Understanding The "Justice" System

Understanding The “Justice” System

Judicial verdicts frequently provoke confusion among observers. In some cases it’s extremely difficult to understand why judgments are handed down, as punishment seems so random and arbitrary. As this essay will explain, understanding our “Justice” System is literally as simple as ABC.

In this context, ‘ABC’ refers to an algebraic formula that could also be expressed a*b*c = x, where x is the severity of the punishment.

a is the degree of inconvenience caused by the offence. The greater the inconvenience, the greater the punishment.

Murder causes a great deal of inconvenience, not least to the person killed. The family and friends of murder victims are also greatly impacted. It is for this reason that murder is also referred to as “the ultimate crime”. Other crimes like manslaughter, rape and kidnapping also cause great inconvenience, and these also carry heavy punishment.

Lesser crimes are things like theft and assault. Neither of these crimes kill anyone, and neither do they regularly cause long-standing psychological damage. Consequently, such crimes carry light punishments. Note that a equals the amount of inconvenience caused, not the amount of suffering caused, because an offence does not have to cause suffering in order to attract judicial punishment (growing medicinal cannabis is one such example).

All this seems very straightforward, and it would be, if the formula didn’t have b and c. The sad reality is that the amount of suffering caused by an offender is not the only factor that the “Justice” System takes into account. Far from it.

b is the social status of the person impacted by the offence. The higher the social status, the greater the punishment.

The highest social status is that of the Crown (or the Government). Therefore, offences that impact the Crown are punished the most severely. This is why offences that cause a minimum of suffering, but which inconvenience the Government, are punished heavily. Julian Assange is the foremost example of this today, as are the aforementioned cannabis users.

If the person impacted by the offence is of a low social status, the punishment will be low. It might be difficult to secure a conviction, because a complainant with low social status might not be considered a trustworthy witness in court. The case might not even go that far. It’s common for the Police to refuse to hear complaints from working-class people, giving them an excuse such as that they don’t have enough evidence to pursue a complaint.

Despite the bleating of social justice warriors, social status is a far more important factor than race. A case in New Zealand last year saw a man sentenced to a mere eight months’ home detention for killing a white man – a verdict easily understood once it’s realised that the victim was homeless. It can be guaranteed that if a Member of Parliament had been beaten to death in similar circumstances, the punishment would have been life imprisonment.

c is the social status of the person who committed the offence. The higher the social status, the lower the punishment.

If the person committing the offence is of a high enough social status, they simply won’t be charged for it. Jimmy Savile is the best example of this. If you can get to a high enough social status, you can rape hundreds of children and the “Justice” System simply won’t charge you. Likewise, Mike Sabin in New Zealand got off scot-free with what he did.

As David Icke has extensively written, the Western Establishment is full of pedophiles – and their high social status prevents the Police from charging or investigating them. Lesser members of the Establishment might not be able to avoid being charged or convicted, but they will nevertheless get a much lighter punishment than a working-class person would for the same offence.

Further examples are the high-profile sportsmen who are given name suppression and who avoid criminal convictions because of “promising rugby careers” or similar. The New Zealand Herald even managed to compile a playing XV of rugby players who had escaped conviction after committing a criminal offence. One player even did so despite breaking another man’s jaw.

A person of a low social status, by contrast, will get smashed for even the most minor infringement. If you’re working-class, you can expect to get a year in prison for stealing a few dozen trout. Middle-class people, like Phil Goff’s daughter, can get away with being found in possession of ecstasy, while working-class people get nailed to the wall for sharing videos, provided it inconveniences the Government enough.

The basic formula, then, for determining the severity of a judicial punishment is as follows: take the total inconvenience caused by the offence, multiply it by the social status of the person inconvenienced, and multiply this by the inverse of the social status of the person committing the offence.

The maximum theoretical punishment would come, according to this formula, from a common working-class man killing the Queen, President or Prime Minister of their political system. Whether legal or not, such an act is almost bound to result in the death penalty, and will at the least incur life imprisonment.

The minimum theoretical punishment would come from an act taken by the Government to inconvenience a common citizen. It is all but certain that no member of the Establishment will ever have to pay for the crime of conducting a War on Drugs against their own people, even though the people did not consent to it. Likewise, an immigration official allowing a murderer into the country who then murders someone will not be punished.

What best explains all of this is the fact that the ruling class ultimately invented the Justice System to protect their position. Therefore, the point of it is to smash down challengers to the ruling class and to their interests. That’s why the Justice System hardly cares at all when the Government commits crimes against its own people, or when members of the working class harm each other.

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: What is ‘Cancel Culture’?

Unlike most of the other terms in this book, ‘cancel culture’ does not have an easily discerned meaning. It refers to a very specific mentality that is mostly found in a very specific sort of person, both of which are becoming much more common nowadays. Understanding it is necessary if one wishes to understand Clown World and where it’s headed.

It’s not currently feasible, in the current political environment, to physically exterminate one’s enemies. There are laws against that sort of thing. Therefore, the way to destroy them is to silence them.

In the old days, tyrannical kings would cut the tongues out of anyone they did not wish to speak. That’s no longer feasible either, but the sentiment motivating it can still find expression. Today, silencing people is still a matter of denying their ability to speak, but in an age of mass media it’s about denying them access to speaking platforms.

Cancel culture refers to a certain mentality where a person tries to silence anyone who they do not wish to speak. This means to get them banned from any media where they might have the chance to express themselves – a process known as ‘deplatforming’. This isn’t really a new thing, as examples of it have existed ever since the New Left came to prominence in the 60s and 70s.

One of the first victims was psychologist Hans Eysenck, who upset the Left with his research into the average IQ scores of different races. As discussed at length in a recent paper in the Personality and Individual Differences Journal, arguing in favour of human biodiversity is highly likely to aggravate the numerous fanatics who adhere to the Equalitarian Dogma.

These fanatics made a strong effort to cancel Eysenck on account of his statements that most of the differences in IQ between different races can be explained by genetic differences, and that this evolutionary explanation is much more powerful than the environmentalist explanation. Eysenck was punched in the face, had his family threatened with death and had numerous speaking arrangements cancelled by leftist agitators.

50 years later, cancel culture is as strong as ever. Jordan Peterson ran afoul of it when he refused to accept the far-leftist dogma about transgenders. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux ran afoul of it when they wanted to speak about the science of human biodiversity in Auckland. Even VJM Publishing upset the shrieking loonies when we sold ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe.

Cancel culture, then, is how the Left does violence in lieu of being able to use actual violence. The irony is that, despite constantly crying about how words are violence and that causing offence ought to be prison-worthy, it is the Left themselves who are most willing to aggressively interfere with other people’s right to free assembly and free speech.

The logic is that, if people promoting unwanted ideologies were allowed to speak in public or to hold gatherings, they would convert or at least invigorate a nonzero number of people. That someone could argue against them doesn’t matter – today’s Left affords no value at all to human reason. Merely speaking is enough to convince people in their minds.

Therefore, allowing the enemy to speak is tantamount to allowing the enemy to gain strength. If the enemy is gathering their forces, better to smash them now lest they become stronger in the future, as per Machiavelli’s maxim. Cancel culture is a form of ideological warfare, in which wrongthinkers are smashed and persecuted to the fullest legal extent possible.

Support for cancel culture is closely intertwined with an individual’s support for authoritarianism. Authoritarians don’t see anything wrong in taking away other people’s rights to express themselves, because they don’t consider other people to be full human beings. In Clown World, anyone who thinks incorrectly is a subhuman, and subhumans don’t have rights.

The problem is that people who are prevented from speaking rapidly turn to violence. John F Kennedy said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” and history is replete with examples. What the cancellers don’t understand is that those cancelled don’t feel admonished or chastised – they feel enraged. This rage is easy to justify, considering that their human rights have been violated.

Cancel culture, with its egregious unreasonableness, empowers the far-right and feeds directly into their narratives about totalitarian censorship. Shutting down a person for speaking, when the right to speak is specifically protected by human rights legislation, is precisely the kind of action that makes conspiracy theories about Communist takeovers seem realistic.

Clown World promises to become ever more vicious, ruthless and insane as phenomena like cancel culture spread. It’s become so bad in some places that it’s every bit the persecution hysteria that lead to witchcraft trials. People all over the West are losing their livelihoods just for uttering opinions that contradict the bloodthirsty mob. Cancel culture may end up cancelling liberty.

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!

The Fall Of Joe Biden Shows That Opposing Cannabis Is No Longer Tenable

Former American Vice President Joe Biden began as the favourite in the ongoing campaign to win the Democratic nomination for this year’s Presidential election. As the contest has progressed, however, he has lost more and more ground, and now Bernie Sanders has supplanted him as the frontrunner. As this essay will show, this fall can best be explained by one massive strategic error on Biden’s part.

It’s common for old people to fail to understand that the younger generations consider cannabis law reform a major moral issue. For the older generation, the anti-cannabis brainwashing was so ruthlessly intense that prohibition was taken for granted. People were so naive back then that anything said by an authority figure was taken as the Word of God.

Joe Biden has certainly failed to understand this. Referring to the contest for the Democratic nomination this year, Rolling Stone described him as “the worst candidate in the race” for cannabis users. He has consistently refused to concede any argument for cannabis law reform, stating repeatedly that he is against legalising cannabis at the federal level.

Even worse, Biden has warmly embraced the War on Drugs. Some could even say he was one of the architects of it. Biden has willingly promoted lies about cannabis, such as that it is a gateway drug, and that more evidence is needed before we can determine whether it should be legal. While Vice President to Barack Obama, he was part of an Administration that happily continued to force prohibition on the American people.

Part of this can be explained by the fact that Biden is old – so old that he’s not even a Baby Boomer. Back in the day, you almost had to expect that your left-wing candidate was going to be lukewarm about cannabis, because the still-brainwashed masses were too numerous, and politicians were forced to placate them. Biden has failed to realise that things have changed.

As is the case in New Zealand, voters for the left-sympathetic Democratic Party tend to be younger than voters with right-wing sympathies. As is also the case in New Zealand, young people are much more pro-cannabis (Dan McGlashan’s Understanding New Zealand has all the details on such matters). This means that Biden has completely missed a trick. Very few Democrats oppose cannabis law reform today.

This refusal to acknowledge the reality of young people’s lives is why the Biden campaign is now failing. He was paying only $3.30 to win the Democratic nomination on BetFair a few months ago – by today that has blown out to $18.00. In other words, the market considers him to have a less than 6% chance of winning the nomination today, compared to a 20% chance only recently.

By refusing to acknowledge the need for cannabis law reform, Biden has shown himself to not be up to the task of understanding the reality facing his constituents. This has left him extremely vulnerable to being out-flanked on the cannabis law reform front by candidates such as Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, by contrast, has made a point of ending the War on Drugs. His official campaign website states his desire to “end the War on Drugs by legalizing marijuana and expunging past convictions.” This clear and principled stand contrasts sharply with Biden’s timid dithering. It’s a message that has resonated with many of the young people who are tempted to not vote on account of that they feel all the candidates are shit.

This had led to Sanders’s support coming in – he is now paying a mere $1.91 to win the Democratic nomination on BetFair. Despite spending most of his political career written off as a kook, he is now odds-on to win the Democratic nomination, and (according to some), if he wins that he will be odds-on to beat Donald Trump in November. We could estimate that he already has a 30% chance of becoming the President at this stage.

New Zealand is at least a decade behind America when it comes to understanding the reality about cannabis. As shown in the graph at the top of this page, America was about evenly split on cannabis about a decade ago. Since then, the truth has won out, and the majority of people now understand that prohibition causes more suffering than it alleviates.

The pitiful reality is that a great number of people have gone along with cannabis prohibition simply because they had been given the impression that it was the right thing to do. The fact that the rest of their generation followed sheep-like into supporting the destruction of several of their number just seemed natural. It’s not until now that enough public attention has been devoted to the cannabis issue to make people question their assumptions about it.

It has been discovered in New Zealand that, of those undecided about cannabis law reform, the majority of them break in favour of reform once they are presented with accurate facts. Those who don’t question the brainwashing and stand against cannabis have been the majority for 80 years, but the more educated people become, the less likely they are to do so.

All politicians end up falling out of favour if they support a policy long after it becomes unfashionable. There are now very few mainstream Western politicians who openly state support for the criminalisation of homosexuality. The fall of Joe Biden shows that the time is coming when it will no longer be possible to publicly express a belief in imprisoning cannabis users.

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.

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!

Low Unemployment Is Meaningless If The Jobs Don’t Pay

Politicians like to brag about the low levels of unemployment they claim to have achieved. A low level of unemployment is presented as evidence that the economy is being managed well, and therefore that the stewards don’t need to be changed. But as this essay will demonstrate, low unemployment is meaningless if the jobs don’t lift people out of poverty.

Western politicians have been terrified of unemployment ever since World War II. Adolf Hitler frequently made reference in his rally speeches to the climbing German unemployment rate, citing it as evidence of the failure of the then-existing political Establishment. It’s taken as true by all that an unemployed man is far more likely to cause trouble.

The postwar paradigm has been characterised by a concerted effort to keep unemployment low. This worked out very well in the decades after the war, because back then a job guaranteed a certain standard of living. A full-time worker could expect to own a house and support a wife and three children. This great wealth, fairly distributed, kept revolutionary sentiments to a minimum.

Since the advent of neoliberalism in the early 1980s, the Western worker has solidly lost ground. Wages are no longer coupled with productivity (see graph at top of page), and so the buying power of the average wage has steadily declined. The average wage in New Zealand now has less than 40% of the house-buying power that it had a generation ago.

The problem is that Western politicians have continued with the assumption that so long as they keep unemployment low, all will be swell. This is a fine assumption when the average worker can afford a house and to raise three children in it. When they can’t, this assumption just leads to the face of the average worker getting pushed further and further into the shit.

If a person works full-time, but can’t meet a dignified standard of living with the proceeds from their wage, then that person is effectively a slave. Whether you’re a slave or free is not a question of how big your television is, it’s a question of how much coercion you live under. If your wage is so poor that you can’t live on it, then you’re effectively dependent on other people’s largesse. Less dependent than a beggar, but dependent all the same.

The lesson that Western politicians need to learn is that unemployment itself is not a good thing. Unemployment only has value insofar as it is conducive to ending the people’s suffering. If a working person can’t alleviate any of their suffering because their wage is so poor, then they are just as liable to become discontented as an unemployed person.

After all, the unemployment rate on slave plantations is extremely low. No-one on a slave plantation is sitting idle, or on the dole. So if unemployment alone is a factor important enough to gloat about, then it could be argued that the slave plantation model is a highly effective way to organise an economy. The absurdity of this is obvious.

It’s meaningless, then, for a politician to gloat about the low unemployment levels of their economy, as if that alone were evidence that they were running the country well. What matters is that the people are not suffering – if a large proportion of employed workers are not able to live decent lives, then the country is not run well.

The starkest problem for the Western worker is that they no longer have any negotiating power. This is the result of a combination of factors, the foremost being union-busting laws, ever-increasing technological sophistication (requiring ever-higher educations to understand) and the mass immigration of cheap labour. The capital holders have all the power, and they have used this to drive wages to the floor.

There probably isn’t any way to solve this problem within the current economic paradigm. The decoupling of wages from productivity has granted to capital holders a degree of coercion over their workers that they have not enjoyed since slavery: stories like this are now common. The only solution that seems likely is to institute a universal basic income, because this would allow workers to turn down abusive or exploitative employers.

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!