All The Rights We've Lost Thanks To Immigration

All The Rights We’ve Lost Thanks To Immigration

Kiwis were disappointed last month to hear that the Sixth Labour Government is taking away our rights to free speech. Any speech that the Government hates will now be “hate speech” and subject to criminal sanction. As is the case in Scotland, an immigrant Justice Minister, from a culture that doesn’t value free speech, has stripped those rights away from a population that has cherished them for centuries. But, as this essay will show, free speech is just one of the many rights we’ve lost thanks to mass immigration.

Free speech is the fundamental value of Western civilisation. Without it, society cannot self-correct. So without free speech, small problems snowball into catastrophes. Legal recognition of the importance of free speech is one of the main reasons why Western countries are so stable in comparison to others.

But the value of freedom is generally only understood by Westerners.

The reason why men like Kris Faafoi and Scotland’s Humza Yousaf can so glibly annihilate one of the most important aspects of Western culture is that they weren’t raised to respect it. Their cultures do not have a history of struggling to assert freedom at all, and so they were not raised to value free speech. It was inevitable that making these men Justice Ministers would lead to a loss of those freedoms.

Import the Third World, become the Third World – and the Third World does not have a culture of free speech. If the Justice Minister of New Zealand had been a proper Kiwi, raised in Kiwi culture to appreciate the Greco-Roman-Anglo heritage that made New Zealand worth living in, we would still have our rights to free speech today. But that’s only the beginning.

Our right to use cannabis was also lost because of immigration.

In the 2020 cannabis referendum, the No side of the vote got 1,474,635 votes, and the Yes side got 1,406,973. This equals a difference of 67,662 votes. This narrow margin was enough for the Sixth Labour Government to declare that Kiwis wanted to keep locking themselves up for growing medicinal plants. But that margin would have been in favour of Yes if it wasn’t for immigrant voters.

An article in the South China Morning Post referenced a survey that found 80% of ethnic Chinese voters intended to vote No in the cannabis referendum. Some simple maths is enough to show that these Chinese voters alone tipped the overall outcome from a Yes to a No.

There are some 231,000 ethnic Chinese people in New Zealand. If we assume that 80% of them are eligible to vote, and that 80% of those actually did vote, that suggests some 147,840 ethnic Chinese voters voted in the cannabis referendum. If 80% of those voted No, that means 118,272 ethnic Chinese voted No and 29,568 ethnic Chinese voted Yes, for a balance of 88,704 more No voters than Yes voters.

The maths tells us that non-Chinese Kiwis voted Yes in the cannabis referendum, by a margin of some 21,000 votes. But these votes were cancelled out, and more, by the heavy Chinese opposition to cognitive liberty. And the Chinese weren’t the only immigrant group to vote to imprison cannabis-using Kiwis.

Pacific Islanders also voted against cannabis freedom, mostly out of religious sentiments.

The three electorates with the most Pacific Islanders in 2020 were Mangere at 59%, Panmure-Otahuhu at 46% and Manurewa at 39%. These were also among the electorates with the lowest Yes vote in the cannabis referendum: Mangere 38.7%, Panmure-Otahuhu 41% and Manurewa 39.5%. Many of the Pacific Islanders who voted against cannabis freedom were mindlessly following the orders of their pastors.

Religion also inspired Muslim immigrants to vote our rights away. The New Zealand Muslim Association came out in favour of Kiwis getting locked in cages for using cannabis, and the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ proudly allowed their logo to be displayed on the Say Nope to Dope supporters page. For them, tolerance and respect is an entirely one-way street: Kiwis are obliged to tolerate and respect Islam, but Islam is in no way obliged to tolerate and respect cannabis-using Kiwis.

If the cannabis referendum had been left up to white people and Maoris, it would have passed with around 60% in favour. But the mass importation of cheap labour from backwards cultures ultimately tilted the balance in favour of a No vote.

Our rights to use other spiritual sacraments are likewise gone. As a recent article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry noted, there is now ample evidence that sacraments such as psilocybin have immense therapeutic potential, “However, Australia and New Zealand are currently failing to acknowledge such evidence and, as a result, are falling behind in this crucial time of biomedical research and innovation.”

As noted in the article, the refusal to acknowledge the evidence for psychedelic therapy is political. Sadly, because conservative Third World immigrants now make up a significant proportion of our voters, we can kiss all research into psychedelic therapy goodbye. The Islanders don’t want it because of Jesus, the Muslims don’t want it because of Allah and the Asians don’t want it because drugs are bad.

Immigration also cost us our rights to free assembly, as was observed when Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux tried speaking about the consequences of mass immigration in Auckland.

Even though the NZ Bill of Rights Act explicitly states that Kiwis have both the rights to receive information and to free assembly, we were banned from assembling to listen to the Canadian duo at Auckland Council venues because Phil Goff, the Auckland mayor, was afraid of losing support from Muslim voters. Thanks to the mass immigration of conservative cheap labour, we’re no longer free to gather to discuss certain topics in public.

Most of our firearms rights were stripped from us after an Australian immigrant shot up a mosque full of Muslim immigrants on March 15, 2019. Even though no Kiwis were involved until Brenton Tarrant was arrested, the incident was used as an excuse to confiscate semi-automatic rifles all across the country.

Had we not opened the borders to the same cult of hate responsible for the Rotherham rape gangs and for the Drottninggatan truck attack, and had we not sat impotently while the Al Noor Mosque produced multiple terrorists, we would never had suffered such an atrocity on our shores. But, as many other Western nations had already learned, mass immigration from violent, supremacist cultures inevitably leads to violence.

The worst loss of freedom from mass immigration, however, was the loss of our right to own a home and raise a family.

In 1992, the average New Zealand house cost around $105,000, and the average wage was close to $15, which meant that a person had to save about 7,000 hours of labour at the average wage to own the average house. After three decades of mass immigration, the average house now costs $820,000, while the average wage has only risen to $35. This means a person now has to save over 23,000 hours of labour at the average wage to own the average house.

Mass immigration means more people competing to bid up the price of housing, as well as more people competing to bid down the price of wages. Anyone with a high school economics education could have told you that mass immigration would lead to higher house prices and lower wages. The combined effect of these two phenomena is that it’s now impossible for the average Kiwi worker to buy a house and to support a family with their own wage.

The loss of the freedom to buy a home and to support a family with one’s wage is the worst loss of all, because it effectively makes us the slaves of the bankers who hold our mortgages, and of the employers whose $20/hour we need to pay those mortgages off. Yet this loss is the inevitable consequence of mass immigration, the last thirty years of which has reduced us to this wretched condition.

We were told that mass immigration wouldn’t cause the loss of any freedoms because the immigrants would become like us – appreciative of the freedoms of Western culture and willing to defend them. However, we were lied to. The immigrants we let in never had any intention of respecting our culture and our values. In reality, we lost everything. We lost all our rights, all our freedoms, we lost our entire culture.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 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 2019, 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!

Generation Ruthanasia

Many Kiwis were shocked by a video circulating this week depicting a mass brawl at Te Aro Park in Wellington. The scene made it appear like public violence is now just part of everyday life in New Zealand. The nihilism reflects the rotten state of our economy – a rot that began with the Fourth Labour Government’s introduction of neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism came to New Zealand under the friendly name ‘Rogernomics‘. The Fourth Labour Government, following the trends established by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher overseas, adopted a number of neoliberal measures that would supposedly increase New Zealand’s economic performance. To some extent, they did. The real suffering didn’t begin until after Labour’s 1990 election defeat.

The Finance Minister of the Fourth National Government, Ruth Richardson, took the scythe to New Zealand’s poor with the 1991 Budget. The combination of the $14/week cut to the unemployment benefit, the $27/week cut to the sickness benefit, the $25 to $27/week cut to the families benefit and the abolition of universal payments for family benefits was a kick in the guts to those already at the bottom of society.

The act was dubbed ‘Ruthanasia’. In the same way that a useless old person is put to death with euthanasia, the useless lower classes were put to death with Ruthanasia. The narrative from the media was that beneficiaries were lazy, thieving scum anyway, and cutting their benefits should motivate them to get off their arses and into work. If not, they could die, it would be just as good.

The measures were particularly brutal to solo mothers, who found themselves $40/week or more worse off. The idea was that solo mothers were society’s filth, and in breeding outside of a stable marriage they were responsible for all of society’s ills, and needed to be punished for it. Their children were surplus to economic requirements, and therefore should be made to understand that they were not needed or wanted.

To a major extent, this strategy succeeded. Today, New Zealand’s youth suicide rates are the second-highest in the developed world. Every year, 14.9 out of every 100,000 Kiwi adolescents decide permanently that their life isn’t worth living. The vast majority of those are from the poorer classes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the abuse and neglect of New Zealand’s poor was normalised by Ruthanasia.

However, the children that Ruth Richardson threw to the wolves in 1991 mostly survived.

Some are now the ironhearted gang leaders who hold the loyalties of other violent young men. Winning the favour of such hard men may have been the reason for the fight in the video link in the first paragraph. Such mindless aggression might sound barbaric, but that’s the reality for young men in Clown World.

The children born into beneficiary families between 1980 and 1995 are now Generation Ruthanasia. Many of these children killed themselves as adolescents. Many more turned their hatred outwards and mutilated others. Too many of them are missing some of the part of the mind that allows humans to feel empathy with other living beings.

This absence of empathy is an inevitable consequence of the way they themselves were treated – as before, so after. Yet therein lies a great danger for New Zealand society over the next couple of decades.

Generation Ruthanasia might be outnumbered by people who were raised well, but they are still numerous enough to have a significant influence upon the nature of our society and upon the minds and the values of the following generations. It is their nihilistic cynicism that one sees expressed in the gang brawls at Te Aro Park this week, and in other places.

The now-adult men of Generation Ruthanasia don’t know how to love, neither themselves nor others. The loving parts of the mind and heart have long since been closed off for only bringing sorrow. But these men are already old enough so that the next generation looks up to them. As such, there’s a risk that their absence of empathy becomes normalised.

The natural, logical realisation that went through the minds of Generation Ruthanasia as children is that human life is without value. If children are worth so little that it’s fair to withhold money from their parents so that those children can’t eat, then what does have value? Certainly not this society. This logic is why the savagery of the gang lifestyle is no longer enough to scare everyone away.

This way of thinking is not dissimilar from that of the generations raised in places like inner-city America and Brazil – and that’s what New Zealand is now on track to become like, if the process of social decay is not arrested. But solving the problems posed by this cohort of severely mentally and spiritually damaged people will take decades.

The least part of any effective solution will be a massive financial investment – one large enough to reset the mental health situation. A universal basic income, to give people time to mentally recover, might be necessary here. Any government refusing to consider such measures would do well to bear in mind Machiavelli’s maxim that “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

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!

Why You Should Join A Gang Instead Of Working

New Zealand now has over 7,000 gang members, an increase of some 13% from a year previous. Many theories have been put forward to explain this sudden rise, but none of them are adequately grounded in economic psychology. This essay makes a seemingly preposterous argument: that it makes more sense to join a gang nowadays than to work.

According to the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, the average New Zealand house price is now $810,000, up 19% from a year earlier. According to interest.co.nz, the ratio of this average house price to the median household income is now 8.43.

This ratio was 5.87 as recently as July 2016. Even back then, it meant that a working couple able to save 25% of their total wage could expect to take over 23 years to pay for the average house. That was considered “severely unaffordable” by all honest commentators. But it’s now almost 50% worse than even that.

These are terrifying statistics for anyone at, or near, the bottom of the educational ladder. The average household income, according to the stats mentioned above, is $96,114. That means over 33 years for the average couple, saving 25% of their total wage, to pay for the average house. Any household with a minimum wage earner will likely have it much harder than this.

This means it’s now realistically impossible for a significant, and growing, proportion of New Zealand workers to ever own a home on their wage. It’s even more difficult for those who aren’t part of a steady couple.

Historically speaking, those at the bottom of society have always had one universal method of radically improving their position: crime. And the bigger the crime, the better. Many people say that crime doesn’t pay, but this is only true for the lower classes. Pull off a big enough heist and you can go up an entire league.

As Chuang Tzu once observed: “The petty thief is imprisoned but the big thief becomes a feudal lord.” Petty thievery won’t get you into a house that you can raise a family in, but full-time drug running is another story.

A young New Zealander without an education might have no chance of ever owning a house by working for one, but there’s a ready alternative: to join a gang, and get $810,000 through crime.

It’s common for dedicated meth users to go through $1,000 of meth in a week. Someone supplying it need only have a dozen customers with this level of demand and they could sell $600,000 worth of meth in a single year. Assuming $400,000 of expenses in precursor/bulk wholesale costs, rip-offs and fees to one’s own gang so as to keep covering for your operations, this means an income of $200,000 per year – tax free.

The only major downside is a small risk of getting killed or imprisoned.

Gangbanging is relatively dangerous, but the vast majority of gang members manage to conduct their affairs without getting killed. In recent years, New Zealand has averaged about 61 homicides a year. Even assuming that the majority of those were gang-related, it means that a person in a gang has little more than a 0.5% chance of being killed in any given year.

Even if this risk is 50 times higher than the risk of being murdered if one isn’t in a gang, it’s still a fairly low risk. It means that, after four years of selling meth and saving $4,000 a week, one would have earned enough to buy the average house, with a mere 2% chance of getting killed (approximately).

The risk of being imprisoned is also relatively minor. Furthermore, as shit as prison might be, it’s not a whole lot worse than busting a gut for 40 hours a week and being left with nothing after taxes, bills and rents are paid. At least rent is free in prison, and while there you can easily make the contacts that will help you sell meth more discreetly once you get out.

In the cold light of day, a young New Zealand man, one with ambitions to own a home so that he can raise a family in it, is better off joining a gang and getting taxed at 0% than getting educated, earning a professional wage and getting taxed at 39%. He can actually own a house the first way, whereas the second demands decades of work for partial equity in one. Even if he does manage to own a house the second way, he likely won’t have enough spare energy to raise a family in it.

What many middle-class people – especially those who inherit wealth – don’t realise is that few people join gangs purely out of malice and spite. Some of them join gangs because, on balance, they can have a better life in one. The prospect of working for 50 years to merely own some equity in a cold, damp house is a miserable one. It’s not surprising that the more daring of the country’s young men are tempted to gamble for a better life.

The solution to New Zealand’s rising gang problem will inevitably be a multifaceted one, but the basis of it must be enabling even poorly-educated workers to own their own home and raise a family. As long as workers aren’t getting paid enough for this to be possible, they’re better off joining gangs.

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!

Could New Zealand Legalise Cannabis On Maori Land?

The outcome of last year’s cannabis referendum was bitter for many Maori people. Despite that some 80% of Maoris voted in favour of changing the law, heavy anti-cannabis sentiment among Pacific Islander and Asian voters saw the referendum ultimately fail. Fortunately for all, an elegant solution exists overseas, and we could copy it.

The 2020 cannabis referendum was close. 50.7% of eligible voters wanted to continue with cannabis prohibition, and 48.4% did not. There was a significant positive correlation between being New Zealand-born and voting Yes in the referendum, so within that 50.7% were a large number of recent immigrants, particularly Chinese ones. Some 80% of Chinese voters voted in favour of locking Kiwi cannabis users in cages.

There are roughly 250,000 ethnic Chinese in New Zealand. Assuming that 80% of them were eligible to vote in the referendum, and assuming that 80% of those did, that gives us 160,000 ethnic Chinese voters. We know from above that 80% of those voted in favour of cannabis prohibition, which gives us 128,000 Chinese No voters opposed to 32,000 Chinese Yes voters. This represents a majority of around 96,000 for the No side among Chinese voters.

In the cannabis referendum overall, 1,474,635 people voted in favour of the continued persecution of cannabis users, and 1,406,973 voted to end it (for more detail on who these people were, see Understanding New Zealand 3). This means that the No side won the cannabis referendum by 67,662 votes.

So a little bit of primary school-level maths shows us that non-Chinese voters wanted to change the cannabis laws. But the native Kiwi majority that wanted reform was forced to endure further prohibition because of the wishes of recent immigrants, often from totalitarian political systems, and with little understanding of our culture.

For someone born in New Zealand, with centuries-deep roots in New Zealand, it seems outrageous to me that voters who came to New Zealand in the last decade took away our right to use cannabis. The voters who have flooded into the country since John Key threw the borders open have no real loyalty to, or respect for, the New Zealand people. They shouldn’t be deciding what rights the rest of us have.

That mostly rural-dwelling Maoris wanted legal cannabis, but got trumped by city-dwelling Pacific Islanders and Asians, has worsened existing social tensions in New Zealand. Maoris already had reason to resent the cannabis laws, which were forced on them by outsiders in the first place. The Sixth Labour Government’s response to their 80% support for legal cannabis has been, so far, to tell them to go fuck themselves.

One obvious, and obviously superior, solution presents itself.

In 2014, the United States Federal Government stated that it would not interfere with any Indian reservation or territory that wanted to legalise cannabis on its land. This declaration was a formality that followed from their already declared policy of non-interference with legal cannabis in Colorado.

One tribe, that of Squaxin Island in Washington, opened a legal cannabis store called ‘Elevation’ in 2015. First nations peoples in Canada have also allowed for legal cannabis sales on their lands. Native tribes in the Americas are generally pro-cannabis for the same reasons that Maoris are: they know it’s much better for them than alcohol is and that cannabis prohibition was pushed on them by outsiders.

This article proposes that the New Zealand Government allow individual Maori tribes to legalise and sell cannabis on their land.

There are two major benefits to this proposal.

The first, and most major, is that it shows some respect to the 48.4% of Kiwis and roughly 80% of Maoris who want a legal respite from cannabis prohibition. Currently, these two groups of people are told that they just have to eat shit, because neither a Labour nor a National Government will do anything about the cannabis laws.

Legal cannabis sales on Maori land would allow for the pro-cannabis half of the population to freely access and to use cannabis there, away from the judgment of those who think they’re scum. This would allow for the custodians of that land to build cannabis dispensaries, cafes and accommodation for the cannabis tourists. If the anti-cannabis half of the population doesn’t like it, they can stay in the cities and drink booze.

The second major benefit, or group of benefits, relate to the tourism potential of this proposal.

If you’re a young Western tourist, and you can choose between travelling to the American West Coast and using cannabis and alcohol, or travelling to New Zealand and using alcohol only, it’s an easy decision. About as easy as choosing between travelling to a Western country and using alcohol or travelling to a Middle Eastern theocracy and using nothing.

Legalising cannabis on Maori land would create a massive tourism boost in rural and impoverished areas like Northland and the East Coast of the North Island. These areas would benefit from both domestic and international tourists, and it would also create a spillover tourism effect for non-Maori businesses who catered to the international tourists who would otherwise have gone to a country with legal cannabis.

The idea of legalising cannabis on Maori land is a sure win for the first party to propose it. It’s the kind of solution that New Zealand needs. Unfortunately, our current parties are either bereft of imagination or more interested in grandstanding than making positive, practical solutions.

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!