Understanding New Zealand 3: Cannabis Referendum Voters

Calculating the correlations between demographic variables and referendum choice was made difficult by the Electoral Commission’s decision to put the ballots from different electorates into the same box on Election Day. At every polling booth, the referendum ballots for both General and Maori Electorates were put in the same box, and as such we can’t accurately account for how many people in each electorate voted in favour.

The special referendum votes were broken down by electorate, but the total number of such votes was less than 20% of the number of ordinary referendum votes, and so they are not particularly representative of the New Zealand population as a whole. They also don’t overcome the problem that the Maori population is split between the General Roll and the Maori Roll, and so no meaningful correlations between referendum choice and ethnicity can be calculated.

Despite these limitations, we can see the data accurately enough to notice some clear patterns. Five significant trends are apparent.

In short, the major opposition to cannabis law reform in New Zealand is the same people who oppose it everywhere else: old, poorly-educated, religious, antisocial conservatives, i.e. those who fall for fear-based propaganda the hardest and who act to harm other people the most readily.

Variable	Voting Yes in cannabis referendum	Special voting Yes in cannabis referendum
Aged 20-24	0.51	0.66
Aged 25-29	0.46	0.62
Aged 30-34	0.33	0.44
Aged 35-39	0.09	0.18
Aged 40-44	0.02	-0.02
Aged 45-49	-0.17	-0.24
Aged 50-54	-0.23	-0.40
Aged 55-59	-0.16	-0.52
Aged 60-64	-0.21	-0.57
Aged 65-69	-0.18	-0.53
Aged 70-74	-0.19	-0.52
Aged 75-79	-0.24	-0.56
Aged 80-84	-0.24	-0.58
Aged 85+	-0.16	-0.50

All of the age groups 34 years old or younger were significantly positively correlated with a will to reform the cannabis laws. This was true both for the ordinary referendum votes and the special ones. The correlation between being aged 20-24 and casting a special vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum was 0.66. Many of these voters would have been young people who enrolled to vote on Election Day.

All of the age groups 45 years old or above were negatively correlated with a will to reform the cannabis laws. As above, this was true both for the ordinary referendum votes and the special ones, although the correlations were only significant in the case of special votes. With the special votes, every age group 45 years old or above was significantly negatively correlated with voting Yes in the cannabis referendum.

Most strikingly, all of the age groups 55 years old or older had negative correlations stronger than -0.50 with casting a special vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum.

The pattern is unmistakable, and easy to explain. Old people who have been brainwashed for decades with Reefer Madness-style anti-cannabis propaganda are generally against it. Young people who have real-world experience with cannabis and who have observed its effects in their friends and/or parents are generally in favour of it.

Variable	Voting Yes in cannabis referendum	Special voting Yes in cannabis referendum
No NZQA qualifications	-0.36	-0.45
Level 1 certificate	-0.33	-0.46
Level 2 certificate	-0.31	-0.33
Level 3 certificate	0.41	0.54
Level 4 certificate	-0.30	-0.42
Level 5 diploma	-0.50	-0.46
Level 6 diploma	-0.22	-0.35
Bachelor’s degree	0.34	0.44
Honours degree	0.53	0.48
Master’s degree	0.48	0.53
Doctorate	0.56	0.45

Another trend is immediately apparent when we look at the correlations between voting Yes in the cannabis referendum and maximum educational achievement. The better educated a person is, the more likely they are to support cannabis law reform.

Belonging to any one of three most poorly-educated groups of people in the country was significantly negatively correlated with voting Yes in the cannabis referendum. By contrast, having any university degree was significantly positively correlated with voting Yes. The strongest correlation was between doctorate degree holders and casting an ordinary vote for Yes – this was 0.56.

The one anomaly in the data – the significant positive correlation between having level 3 NZQA as a highest qualification and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum – can be easily explained. These people are mostly intelligent young people who are at university but are yet to get a degree. So they’re mostly intelligent enough to understand the science of cannabis, but not old enough to have a degree yet.

The reason for the strong correlation between education and pro-cannabis sentiments is fairly obvious. Understanding the effects of cannabis is essentially a scientific enterprise. Those educated enough to understand science understand that cannabis is medicinal. Those not educated enough to understand science have to rely on what they’re told, which is usually by people not educated enough to understand the science.

Education is, at the end of the day, little more than a mental toolbox for determining truth from bullshit. An educated person will be equipped to appraise data and to decide for themselves what is true and what isn’t.

Those unequipped to make such determinations are forced to rely on dictates from authority figures, such as the television or the local priest. Doing so is extremely inaccurate, and is often completely misleading. Those who put themselves forwards as authority figures, and those who are presented as authority figures by the media, are often people with a vested interest in telling lies.

Unfortunately, the cannabis referendum was a national IQ test, and we failed it.

Variable	Voting Yes in cannabis referendum	Special voting Yes in cannabis referendum
Following no religion	0.39	0.22
Following Buddhism	-0.05	0.14
Following Christianity	-0.53	-0.48
Following Hinduism	-0.06	0.11
Following Islam	-0.06	0.09
Following Judaism	0.33	0.44
Following a Maori religion	-0.02	0.20
Following Spiritualism or New Age religion	0.58	0.25

Many people fail to appreciate the extent to which hating cannabis users is a religious, particularly an Abrahamic, attitude. It was largely Christians who enforced cannabis prohibition in the first place, and it’s largely Christians who argue to continue enforcing it. As such, a significant majority of people who voted No in the cannabis referendum were Christian.

The truth is that cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, and has been used as such for thousands of years. Throughout all time and space, Christians have always sought to destroy all other religious and spiritual traditions, and they have destroyed spiritual practices based around cannabis use in the same way they destroyed spiritual practices based around psilocybin mushroom use.

Christians can’t burn spiritual freethinkers at the stake anymore, but they can still vote for them to be persecuted. And they do, in great numbers. The fact that Christianity is an ideology of hatred is seldom more evident than in the strong negative correlations between being Christian and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum. A correlation of -0.53 between being Christian and casting an ordinary vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum lays bare what many already knew: Christians hate cannabis users.

Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims were generally indifferent to the question of cannabis law reform. This reflects the fact that there are two opposing forces at play in these cultures: the conservative, control-based mentality and the liberal, experience-based mentality. Many voters in these groups, being relatively recent immigrants, are caught between two worlds, unsure of what to accept and what to reject.

Spiritualists and New Agers were the big losers from the referendum result. New Age religion is very fond of cannabis on account of that it facilitates meditation. Spiritualists also like cannabis for the same reason that Rastafarians do: they believe that it enables them to reconnect with God. This explains the strong positive correlation of 0.58 between following Spiritualism or New Age religions and casting an ordinary vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum.

The significant positive correlations between being Jewish and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum are no doubt because of the higher educational attainment of Jews, i.e. most of them voted Yes because they understand the science behind cannabis.

Variable	Voting Yes in cannabis referendum	Special voting Yes in cannabis referendum
Working as manager	-0.20	-0.20
Working as professional	0.51	0.52
Working as technican or trades worker	-0.33	-0.48
Working as community or personal service worker	0.35	0.22
Working as clerical or administrative worker	-0.20	0.02
Working as sales worker	-0.20	0.03
Working as machinery operator or driver	-0.42	-0.28
Working as labourer	-0.20	-0.31

The fourth apparent trend in the data is that occupations and industries with a lot of human contact tended to vote Yes in the cannabis referendum, while occupations and industries without much human contact tended to vote No.

This mostly reflects differences in empathy. People in social occupations tend to be more open, more closely attuned to other people’s suffering and more sympathetic towards the measures those people take to reduce it. They are also much more likely to support recreational drug use in general, and much less likely to support government measures to interfere in other people’s lives.

There were significant positive correlations between voting Yes in the cannabis referendum and being a professional (0.51) or being a community and personal service worker (0.35). This reflects the fact that people in these occupations are intelligent and empathetic. In the case of professionals, it also reflects a superior reasoning ability.

There were significant negative correlations between voting Yes in the cannabis referendum and being a machinery operator or driver (-0.42) or being a technician or trades worker (-0.33). This might reveal a working-class social conservatism, but more likely follows from the fact that these occupations cannot be performed safely while stoned, and so people in them are concerned about the person next to them being under the influence of cannabis while working.

Variable	Voting Yes in cannabis referendum	Special voting Yes in cannabis referendum
Working in agriculture, forestry or fishing	-0.16	-0.40
Working in mining	0.00	-0.16
Working in manufacturing	-0.58	-0.52
Working in electricity, gas, water and waste services	-0.12	-0.10
Working in construction	-0.38	-0.22
Working in wholesale trade	-0.56	-0.17
Working in retail trade	-0.25	-0.35
Working in accommodation or food services	0.47	0.40
Working in transport, postal or warehousing	-0.42	-0.06
Working in information media or telecommunications	0.47	0.57
Working in financial or insurance services	0.19	0.37
Working in rental, hiring or real estate services	-0.19	0.10
Working in professional, scientific or technical services	0.37	0.51
Working in administrative or support services	0.05	0.33
Working in public administration or safety	0.46	0.33
Working in education or training	0.29	0.19
Working in healthcare or social assistance	0.18	-0.13
Working in arts or recreation services	0.60	0.58

These correlations, between choice of unsocial occupations and voting No in the cannabis referendum, were replicated with choice of industry.

People in social industries heavily supported cannabis law reform, and this was also true of people in creative industries.

There was a significant positive correlation between casting an ordinary vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum and working in Arts and Recreation Services (0.60), Accommodation and Food Services (0.47), Information Media and Telecommunications (0.47), Public Administration and Safety (0.46), Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (0.37) or Education and Training (0.29).

People in industries that are (generally speaking) neither social nor creative heavily opposed cannabis law reform.

There were significant negative correlations between casting an ordinary vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum and working in Manufacturing (-0.58), Wholesale Trade (-0.56), Transport, Postal and Warehousing (-0.42), Construction (-0.38) or Retail Trade (-0.25).

The major distinction here is not obvious, but it is striking, and perhaps summarises the entire cannabis law reform debate: voters working in industries that are focused on people supported cannabis law reform, while voters working in industries that are focused on things generally opposed cannabis law reform.

Variable	Voting Yes in cannabis referendum	Special voting Yes in cannabis referendum
Voting Labour 2020	0.36	-0.11
Voting National 2020	-0.50	-0.49
Voting Greens 2020	0.85	0.68
Voting ACT 2020	-0.25	-0.43
Voting New Zealand First 2020	0.03	-0.21
Voting New Conservative 2020	-0.46	-0.66
Voting The Opportunities Party 2020	0.74	0.42
Voting Maori Party 2020	0.34	0.39
Voting Advance NZ 2020	-0.06	-0.06
Voting Sustainable NZ 2020	0.12	0.05
Voting ALCP 2020	0.08	0.23
Voting TEA Party 2020	-0.36	-0.08
Voting Heartland NZ 2020	-0.10	-0.09
Voting Social Credit 2020	0.14	-0.30
Voting NZ Outdoors Party 2020	-0.04	-0.26
Voting ONE Party 2020	0.05	-0.14
Voting Vision NZ Party 2020	-0.17	0.26

The fifth apparent trend in the data involves the strong positive correlations between voting for progressive parties and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum, and the strong negative correlations between voting for conservative parties and voting Yes.

Unsurprisingly, voting for any of the parties that campaigned specifically for cannabis law reform had the strongest correlations with voting Yes on the cannabis referendum. Casting an ordinary vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum had a correlation of 0.85 with voting for the Greens in 2020, and 0.74 with voting for The Opportunities Party in 2020. The correlations with casting a special vote for Yes and voting for these parties were only slightly weaker.

Cannabis law reform supporters will be invigorated by the fact that the correlation between voting Labour in 2020 and casting an ordinary vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum was significantly positive, at 0.36. This suggests that a significant majority of Labour supporters want legal cannabis and so Labour, if they take the will of those supporters into account, should change the law.

National and the New Conservative Party, who explicitly campaigned against cannabis law reform, had the least cannabis-friendly voters. The correlation between voting Yes in the cannabis referendum and voting National in 2020 was -0.50, and with voting New Conservative in 2020 it was -0.46. To a large extent, this reflects the fact that those voters are old, and in the case of New Conservative voters it also reflects a lack of education.

Many will be surprised by the significant negative correlations between voting ACT in 2020 and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum. David Seymour wrote about his support for cannabis law reform in Own Your Future, and openly stated before the referendum that he was voting Yes. ACT is also associated with libertarian urban types who are generally favourable towards drug use of all kinds. So understanding why their voters oppose cannabis law reform is not straightforward.

The reason is that many of the people who voted ACT in 2020 voted National in 2017, and are still conservatives at heart. They voted ACT in 2020 mostly to protest the National Party leadership of the time, and are not really libertarians. This is supported by the fact that ACT voters were much, much older in 2020 than they were in 2017.

The weak correlations between voting for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and voting Yes in the cannabis referendum will also surprise many.

First it has to be understood here that ALCP voters are very few in number, and represent the top 1% most fanatical about cannabis in the entire country. Second, many of these cannabis fanatics were unhappy with the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill because they either felt that it didn’t go far enough, or because they didn’t want the cannabis industry to become commercialised. So many of them cast No votes despite supporting cannabis law reform in general.

Their reasons might sound paradoxical, but nothing about the cannabis debate has been rational from the beginning.

This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.

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. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clown World Chronicles: Gender Relations In Clown World

Dave Chapelle once lamented that “men and women don’t get along anymore“. The sad reality is that men and women in Clown World are seldom complimentary, as are yin and yang. In Clown World, men and women are locked in a struggle for supremacy that has had dire consequences for our collective happiness.

The division between male and female is the most fundamental division in the human species. Not even the division between good and evil is as great, because that is a matter of degree and a function of environmental pressure, whereas the division between male and female is categorical and innate.

Although it’s denied by the SJWs and the baizuos, there is a male way of thinking and a female way of thinking. The male way of thinking evolved to hunt and protect and later developed into warfare; the female way of thinking evolved to gather and nurture and later developed into civilisation. Although we are all humans, these different gender-based ways of thinking create challenges for those who want peace and order.

When gender relations are good and tensions are dissolved with humour and good cheer, you have a golden age. This is what existed in ancient Greece when it was possible for playwrights such as Aristophanes to write Lysistrata. In such a time, it’s possible to gently make fun of the foibles of the other gender while still acknowledging their value and the ultimate importance of co-operating.

When gender relations are marked by the perceived need to get revenge for centuries of oppression, you have Clown World. Like much of Clown World, gender relations today are the way they are because of a massive overreaction to a lengthy period of Abrahamic shitness.

Abrahamic culture is male supremacist, and women’s awareness of their historical oppression at the hands of Abrahamists has created deep resentment. This deep resentment has led to support for measures benefitting women at the expense of men, on account of the belief that they settle some historical scorecard.

Measures such as restricting scholarships to female students are readily accepted by the middle-class women who are the primary beneficiaries. The working-class men who have to watch those middle-class women get exclusive advantages on account of some supposed greater need, however, become extremely resentful.

This resentment is typical of gender relations in Clown World.

The discord between men and women is the primary reason why Clown World is so fucked up. Because healthy gender relations are fundamental to a healthy society, the dysfunction here has led to dysfunction at every scale. It has led to family discord, which has led to community discord, which has led to national discord.

On a family level, more children than ever are growing up to see fighting and arguing between their parents. This has led to an increased perception that violence and aggression are normal, acceptable ways of conducting human relations. These children then grow up and bring their unhealthy attitudes to their wider community, making those communities hostile, suspicious and violent.

For a nation to have a healthy national sentiment it needs healthy communities, which requires healthy families, which requires healthy gender relations. So deteriorating gender relations serve the nefarious interests of globohomo. The more disharmony there is between men and women, the easier the entire population can be reduced to consumerist NPCs. This is why the mainstream media is always pushing a “gender wars” narrative.

Gender relations have now become so bad that it’s possible to speak of an “incel epidemic“. The proportion of American adults that don’t have sex at all has doubled since 2008, and has tripled for men under 30. This means that there are a lot of lonely people out there who have never experienced affection from the opposite gender.

This has happened for a number of reasons, but two are foremost. First, the advent of dating apps such as Tinder has made it easier than ever before for mediocre women to reject all suitors besides the most attractive Chads. Second, the perception that women are now more promiscuous than ever (see: roastie) had led to a number of men avoiding women out of disgust.

Unfortunately, the male mind does not respond well to lengthy periods of involuntary celibacy. The tendency in such cases is for it to become sadistic. Lengthy periods of involuntary celibacy can lead to a particularly bilious form of resentment that soon becomes the blackest of hates, a hate so powerful that it revels in the suffering of others.

The increase in sadism brought about by a widespread lack of sexual satisfaction has society-wide ramifications. It has made a large proportion of men unwilling to work towards the greater good, in any sense. Some men are so bitter about not being able to get laid that they have become happy to see people suffer, in any context. Incelibacy leads to men who just want the world to burn.

There’s little doubt that many of the men involved in the rioting of recent years are incels. But so far their actions have had little influence. The real danger is that the incel community, if they became numerous enough, could forcibly subjugate women again. This could easily be achieved by political violence, given the readiness and the ability of incels to use it.

The current social climate exacerbates this threat. Thanks to the MeToo movement and the feminist weaponisation of cancel culture, some men have become afraid to hit on women at all. Although this is not necessarily a bad thing, it has had consequences: it has added to the number of men who have become afraid to talk to women, as well as to those who have resigned themselves to a life of inceldom.

Complicating matters even further is the rise of transgenderism. The presence of trans people has blurred the boundaries between men and women, adding yet another reason to hesitate before interacting. The fear of ending up with a penis-wielding “woman” has led some men to give up on dating in general. Others are so horrified by the trans phenomenon that they become reclusive, doing their best to shut Clown World out of their minds.

Gender relations will stay bad in Clown World until a new foundational philosophy arises. This philosophy will have to root out the last vestiges of Abrahamic male supremacism and replace it with a more Taoist sense of masculine and feminine as complementary. Not until then will males and females be able to work together in harmony.

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. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clown World Chroncles: What Is ‘Groupthink’?

Much of the psychology of Clown World is the psychology of the herd. Although the human ego likes to place itself above the rest of the animal kingdom, the reality is that we are just as much a herd animal as any wildebeest. Understanding the psychology of Clown World requires that we understand the phenomenon of groupthink.

William H Whyte Jr., the sociologist who came up with the term, described it as “a rationalized conformity – an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.” This sense of righteousness is key to understanding groupthink. It’s what motivates groupthinkers to destroy outsiders.

The Asch Conformity Experiments demonstrated the power that groupthink exerts over human behaviour. In these experiments, participants were placed into a group, all of the other members of which were conspiring with the experimenter. These other group members then pretended to believe something that was clearly false, so that the participant was forced to choose between conforming to group norms or speaking the truth.

In about a third of cases, the participants went along with the false information, despite that it was obviously false. When asked why, most of them said they were afraid of social disapproval.

Humans have always been a social species, right back into the biological past. Because of the threat of ostracisation, we have always had to take the social environment into consideration. This has had consequences for how our minds have evolved. We have learned to be afraid of assuming a low social status, lest it lead to us getting kicked out of the group. The more dependent a person is on others, the more afraid they are.

The desire for social harmony leads people to go along with things that they know aren’t true. This has always been the case when it came to cults, but in Clown World it’s the case in general. Today’s groupthinkers insist that mass immigration has made us all wealthier, or that all racial groups are precisely the same in all psychological measures, or that cannabis causes mental illness. The existence of evidence demonstrating otherwise is simply denied.

Characteristic of groupthink is that it increases the likelihood of dehumanising the outgroup. The more a person becomes convinced that their ingroup is morally superior, the more they become convinced that any outgroup is morally inferior. This line of thinking can have lethal outcomes.

The most prominent example of groupthink in Clown World was the leadup to the Iraq War in 2003. Although many people expressed a feeling that the war was a bad idea (a million people protested in London, and three million in Rome, the largest protests in the history of the world), no-one close to George W Bush seems to have done so. Iraqis were dehumanised; civilian deaths in the invasion were written off as “collateral damage”.

In principle, any time a group of people get together and start irrationally hating outsiders could be considered an example of groupthink. The war-like mentality that fuels it seems to be built into human nature. It’s as if that, sometimes, it’s just time for killing, and when it is the group needs to work together as a single unit, with no dissent.

The ruling class is aware of all this, which is why they like to hype the population into a war mentality whenever possible. One of the most unpleasant aspects of Clown World is that the war hype is now permanent. There is always an enemy, always some terrorist out there who will destroy us the moment we relax. The mainstream media keeps us in this state of combat readiness with 24/7 reminders of the world’s danger.

In an age where the average person is so weak, groupthink is much more common than it was. The average person is now so cowardly that the prospect of going against the authority of the group is practically unthinkable. Only abject submission can reduce anxiety to tolerable levels.

This was demonstrated amply by the hysteria around the need to wear masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus. All it took was for the mainstream media to create the perception that anyone not wearing a mask was endangering the public, and people were happy to rip into them. At no point was it necessary to demonstrate scientifically that wearing masks was worth all the grief. Groupthink ensured that dissenters were destroyed.

The general propensity for groupthink is made worse by situational factors. Increased anxiety makes people more liable to put group approval above truth. The prevailing sense of panic in the West since 9/11 has made groupthink a common phenomenon. When a wartime mentality prevails, you don’t want to go against the group, lest you be declared a traitor and cast out (or worse).

The rise of social media has made groupthink much more intense. Because dissenting views can be, and are, silenced so easily on online platforms, it’s very common for people to get an illusory sense of consensus. Anyone accused of xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia or Islamophobia will soon be shut down, creating the impression that everyone agrees with the main globohomo narrative.

Perhaps the most archetypal examples of groupthink in Clown World are the SJW vs. Alt Right conflicts that are boiling over all across the West. An alt centrist can try to stay out of the fray, but the outgroup hostility possessed by both groups will inevitably cause them to accuse any neutral party of being an enemy.

Groupthink is why political activists can get so hysterical when encountering their declared enemy. This is a grave danger – such hysteria has motivated some of the worst atrocities of times past. Given the extent of social discord in Clown World, it’s easily possible that it could motivate some terrible crimes in the future. The presence of cancel culture is an unmistakable sign that the will to destroy the lives of perceived enemies exists.

Fortunately, perhaps, groupthink is also a function of group cohesion, and neither SJWs nor the Alt Right have the group cohesion to enable any truly malicious outgroup prejudice. At least not yet. As Clown World gets worse, though, we can predict that the hunkering down phenomenon will intensify and this will lead to increased groupthink and increased outgroup hostility.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clown World Chronicles: Justice In Clown World

Aristotle considered justice, and its application, to be the basis of civilisation. A just society will lead to few resentments, which will keep tyrants out of power and everything running smoothly. An unjust society leads to many deep resentments, which leads to the people championing a tyrant to get revenge for them. In Clown World, injustice reigns – and it’s getting worse.

As with a few other areas of life, the justice system arguably became clownified before 9/11. For many people, the OJ Simpson trial in 1994 made apparent that something was severely faulty with the world’s moral reasoning.

For a while, most places were able to delude themselves into thinking such verdicts were unique to America. The hysteria that followed 9/11, however, caused the West to totally lose the plot. In this hysteria, the average person lost their sense of proportionality. With that went any accurate conception of justice. It took a while for this mentality to filter up to the upper echelons of the justice system, so it wasn’t until recent years that the Western justice systems became truly clownified.

Now, however, our justice systems are run by morally defective people. Ultimately, these justice systems stopped being just because we drifted away from our foundational moral philosophy: the works of Plato and Aristotle.

The logic used to be that “the punishment fits the crime”. In other words, the more suffering caused by the crime, the more severe the punishment had to be. This was the only way to both assuage the victim’s desire for vengeance and protect society from future crimes. Up until recently, that logic worked well.

In Clown World, however, the severity of a sentence depends on the social status of the person committing the crime.

The wealthy and powerful are exempt from full justice. This is why George W Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did not, and will never, stand trial for the war crimes they committed. Not even leaving one million dead (as Bush and Blair did in Iraq) is too heinous to get away with. In Clown World, laws are for the weak.

The Sackler family is another example of this principle. Facing thousands of lawsuits on account of their central role in inflaming America’s opioid crisis, the Sacklers arranged a settlement with the Trump Administration that would see them completely escape all criminal liabililty. This is despite the fact that opioid deaths in America rose from 21,088 in 2010 to 46,802 in 2018.

Certain categories of supposedly underprivileged people are also exempt from full justice. If you’re a Pakistani or Bangladeshi living in Britain, you can form a grooming gang, rape tens of thousands of underage British girls and get away with it for decades, because the Police will be too afraid to investigate you in case they get called racist.

Clown World justice, like so much else of Clown World, is beholden to politics. Whether or not justice is served is primarily a political question, in particular the question of whether or not justice would serve the interests of those in power. It doesn’t even matter if thousands of teenage girls are getting raped by foreign men in racially-motivated hate crimes – justice has to serve the Establishment to happen at all.

Working-class people, whatever their race, get hammered. The New Zealander Philip Arps, who shared a video of the Christchurch mosque shootings, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for the act, despite that it didn’t harm anyone. It’s common for Black Americans to be sentenced to decades in prison for drug offences that caused less harm than the Sacklers.

The severity of a sentence also depends on the social status of the victim.

Muslim rape gangs in Britain got away with it for so long because they were raping working-class girls. These cases encapsulate justice in Clown World. If you’re the wrong type of victim you don’t get justice, unless it coincides with the political intentions of the Establishment. Getting raped by a foreigner doesn’t mean much if you’re working-class and if drawing attention to the case would jeopardise the multicultural project.

In a similar vein, if you are a working-class person and report a petty crime against you to the local police, chances are they’ll just tell you to fuck off. The likelihood of them investigating a burglary on a working-class home or an assault on a working-class person are minimal. In Clown World, the police are the army of the rich.

Normally, a system this corrupt would be overthrown. However, the rulers of Clown World have learned that they don’t have to rule society justly as long as a sufficient pre-emptive effort is made to crush dissent. Today’s propaganda techniques are so sophisticated that, as Huxley feared, we have been taught to love our servitude.

A consequence of this is no-one protests outcomes of the justice system anymore. The moral sophistication of the average Westerner has disintegrated to such a degree that a celebrity saying something racist elicits more outrage than a child getting beaten to death. Our philosophical foundations are lost, and with them has gone our sense of justice.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!