.

How does this serve the good of society?

Rather than serving the good of society, prohibition puts us at each other’s throats. The friends and family of Harley Brown will probably have contempt for the system for the rest of their lives. Most people who compare the two cases above and their respective sentences will conclude that something is fundamentally rotten with our justice system, which appears to dish out punishments with no consideration given to how much suffering the perpetrator may have caused.

The good of society is served by alleviating the suffering of the people in that society. Education is a public good because ignorance causes suffering. Healthcare is a public good because disease causes suffering. Infrastructure is a public good because mobility restrictions cause suffering. Anything that is genuinely a public good alleviates suffering somewhere.

Prohibition serves no such good. As has been demonstrated in the previous chapters of this book, it doesn’t prevent suffering, but, to the contrary, it causes suffering. There is no social good served by arresting people who aren’t harming any one. Neither is any good served by imprisoning these people. Least of all is any good served by lying about how cannabis causes harm to the community.

The ultimate reason why cannabis prohibition does not serve the good of society is that the people will never accept not being allowed to use cannabis. The people will always intuitively feel that they have the right to use cannabis, because it alleviates suffering, because it’s a social tonic and because it can connect people to God. Because of this, prohibition can only ever cause conflict between the people and those tasked with enforcing it.

The idea that people will eventually “come to their senses”, realise that cannabis is a dangerous drug, and stop using it, is nonsense. Cannabis prohibitionists have gone all-in on this puritanical delusion, and they have lost. It’s time to admit that reality does not reflect the idea that cannabis is dangerous, or that the harms of cannabis are in any way ameliorated by making it illegal.

The good of society is best served by honesty. Honesty is one of the most fundamental virtues, because it’s only through honest discussion that we can come to see the world accurately. Without being able to see the world accurately, we will make mistakes that lead to conflict.

This honesty would cause us to have a look at Colorado, where they legalised cannabis in 2012. In Colorado, none of the terrible things that the prohibitionists predicted came to pass. There wasn’t an outbreak of violence or other crimes, there wasn’t an epidemic of cannabis addiction and it didn’t become easier for young people to get. Everything continued the same as normal, only there was much more money on account of it no longer being wasted on enforcing prohibition.

Legalisation would serve the good of society much better than prohibition. A system of legal cannabis would not only increase social cohesion by removing one of the major wedges that drives us apart, but it would also increase the respect that the average person has for the Police, the Justice System and the Government. Not least of all, it would save us a ton of money.

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.