If The Media Wrote About Jacinda Ardern The Same Way It Wrote About Wrongthinkers

The politician accused of masterminding multiple violations of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is running for re-election this year.

The 38-year old Jacinda Ardern’s Sixth Labour Government has been accused of violating New Zealanders’ rights to free expression, free assembly and free commerce. She has been recorded on film paying homage to the ideology of Marxism, which subscribes to the same totalitarian far-left ideology as the Soviet Union that starved 100 million people to death in the gulag archipelago.

A constitutional lawyer says the accusations facing Ardern are among the most serious, and he believes that criminal charges laid by Police could follow.

VJM Publishing understands that the politician has refused to answer questions about her loyalty to the New Zealand nation. Last April, VJM Publishing revealed that Ardern was working closely with French President Emmanuel Macron to force globalist policies on the New Zealand people without their knowledge or consent.

It is not known whether the human rights violations that Ardern has allegedly committed were committed to further Marxist ideology.

Neither the Police nor the Labour Government would comment on the accusations.

Since the accusations of human rights violations were levelled against Ardern, she continues to make short films in which she tries to justify her actions, publishing these on FaceBook.

Ardern’s actions were first observed by activists who track members of the far left, Marxists and Communists online. Ardern’s FaceBook account has been used since the accusations of human rights violations were laid.

For several years, Ardern has posted racist, anti-nationalist and anti-white comments on social media, including references to a “white supremacism” conspiracy theory. This racist conspiracy theory claims that the low academic performance of browns and blacks can be explained by white prejudice.

“The response I’ve received has been positive. No tech company, just like no government, would like to see violent extremism and terrorism online,” Ardern is quoted as saying.

The account also showcases Ardern’s hate for the New Zealand people, frequently insinuating that they are racists, bigots and criminals.

A Police spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about whether they plan to arrest the politician.

“The accused has not been formally charged, which means that she is at liberty to travel as she pleases,” the spokeswoman said.

Wellington barrister Schlomo Goldberg, who has 20 years’ experience working in constitutional law, said Ardern was the first politician he knew of to be accused of violating New Zealanders’ rights to free expression, free assembly and free commerce.

“For a member of the New Zealand Government to use the position she’s been given to prejudice the human rights of New Zealanders, that’s a big deal,” he said.

Goldberg, who has no involvement in the case, said the politician could possibly have access to Marxist publications that could include tactics, techniques, procedures and plans for subverting national cultures.

“But also, if you have someone like the Chinese Communist Party, they might think it’s kind of handy to have, to get their hands on information that shows them how the New Zealand Government conducts operations because they might want to use those sorts of things themselves.

“There’s a whole load of information which an organisation that is intent on violating New Zealanders’ human rights to achieve its ends might find useful, both from a point of view of how it might conduct its own operations and also how you know what it might anticipate the security services are going to do against it.”

He said the Police were likely wanting to keep any investigation into Ardern’s human rights violations out of the public eye, despite the potential for criminal charges in civilian courts.

This would be done so that classified information involved in the case could be presented without revealing it to the public, he said.

This article is a parody of this piece of digital excrement: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/119231183/arrested-soldier-continues-to-share-white-nationalist-material

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.

VJMP Waitangi Day Address 2020

As another Grievance Day dawns on these sleepy isles, the division and hatred between all of society’s components is set to intensify. Today’s newspapers and television broadcasts will tell us all how we hate each other, and how our national history is one of theft, murder and rape. Grifters, shysters and con artists of all descriptions will crawl out of every hole to exploit these grievances. It promises to be a sad and depressing spectacle.

The good news is that all of this discord is destined to end. It will end once New Zealand accepts its inevitable, inescapable destiny – to be united with Australia as a single Anzac Empire.

We are only separated by historical fluke. In 1901, the six separate colonies of Australia agreed to join in union. An offer to join this federation was extended to New Zealand, but it was declined. The reasoning at the time was that over a thousand miles separated the two lands – several days’ voyage by steamer. In the era before aeroplanes, the Tasman Sea was a yawning expanse.

This unwillingness to unite as a single people may have seemed reasonable at the time, given that the British Empire was then at its peak. European supremacy, in the last days of Victoria’s reign, seemed the natural order of things. As no threat to British control of the seas appeared possible, there appeared to be no great need for unity on the part of her subjects Down Under. Our only rivals were each other.

By 2020, given the rise of great Asian powers such as China, India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia, the decision to strike it alone seems, in hindsight, an error. Impulsively made, with inadequate consideration given to the long-term consequences, this mistake has cast New Zealand adrift from our true course for 120 years.

It’s time to revisit that decision in the light of a new century.

The reality is that New Zealanders and Australians are one people, with one destiny.

Both Australia and New Zealand were brought into existence by the same wide-sweeping act of creation. Over the last quarter of a millennium, British settlement transformed this part of the world from a Stone Age backwater, forgotten by God, into one that has won more Nobel Prizes than either India or China.

Our paths of development since then have been the same. Ever since those earliest days of settlement, trans-Tasman immigration has been more intense than immigration within many other countries. New Zealand’s greatest ever Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, was born in Victoria and did not move to New Zealand until his mid-30s. We grew up together.

We also reached manhood together, in the artillery fire of the Gallipoli landings and later in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Our combined struggles in all of these conflicts saw the rest of the world see our kind as one: tough, determined, unrepentant killers and pisstakers. Bloody-minded larrikins, fearless to a fault, who you’re much better to have on your side than against you.

Today, New Zealand streets, workplaces, schools and sportsfields are all but indistinguishable from Australian ones. The streets bear the same names, the flags bear the same stars, the footballs are the same shape. Offshore investment agencies bundle Aussie and Kiwi shares up into Australasian packages, their purchasers often unaware that the two are technically different countries.

Kiwis regularly move to Australia for work, then back to New Zealand for a spell, then back to Australia again. Over 2% of the population of each country was born in the other. Rates of intermarriage between New Zealanders and Australians are extremely high. Not only are we similar in kind, but the degree of intermingling ensures that we can never become much different in the future.

Seen from a global perspective, and not merely from the myopic perspective of a monoglot who considered the British Empire to be the world, there is no meaningful difference between New Zealanders and Australians. There never was. It weighs on us, then, to put an end to the charade of being different. It’s weighs on us to formalise this unity of blood, minds and souls.

We’re impelled to do this by the great difference between us and everyone else.

The thirty million souls belonging to the Anzac Empire occupy a very distinct and very clearly delineated part of the world. To the East of us, there is nothing but the Pacific Ocean. To the West of us, there is nothing but the Indian Ocean. To the South of us, there is nothing but the Southern Ocean.

Our only natural border is to the North, and here we have something very real: a sea that separates us from two hundred million people with very different mentalities and ways of life. The cultural border between Northern Australia and Asia is as hard as any cultural border anywhere.

But no cultural border exists on the Tasman Sea.

Anzac culture can assert its own space on the world stage, distinct to other Anglo cultures. Although we share the outdoors, barbeque, cricket-and-rugby culture with the South Africans, the pioneering mentality with the North Americans and a linguistic heritage with the British, other things, perhaps more subtle things, are not shared. Other Westerners tend to be uptight, rule-bound, humourless and meek. Anzacs are none of those things.

Our Anzac Empire would not only be capable of standing proud intellectually and culturally, but it could also do so in terms of hard power.

Anzacistan would have, at time of writing, a nominal GDP of close to USD1,600,000,000,000, making it the world’s 13th largest economy. An economy the size of Russia’s, with a land area half that of Russia’s, would allow for a self-defence program sufficient to safeguard our liberties. It’s fate that this nation, so open to the sea, would one day command a formidable navy, perhaps a fleet of nuclear submarines.

Perhaps most important of all, its future would be secured by the fact that the high standard of living would always make it an attractive destination for the best class of immigrant. The Anzac nation, despite a heavily British base, is today a composite of many of the world’s most industrious and intelligent people. Maintaining this into the future will ensure that we have the human capital necessary to remain prosperous.

The Spear of Destiny continues to move ever-Westward. It has resided in America for some time, but now appears set to cross the great Pacific Ocean. Most of the world expects it to go to China, the Middle Kingdom clearly being the ascendant power of the last quarter century. Some expect it to go to Japan. It’s possible, however, that the Great Magnet of the World comes to reside in the Anzac Lands.

The fate of Australasia is to become a great power – this is guaranteed by her vast size, of some eight million square kilometres. The Will of God is apparent to all on this subject. The only question is whether we shall become the great power. The Southern Stars this century will rise, and rise, and rise, and several of the old Northern powers will exhaust themselves and begin to wane.

New Zealand shall be as the Britain to the Europe of Australia – a moderating and guiding force. Uniting as one Anzac nation, Australia shall provide the clay and iron, and both countries the silver, but New Zealand’s great contribution to this nation shall be the gold of spiritual leadership. Australia can be the shield and armour; New Zealand can be the sword.

It’s time for the Anzac nation to recognise the call of destiny. Unite, and let our people take their rightful place as a great power upon the world stage. Unite, and let Britain become to us as Rome and Greece are to the West. It’s our time. The Southern Sun shines for us!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

The Establishment Right, The Far Right And The Alt Right

A recent comment on the VJM Publishing FaceBook page asked us to define far-right. This was in response to an article on the company page that had used this adjective in reference to the rising far-right populist movements in Europe. It was not our intent to use far-right as a pejorative, but simply to use it with precision. This essay elucidates.

Politics, correctly practised, is the successful pre-emption of violence. Way back in the biological past, a wise primate realised that if he ensured the bananas were fairly distributed, there was much less fighting. The great advantage with such an arrangement was that the troop became much better able to resist intrusions from other primate troops. Thus, the genes of the primates belonging to the wise one’s troop proliferated.

Human politics is not meaningfully different to monkeys fighting over bananas. As with primates, we don’t really fight over bananas, but rather over the land on which the bananas grow. More specifically, we fight for the right to ownership of land, which amounts to the right to tax the land of its bananas and anything else that grows or is produced on it.

Most of human history is the story of people killing each other over this right to ownership. Politics, when practiced well, is the art of avoiding this killing. Today, instead of the landowners and the peasantry violently fighting over who keeps what, we compromise through things like Parliamentary representation and democratic elections.

The Establishment Right are the remnants of those who first laid down the law. The Establishment Right started with the ancient kings, and membership of it is usually inherited. They naturally clash with those who inherit positions of weakness and poverty. The Establishment Right are those who don’t want any change at all, because they’re sitting sweet already.

On the right wing, there are two alternatives to the Establishment Right: the alt right and the far right. These two groups have several things in common, and overlap to a major degree. However, the distinction between the two is important, and the failure to clearly understand this is why there is so much confusion when it comes to use of the term ‘far right’.

The alt right, like the far right, are those who reject the Establishment Right on the grounds that the latter have compromised too much with the left. However, the alt right still seeks an accommodation with the Establishment. Rather than destroying the Establishment as the far right wishes to, the alt right wants to replace the Establishment Right. This they attempt to do by presenting a superior set of policies.

The far right also seeks to replace the Establishment Right – but as one step in the replacement of the entire Establishment. They’d rather rebuild the entire system from the ground up than merely replace one part of it. The far right is not interested in compromise at all – they would rather build a concentration camp network and put their opponents in there at gunpoint.

The far right, then, is that element of the right wing that prefers violence to compromise. This is different from the alt right. ‘Far-right’ is really another term for ‘extremist’. This follows naturally from the fact that they see their opponents as inherently evil. Because their opponents are evil, no compromise is possible – they have to be smashed.

One distinguishing characteristic of the far right is that their skewed perceptions leads them to see other right-wingers as leftists. People on the far right consider everyone in the Establishment Right and the alt right to be some kind of leftist. The far right operates on a “with us or against us” mentality.

‘Alt-right’, by contrast, is a term for right-wingers who want an alternative to the way things are currently practised. The alt right is separate to the far right, although they are not mutually exclusive. As mentioned in a previous essay from this column, there are two major strains to the alt right: the libertarian and the authoritarian strain.

The libertarian strain of the alt right is exemplified by David Seymour’s ACT Party. They’re not interested in carrying on the stupidities of the Establishment Right, such as the War on Drugs. Neither do they want a prohibition on abortion, prostitution, pornography or euthanasia. These libertarian alt-rightists agree with the Establishment Right that taxes should be low, but that’s about it.

The authoritarian strain of the alt right is very much far-right.

The New Conservative Party want to continue the War on Drugs, and to use violence to put drug users in cages. They are not at all interested in hearing why recreational cannabis users choose to use that substance instead of alcohol. They’re not interested in any compromise with recreational cannabis users – these people are scum to be destroyed.

Therefore, it’s entirely legitimate to refer to them as far-right extremists. All extremists gain power from hate, and the New Conservatives could be accurately placed alongside neo-Nazis in this category of hate-fuelled, authoritarian alt right (the only meaningful difference between the neo-Conservatives and the neo-Nazis is that the former are Abrahamist, the latter not).

These people are very different to alt-rightists such as David Seymour and other right-wing libertarians. If anything, they have more in common with the Establishment Right. The far right can at least agree with the Establishment Right that liberty is bad. Arguably, this means the far right is more accurately considered an extension of the Establishment Right rather than an alternative to it, as is the alt right.

In summary, the lines between the Establishment Right, the far right and the alt right can be drawn thusly: the Establishment Right are the foremost defenders of the Establishment and abhor change, the far right are those conservatives and reactionaries who do not want to compromise and the alt right are those who oppose the both the left and the Establishment Right, the latter who they hope to supplant.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

Island Tameness And New Zealand Society

Island tameness is a concept within behavioural ecology that explains some of the behavioural phenomena observed in animals who live on islands separate from any mainland. As the name suggests, it refers to a form of docility that regularly afflicts animals who adapt to island environments. This essay makes a frightening suggestion: that New Zealand culture might itself be afflicted by island tameness.

The most famous example of island tameness might have been the Dodo birds of Mauritius, hunted to extinction less than a century after their discovery by European sailors. This is only the most famous case of what is a widespread phenomenon.

New Zealand itself offers many excellent examples of island tameness. When Maori explorers discovered the archipelago some 800 years ago, they were astonished to find that they could simply walk up to the giant birds that lived there and club them on the head. Having been separate from the Australian mainland for tens of millions of years, the megafauna of New Zealand had developed extreme island tameness.

Much like the moas and other giant birds of ancient days, modern New Zealanders have also forgotten how to recognise predators. This has been a feature of the New Zealand psyche ever since people started being born on these islands.

People old enough to remember World War II can remember how completely unprepared New Zealand was to deal with the Japanese threat, and the utter disbelief that was felt at the Fall of Singapore in 1942. They tell stories of a Home Guard that trained with broomsticks because no firearms were available, and coastal batteries that were outranged by Japanese naval vessels. So green were we that the vast majority of our troops were sent to Europe.

This naivety is a fundamental part of our culture. In other words, it’s impossible to understand New Zealand culture without understanding how island tameness has influenced our attitudes and behaviour. Perhaps the best place to look for examples of this is the lamb-like docility with which Kiwis treat their politicians.

Although less naive nations overseas have fought horrific, bloody wars to keep international bankers from controlling them, New Zealanders voted one into power. Then, when that banker opened the borders at the same time as slashing the welfare safety net, leading to hundreds of extra deaths from the despair he created, Kiwis voted him back into power – twice.

He’d still be the Prime Minister now if he wanted to be, because the mainstream media is owned by international banking and finance interests, and these interests simply directed their media lackeys to tell Kiwis that they lived in a “rockstar economy” and were wealthier than ever. Those interests were the same ones that benefitted the most from mass immigration and slashing welfare, and they gleefully did the cheerleading for Key and for the Fifth National Government.

Likewise, less naive nations overseas have fought horrific, bloody wars to keep Communists from controlling them. But Jacinda Ardern can get elected to Parliament while sitting as President of the International Union of Socialist Youth (credit to those calling Ardern a Communist in that linked article from 2008). Despite having once given a speech in which she addressed the assembled Marxists as “Comrades”, she was elected as Prime Minister.

Imagine voting for a Prime Minister who addressed a hall full of Nazis as “Comrades”!

Nek minnit, our rights to free speech, free assembly and firearms are gone. Even though a blind man could have foreseen that voting for an unrepentant Communist was going to lead to our human rights disappearing, New Zealanders did it anyway. Island tameness has meant that New Zealanders are incapable of recognising the danger of psychopathic individuals or groups in their midst.

Island tameness has also meant that New Zealanders are incapable of recognising the danger of the mainstream media. Just as the Dodo birds naively approached the Portuguese sailors, New Zealanders sit naively before the television, entirely trusting. This explains why a predatory class of rulers can control the minds of the New Zealand populace with the ease of a puppet-master pulling the strings of his mannequin.

The New Zealand ruling class can say anything it wants to the New Zealand people through the television, and the people will believe it. Island tameness has led to a total inability to detect untruths, even when someone is blatantly lying to our faces. We’re so tame that people like John Key and Jacinda Ardern can come to power, destroy the nation for the sake of the profit of their fellows, and we vote them back in because we’re told to.

Unfortunately, the future for New Zealanders seems like it will be similar to that of the Dodo birds.

Island tameness has left us completely incapable of recognising the threats of the new century. Not only do we sheepishly follow the fashions in other nations, but we’re willing to follow them to our own destruction.

We adopted wholesale the neoliberal experiment conducted by our fellow Anglo nations, forever wrecking the societies that our ancestors had built. We exchanged most of our rights and freedoms for a vapid, plastic, McDisney world that we only interact with through screens. Meanwhile, our ruling classes engorged themselves on profit from importing cheap labour.

In Europe, mass Muslim and African immigration has caused sufficient misery to cause the rise of far-right populist parties who promise to bring even more misery. But instead of learning from the grim example of Europe, we’re doing everything we can to replicate it here. Our ruling classes want more cheap labour, and we will sit idly by and watch as they open the gates.

Not only is it impossible to understand New Zealand ecology without reference to the phenomenon of island tameness, it’s impossible to understand our culture either. Island tameness is so deeply ingrained into our psyche that, much like at the Battle of Passchendale a century ago, we will happily throw ourselves into slaughter if commanded to do so. Only by understanding this phenomenon can we begin to be free.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.