All posts by PROPAGANDA MINISTER

Democracy, Don't Vote

How the Ruling Class Stays in Power

If a person is slapped awake for even the briefest of moments they might come to look around and ask why a parasitic class of politicians wields power of life and death over them despite a total lack of historical evidence that they are wise enough for the responsibility or even intelligent enough to comprehend that it exists.

The truth is that the ruling classes maintain their position in every time and place in the same simple way, and have done so ever since the first chimpanzee established a dominance hierarchy in the primeval jungle: by taking rights away from the people they rule, and then giving some of them back in exchange for submission.

This essay will describe the method of enslavement known as “democracy” – a method that has reached acute levels of sophistication in the modern West.

As described above, the essential pattern is bipartite: first, take rights away from the people; second, promise to give some of those rights back to the people in exchange for their submission.

What’s crucial to understand is that the relationship described here is that of the rulers towards the ruled. Which flavour of political party the rulers use to swindle the rights of the ruled away from them is not relevant, as all political parties are tools of the ruling class.

Any political party is capable of taking rights away and giving rights back, because in a democratic system the masses have submitted to the rulers of that party. All that matters is that more rights are taken away than are given back.

This can be seen when the National Party takes away people’s rights to use medicinal cannabis, but gives them back some of their right to keep the money they have earned.

The Labour and Green Parties, by contrast, will promise to give you your rights to use medicinal cannabis back, but they will take away some of your right to keep the money you have earned.

And both parties will team up to give you back your rights to have sex with people of the same gender as you, but will team up to take away your rights to recreational use of tobacco and alcohol. At least today – it was the other way around 80 years ago and probably will be again in 80 years’ time.

The trick is that as long as both wings of the political machine take away more rights than what they give back, the machine itself can stay in power forever, because there will always be an unjust deficit of rights somewhere and therefore always grounds for a politician to come in and start promising things.

Helen Clark, for example, knew that she could not make any progress on cannabis law reform between 1999 and 2008, because then the Labour Party would not be able to gain votes by promising to look at reforming the medicinal cannabis laws in 2017.

Likewise, Andrew Little in 2017 knows that, if he is to be elected to power, he must make the smallest possible amount of progress on the issue.

This is why he only makes vague mumblings about sorting out medicinal cannabis, but will not under any circumstances discuss the incredible success of the Colorado model, and how adopting it in NZ would save us $400,000,000 per year.

That is something that has to be left to Jacinda Ardern’s Seventh Labour Government in 2035 or so. If the Labour Party gave too many rights back to the people too quickly, they would lose the leverage that they are currently exploiting to stay in power.

Unfortunately, New Zealanders (like voters everywhere) reward this kind of carry-on by continuing to vote for whichever of its number the ruling class puts forward to rule them that electoral cycle.

After all, it doesn’t matter which party a politician claims to represent – as long as they are from the ruling class, nothing will change.

It can confidently be predicted that many New Zealanders will vote for the Green Party this year for the sake of relief from cannabis prohibition, and that little thought will be given to the people who will lose rights under a Labour-Greens Government – namely, taxpayers.

And it can be confidently predicted that the National Party will rely on the outrage of taxpayers to get back into power in 2026.

Likewise, it can be predicted that any rights that Kiwis can claw back from the ruling class regarding the use of cannabis will be outweighed by the loss of rights to access alcohol, tobacco, and other recreational alternatives.

As before; so after – the Hermetic axioms apply to time as well as space.

How the Ruling Class Stays in Power

Cannabis, Health & Safety, The State

The Police Will Kill to Enforce Any Law, No Matter How Trivial

There are many power-worshippers in the world today who think it would be just great if their area politicians passed a law banning this or that – some minor irritation that probably does not affect the quality of their life in any meaningful way but which they believe ought to be stamped out for the sake of maintaining good order at the very least.

These people are as dangerous as any fanatic that put a dictator into power.

The reason for this is that the Police, who are tasked by politicians with enforcing laws, will go as far as killing any citizen to enforce any law that they have broken, no matter how trivial.

A lot of people balk at this assertion, usually because they have neither encountered Police officers in operation nor thought the whole process through as a thought experiment.

But if you think it through as a thought experiment, the meathook clarity of it cannot be denied.

Take the case of a medicinal cannabis user. If you have a psychological condition such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or if you have pain related to terminal cancer and do not want to take opiates, you might end up as another of New Zealand’s hundreds of thousands of cannabis users.

Now let’s say that the Police come to your house with a search warrant, on the grounds that they have reason to believe that you have cannabis in your possession or a cannabis operation in your house. They are going to arrest you, and you know that you face up to seven years in prison for the offence.

You might well protest that you are fully within your rights to use cannabis as it is a medicine which legitimately alleviates human suffering, whether physical or psychological. And so the search warrant is not valid, because it was granted on the grounds that a crime had been committed, and none has.

This is perfectly reasonable – after all, you have harmed no-one. But what will happen at that stage is violence. The Police will escalate to violence at this point, probably by forcing their way into your home.

Let’s say that they are unsuccessful at doing so, either because you manage to lock the door in time or because you brandish a weapon in an effort to show them that you are willing to respond to their violence with violence of your own in order to defend yourself and your home.

In that case, you can probably assume that the Police officers will withdraw – and come back with the Armed Offenders Squad. They will call the AOS on the grounds that you threatened a Police officer with a weapon – the fact that you were only doing so to defend yourself against an immoral attack will not help you at all.

The AOS will then lay siege to your house, as they did to Jan Molenaar. This may even involve, as it did in Molenaar’s case, the Special Tactics Group – formerly known as the Anti-Terrorist Squad.

Jan Molenaar ended up shot dead at his own hand, probably in full awareness that escape was impossible.

Note here that this pattern of escalation of violence all the way to your death will happen if you don’t submit to the Police for any reason, no matter what it is.

It doesn’t matter what the crime is. It could be a hundred counts of serial murder, or it could be a parking fine. The inescapable rule is that you must submit to any state-allocated legal punishment for any offence you have been deemed to have committed, no matter how vindictive and cruel the punishment or how petty and victimless the offence, or the Police will kill you in the enforcement of it.

This is why there is cause to think very deeply before deciding that something should be illegal. Constable Len Snee would not have been shot dead if cannabis had not been legally prohibited, as Jan Molenaar would have been left in peace to treat his mental condition in the way that he knew best.

Anyone who supports a law also supports the consequences of enforcing that law. Those consequences might involve the Police shooting up a house with no-one in it, as happened in Napier last year.

In the case of cannabis prohibition, this means also supporting the expense of $400,000,000 per year and the occasional death of a Police officer – is it worth it?

The Police Will Kill to Enforce Any Law, No Matter How Trivial

Don't Vote

The Fallacy of Pre-Emptive Violence

At a march in Washington D.C. this week, accused neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was kinghit from the blindside by a mystery black-hoodie-clad protester. Footage of the incident was the most viral meme of the entire Inauguration period, trumping even anything the U.S. President said. The reaction of the Internet, predictably, was divided.

One part of the viewership was appalled by the purposeless attack on the sacred value of free speech; another part was excited to an almost sexual state of arousal by the sight of a Nazi getting what they thought he deserved.

Justification for the latter reaction began almost immediately, and was earnest, although convoluted. The basic premise, however, was eerily familiar: Spencer was a Nazi, Nazis want to violently take over the world, therefore they can essentially be attacked at any time in pre-emptive self-defence.

On the face of it, it’s hard to argue with that line of reasoning. The excuse that “I just got the bear before the bear got me” was after all, the excuse George W. Bush used to invade Iraq and kill a million people � and he completely got away with it.

There’s one glaring problem with the Bush Doctrine though, especially when it is applied to blindsiding people in the street for their political opinions: the potential excuses that a person might make to conduct ‘pre-emptive’ violence against another is limited only by human ingenuity.

In the same way that conservatives delude themselves into believing they are compassionate, liberals delude themselves into believing they are tolerant.

For a start, the logic that any violence against Nazis is justified because Nazism is a supremacist political movement also justifies violence against any of the Abrahamic cults, as they are also supremacist ideologies.

It would then be legitimate to beat the shit out of any Christian or Jew one met on the grounds that their holy book contains a command from God to kill homosexuals. One could also conduct pre-emptive violence for a number of reasons against any Muslim you met.

Any American could be dealt to under the logic that American imperialism is one of the prime threats to the stability of the world order, and any European could be shown some fist on the grounds that prior imperialism suggests a high likelihood of future imperialism. Any Chinese or Indian could be bashed because their massive populations threaten the viability of the biosphere.

If someone calls you a Nazi, whether you are one or not, that could be an excuse for pre-emptive violence on the grounds that the epithet is generally only levelled at people who are murderous totalitarians and therefore should be killed with extreme prejudice. And people are being called ‘Nazi’ at ever-increasing rates � it’s almost become synonymous with ‘to the right of the speaker.’

If someone calls you a Commie, whether you are one or not, that could be an excuse for pre-emptive violence on the grounds that the epithet is generally only levelled at people who are murderous totalitarians and therefore should be killed with extreme prejudice. And people are being called ‘Commie’ at ever-increasing rates � it’s almost become synonymous with ‘to the left of the speaker.’

This means that anyone can find a reason to attack anyone else pre-emptively. It’s just a simple matter of knowing if you are doing it because your target is a Nazi or because they are a Commie.

As anyone who walked the streets of Weimar Germany could tell you, National Socialists and Communists are just ready made for fighting, like the yang and yin of violence. Their natural instinct is to go each other like two stags in rutting season.

Perhaps the best course of action for reasonable people is the Churchill Doctrine that served Britain so well in World War II: just stand back and let them kill each other.

The Fallacy of Pre-Emptive Violence

Don't Vote

How Low Does Turnout Have to Get Before Voting Loses Legitimacy?

The obvious smartarse answer is “It never had legitimacy”, but this merely ducks the question. The question of when a democracy can lose enough of the perception of legitimacy that it stops working, not by being usurped by authoritarians but from the populace simply not caring about it enough, is worth exploring.

The logic goes something like this. It’s reasonable to assume that if no-one voted at all, not even the politicians themselves, then no-one would care about democracy. So there is a clear limit case as votes approach zero.

If everyone votes (or at least everyone eligible), then it stands to reason that democracy has the biggest possible buy-in. Probably in a culture where 100% of the population votes there would have to be an exceptionally unusual degree of philodemos – a degree never seen in practice.

If a hypothetical democracy starts with 100% participation and this falls over time towards 0%, at some point along the line representing that descent the democracy will fail.

But where exactly?

The most recent American presidential election does not have an official turnout rate yet, but BetFair appears to be sure that it will be somewhere around 58%. This is low by the standards of Western democracies – but there appears to be no way to tell how much of this is due to disenfranchisement and how much is due to people seeing through the system and protesting by not voting.

This already highlights a problem with democracy – bombs dropped by American forces do not do 58% damage, and sentences for non-violent drug offences are not 58% as long as they would otherwise be. No matter how much the population wants democracy, they will get it good and hard.

Not even 58% buy-in is necessary in any case. Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP won the 1933 German Federal Election with under 44% of the vote, and this was enough to get rid of the Communists and pass the Enabling Act which paved the way to total fascism.

You could even argue that – if you take the example of the United States in its infancy, where only white male landowners could vote – even with support for democracy in single digits, it can still function as long as all other possible organisational approaches are prevented from taking form.

The tricky thing is that this line of reasoning exposes the truth at the bottom of the political system: the plebs were never in charge and any impression given to that end is simply a useful illusion.

Ultimately it’s whoever controls the loyalty of the Police that is in charge, because then anyone who disagrees that they’re in charge can be taken by the Police and put in a cage (replace Police with Army in many non-Western countries). This was all that Hitler needed to ensure to take power in Germany.

One has to then ask, if the ruling classes just took all the ballots and dumped them in the ocean, invented some election results that both sounded plausible and ensured the interests of said classes were protected, and then divvied up the remaining jobs among themselves, how much wiser would we all be?

Because the ruling classes doing so wouldn’t even be much different from the way the con is already played.

We can take heart that not all New Zealanders have fallen for the ruse – 63% of the electorate did not vote for a politician in last week’s Mt. Roskill by-election, which means that 63% of potential suckers did not give their power away to a shyster by consenting to the democratic charade.

Indeed, Dr. Richard Goode of Not A Party successfully claimed victory in attracting the non-vote, declaring himself Not A Member of Parliament for Mt. Roskill. This obligates him to not attend Parliament, which means that he is not responsible for levying taxes to spend on flag referendums, and nor is he responsible for putting non-violent drug users in cages by setting the Police on them.

I think we can all agree that this is a better deal than what we are getting from our current crop of MPs.

Faith in democracy will, however, have to get much lower before philosopher-kings such as Dr. Goode can be returned to their true position in society.

How Low Does Turnout Have to Get Before Voting Loses Legitimacy?

Cannabis, Education, Government, Health & Safety

Why are the Tribal Huk More Effective Than the New Zealand Government?

2 Comments

jamiepink

Frustrated by the feeble responses from local law enforcement to requests for help cleaning out crystal methamphetamine dealers from their community, a street gang made up of mostly underprivileged youths takes the problem into their own hands with immediate and complete success, decommissioning a dozen meth houses within 24 hours. Something from the fringes of a dystopian cyberpunk novel like The Verity Key, set in the 2070s? No – this is the small rural Waikato town of Ngaruawahia, population 5,000, in 2016.

Achieving this was possible because the locations of and locations from which the dealers sold were all known. All it took was a public meeting organised by Tribal Huk President Jamie Pink (pictured above), at which he stated that crystal meth dealers had 24 hours to leave Ngaruawahia or they would be physically removed from the town.

This throwing down of the gauntlet has apparently resulted in a town free of dealers of the drug. The question then becomes: why could the Police not have done this?

The least secret reason is that the Police are the army of the rich, and the residents of Ngaruawahia do not make large tax contributions to the upkeep of the New Zealand Police force. Like all poor communities, therefore, they are of the lowest priority for protection by law enforcement.

Moreover, the rich generally do not have problems with P dealers making offers to their sisters and daughters as the rich drink alcohol.

The main reason, however, is this. The Tribal Huk actually has more community support among the disadvantaged than the New Zealand Police. This is a fact widely known and accepted by the poor whose neighbourhoods house the crystal meth dealers, and is much less understood by the wealthy.

The Police are not considered by the poor to be on their side because they put the poor in prison for cannabis offences, and because they give the poor car fines to keep the roads clear for the rich.

The opposite situation occurs in places where cannabis is not illegal and where the Police are properly funded through adequate taxation, such as the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, cannabis users (the proportion of whom in the population is less than 40% of the New Zealand figure) have no inherent reason to distrust the Police as their possession of cannabis is not a crime.

In New Zealand the Police are like an occupying army if you are a cannabis user. Distrust is the natural consequence of the accumulated fear brought on by the possibility that the Police might aggress against you in the enforcement of cannabis laws.

This community support might be a result of the Tribal Huk’s successful ongoing efforts to feed over 500 Waikato schoolchildren, something that the Ministry of Education has not been able to achieve. The Tribal Huk deliver their sandwiches to 25 different schools within the region.

There are no national food in schools programs in New Zealand because we don’t want to pay taxes to feed other people’s kids. There is not sufficient solidarity in New Zealand for such a thing to be acceptable.

Pink himself, in the article linked above, refers to the link between feeling hungry and feeling angry, something that is obvious to any poor child but is a lesson from another dimension to the crusty, distant old men who make decisions in this country.

Anyone with any sense knows that if you are a hungry child, being told to sit down in a classroom on concentrate on anything other than food is going to make you angry. Few adults could handle such a thing without anger.

And yet, despite a full stomach being absolutely necessary if a child is going to learn anything meaningful from school, the New Zealand Government has failed to provide something as simple as sandwiches.

Perhaps the Tribal Huk should have some Police and Ministry of Education funding diverted their way?

The conclusion appears to be that government works best when there is sincere mutual support with the people it governs, and the precise structure or ideology of that government is, next to this, unimportant.

Another way to put this is that government will only work when there is sufficient solidarity between the people being governed and the people doing the governing, and this is true whether the power structure involves the State or a local street gang.

Why are the Tribal Huk More Effective Than the New Zealand Government?

Cannabis, Don't Vote

The Solution to Low Voter Turnout is to Have Politicians that Aren’t Cheating, Lying Pieces of Shit

1 Comment

ballot_box

There were local body elections in New Zealand last week. You probably didn’t know because no-one gives a fuck except for the control freaks that are fighting for power. They care so much about the low turnout that some of them want to make it illegal to not vote.

This means that if you choose not to vote you must either pay a fine or the Police will put you in a cage (and kill you if you resist). This seems extremely aggressive to those of us who do not benefit in any way from voting.

Take, for instance, my personal situation with medicinal cannabis. John Key will not change the cannabis laws and Andrew Little believes that cannabis use causes brain damage. So, no matter who I vote for, I will have a Prime Minister who thinks it’s fair for the Police to come and smash my head in and put me in a cage for using a medicinal plant they don’t approve of.

It’s much better to not vote and, by doing so, withdraw my consent to be governed by a political system that conducts a War on Drugs against its own people. Especially when the only people who have a chance of taking power under this system have already promised to continue this war to destroy people like me.

This I do not only for myself but out of solidarity with all of the people dispossessed by the current New Zealand political system. If my only choices are to give my power to a cheating, lying piece of shit waving a blue flag or a cheating, lying piece of shit waving a red flag, then I will keep my power for myself!

Dr Bryce Edwards, a Massey University politics lecturer and a heavily indoctrinated and brainwashed man, says “[low voter turnout] is a terrible thing. I don’t think there’s really anyone saying lower voter turnout is a good thing”.

Meanwhile, outside of the ivory tower, paedophiles get lighter sentences from the New Zealand “Justice” System than medicinal cannabis growers.

I’m saying that low voter turnout is a good thing, because it is a sign that the population does not consent to the abuses committed against it by the ruling class.

Is it any wonder we’ve lost faith in a political system that gives lighter sentences to paedophiles than it does medicinal cannabis growers? Why should we continue to vote and give our power to the same political system, and to the same clueless old narcissists that brought this atrocious state of injustice about?

Much better to not vote, and in doing so delegitimise the entire system. This is why the control freaks are ultimately afraid of – a population that does not fall for the illusion heavily enough to give away their power to the control freaks.

Not voting doesn’t just mean not voting – it means having the gumption to solve the social problems that politicians exploit to swindle power before that power is swindled. This means looking after vulnerable members of your community before the control freaks start making laws to ban everything that they have not explicitly given permission for.

It means mowing an old person’s lawn. It means smiling at the crazy guy with the haunted look. It means making a donation of time or money to the RSPCA. It means talking honestly with people you know about what’s really going on in the world.

If we all stopped falling for the lies, we could have a world in which the control freaks would dissipate into the gutter like the filth they are.

The Solution to Low Voter Turnout is to Have Politicians that Aren’t Cheating, Lying Pieces of Shit

Auckland Mayoralty, Cannabis

Why Adam John Holland is the Only Sensible Choice For Auckland Mayor

6 Comments

Auckland, North Island, New Zealand skyline

Adam Holland is the only one of the 18 Auckland mayoral candidates whose candidacy doesn’t have some kind of gross defect. If the mayoral campaigns were embryos, most of them would be terminated by the mother after the doctor made clear that there was no chance of viable offspring. Holland stands out from this rabble in a number of ways.

The first is that he is the only one interested in using his position as mayor to enrich Auckland, instead of just enriching himself. Holland has promised to “donate every last penny of my salary to various charities as suggested to me by the people of Auckland“. Considering that the salary of the Auckland mayor is NZD250,000+, this represents a considerable sum of money that charities need.

Coupled to this is the likelihood that the mayor would make it fashionable to donate salary money to charity, which is what this ever more unequal society needs. Considering how shallow and trend-conscious Aucklanders are, magnanimity on the order of Holland’s gesture might be worth tens of millions to the various charities of New Zealand.

Many politicians are fanatically devoted to an ideology and are happy to destroy everything in their path in order to force that ideology upon everyone else. Holland is the opposite of this – his suspension of judgment is so strong that he doesn’t know if he is representing Not A Party or Legalise Cannabis Auckland. Perhaps it is both, or even neither.

Holland is the only candidate with genuine philosopher-king credentials. He says “I won’t do a single thing as mayor just as I haven’t done a single thing for the past seven years of my retirement. Decisions shall be left up to the people, not an elected official in a farcical ‘democratic’ ceremony.”

Here Holland is referencing Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, in particular the passage that covers the five forms of government. For those who have not read The Republic, the belief of Plato was that government begins as an aristocracy and degrades over time, passing through the less perfect stages of timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and eventually tyranny.

The astute listener would interpret Holland’s words here as a warning to us about the further deterioration of our society, especially in this age of greed. Once democracy degrades further, it becomes tyranny. It’s possible to read Holland’s words here as a warning against the darker side of human nature, one that has almost surfaced thanks to the short sighted mismanagement of the Key Government.

Auckland is fortunate to have such an extraordinarily educated individual run for mayor.

adamholland

If the above is somehow not convincing enough, consider the state of the field that Holland is running against. Each candidate was offered a free shot of publicity here, and all of them bar Holland disqualified themselves with their responses.

Mario Alupis – professional wrestler. Attached photo suggests a large number of serious knocks to the head. Can’t be trusted to remember what he’s doing.

Aileen Austin – probably too old to survive the term as mayor. Also, Auckland would never vote for a hippie – this isn’t Nelson, dear.

Penny Bright – “Crooked” Penny Bright is running for mayor to distract the public from her impending imprisonment for dodging her rates bill. Auckland doesn’t need a mayor that shifts their debts onto the public.

Patrick Brown – Couldn’t be bothered supplying a photo. Also a communist.

Tricia Cheel – Another old hippie. Will split Aileen Austin’s votes and vice-versa, meaning that a vote for either is a waste.

Victoria Crone – has claimed to “bring 20 years’ experience running major New Zealand companies to the Auckland mayoralty.” What this means is that Auckland will be sold to the Chinese and everyone working in Auckland will be paid $5 per hour.

Phil Goff – no good unless he has Helen Clark telling him what to do.

David Hay – yet another old hippie, Hay is a former Green and thus probably a communist.

Alezix Heneti – serial failure. Eccentric name sure-fire sign of a rampant narcissist.

Stan Martin – couldn’t get it together enough to supply a photo, clearly not up to being mayor.

Bin Thanh Nguyen – couldn’t get it together enough to supply a photo, clearly not up to being mayor. Almost literally nothing is even known about this guy.

Phil O’Connor – Bible-thumper. Hates women. Vote for this guy and you can kiss goodbye to being allowed to buy alcohol on Sundays in Auckland.

John Palino – American, thus disqualified on the ground that we need a Kiwi to be the mayor of our biggest city.

Tyrone Raumati – couldn’t get it together enough to supply a photo or to respond to social media advances, clearly not up to being mayor.

Chloe Swarbrick – probably the next most sensible choice apart from Holland, wants to use the mayoralty as a platform to reshape the world in her image though and therefore cannot be trusted.

Mark Thomas – a plastic candidate in the John Key/Aldo Miccio mold. Soulless.

Wayne Young – basically a complete bum who would have been euthanised in a less tolerant society.

Many, many people have been saying that these reasons make Adam John Holland the sensible choice for Auckland mayor on 09 OCT.

Why Adam John Holland is the Only Sensible Choice For Auckland Mayor

Psychology

If You Have Ever Obeyed an Authority Figure, You Are Capable of Murder

4 Comments

nazideathditch

The title of this article is the subject of today’s psychology lesson. When we read about history, and we read about the sort of thing that humans are capable of doing to each other, we often come to ask ourselves how it came to be that humans are so willing to do terrible things to each other, and if there is any way that the rest of us could prevent it.

Almost implicit in this line of reasoning is that we, ourselves, would of course not have done such terrible things had we been there. We would not do those evil things because if an authority figure told us to, we would simply refuse. Simple as that, right?

Evidence suggests that this line of reasoning is based on a flawed understanding of human psychology. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of people will obey almost any order given to them by someone they consider an authority figure, even if that order is to directly cause the suffering of another human being. This was demonstrated by the Milgram experiments conducted in the 1960s.

The most surprising thing about the Milgram experiments may not have been how willing people were to hurt other people on command from an authority figure. Arguably more surprising was the fact that very few people, not even those with an education in psychology, anticipated this result. The vast majority of people believed that very few experiment participants would go as far as inflicting a high voltage electric shock to someone who had already been electrocuted unconscious, merely because the person telling them to do so was wearing a lab coat and therefore looked like an authority figure.

The truth is this: human beings are, for the most part, craven, arse-licking cowards. Mostly it’s our own egos that prevent us from accepting this fact.

If this argument is not fully convincing, consider the following thought experiment.

You are at war. You have not slept for 72 hours as you have seen constant combat. Your body is agony from adrenaline shock. The inside of your pants are covered in sticky shit, as you shat yourself when a shell went off near you yesterday and the shockwave almost stopped your heart, and you haven’t had a chance to do anything about it. Every time you catch a moment to breathe, you see an image of your buddy who had his head blown off about 200 metres back.

Your squad has taken some men captives, and your officer is trying to work out if they are combatants or the civilians they say they are. The people you have detained are young men, some probably teenagers, just boys.

Then a message comes through the radio. Your forces have suffered a setback on a nearby ridge and your company is to be pulled out from their current location to plug the breach. There is no longer any time to determine if the men are combatants or not, and if you let them go they might come back and kill you or your buddies.

Your commanding officer decides that most of them are of fighting age, and those who are not soon would be anyway. The next thing you know, the captives are up against a wall, you’re looking at them over the barrel of your rifle, and your commanding officer gives you an order to fire. The last thought you have before you hear the order is that there are certainly some innocents among them.

In that situation, do you pull the trigger?

If you know much about human psychology, you will know that fewer than one person in ten thousand would refuse to pull the trigger in a situation like that. Not out of hatred, not out of sadism, not out of inherent malice or anything like that.

Because it isn’t hatred that leads to mass murders. It isn’t prejudice. It isn’t things like saying that blacks have low IQs, or that Asians are cruel, or that Europeans produce an inordinate amount of sex offenders.

The human quality that leads to millions of innocent people being stuffed into gas chambers is obedience.

If you believe that any other person has the right to decide who you should kill and when, you are already a murderer in potential if not in deed.

If You Have Ever Obeyed an Authority Figure, You Are Capable of Murder

Don't Vote

The Concept of “Left vs. Right” is Hate Machine Propaganda

tremeloes_right_wheel_left_hammer_sham

In order to control a population, that population has to be divided against itself by fear. Absent fear, a population cannot be ruled for the simple reason that they will not submit to the rule of any other person and will naturally destroy anyone who tries to force them to. Anyone fancying themselves as a ruler, then, needs to divide the population anyway they can – and the concept of “left and right” is one of those divisions.

What does left and right even mean? Originally the terms referred to the position of politicians in the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. Supporters of the king sat to the right of the President, and supporters of the revolution sat to the left. This convention continued into later assemblies, with supporters of the status quo sitting to the right and supporters of change sitting to the left.

This relation to the status quo is said by some to be the very definition of left and right. More precisely, the right wing is in favour of the status quo, which in practical terms means being in favour of the landowners and the rich, as once a person becomes a member of this class they feel little desire to change. The left wing in favour of change, which in practical terms means being in favour of the renters and the poor, as members of this class generally experience having a low social status and naturally seek to “fix” this.

Some others, particularly Americans, relate the terms left and right to the size of the state, roughly measured by the proportion of the national GDP that is taken in by the government in the form of taxation. In this sense, leftists want to increase taxes and social services while rightists want to increase freedom and liberty from government interference.

Others might say that left and right correlated with feminine and masculine. The feminine left (which sometimes gets called the “Nanny State”) is associated with nurturing and co-operation, and tends towards sharing and egalitarianism. The masculine right is associated with competition and inequality, and tends towards hierarchies and harsh punishments.

Yet another distinction – which is a particularly modern one – has it that the left is in favour of the underdog, while the right is in favour of the dominant party. This line of thinking defines the left as a broad tent of various interests that include those of ethnic minorities, women, gays and lesbians, drug users, autists and anyone else with a grievance. The right is then the natural party of heterosexual white men, especially old and Christian ones.

These are just four of the many different axes upon which the terms left and right have been drawn. It’s apparent, then, that left and right have become so conflated over the decades that the terms are almost meaningless; no matter what someone claims to be a defining characteristic of either left or right, there will always be someone who can mount a well-reasoned (at least on superficial appearance) argument against that. After all, it’s impossible to be both against big government and for building a large military, and it’s also impossible to be for freedom and for the government taxing the citizenry to pay for it.

Moreover, anyone associating with so broad a label as either left or right will find themselves inevitably set against things they actually support, and vice-versa. Legion are the leftists against mass immigration to the West on account of the effect of this on local wages. Legion are the rightists who wouldn’t mind paying a bit more tax as long as it went to schools or hospitals.

Whatever the origins of the terms left and right, it is clear that nowadays both terms are Hate Machine propaganda. We know this is true because neither term is associated in the minds of anyone with anything positive. Supporters of both left and right are relatively neutral about their own side. But their opinion of the other side is regularly driven by fear. American leftists fear that Donald Trump will alienate Muslims and attract terrorist attacks. American rightists fear that Barack Obama will take their guns away. New Zealand leftists fear that John Key will sell the country to the Chinese. New Zealand rightists fear that they will soon need permission from the local Maori to visit the beach.

Both leftists and rightists fear these things because the mainstream political narrative is a torrent of fear (politicians are black magicians, therefore they work using fear, and the media uses black magic to attract attention). Behind the torrent of fear is a system of control. The Hate Machine doesn’t care if you are left or right, so long as you pick a side and enter the melee, because the more people fighting the more fear and the more fear the more hate and the more hate the more control.

A better way to judge the merits of any political proposal would be to ignore which party proposed it, and to consider the effects of the proposal in terms of whether it brings fear into the world or takes fear out of the world.

Democracy

Elections Are Black Magic Rituals – Are You a Victim?

john_key_triumphant

The world is made of magic, and many human behaviours that are difficult to understand become more clear when presented in magical terms. If one applies this esoteric lens to the democratic electoral system, it becomes apparent that elections are really rituals of Greater Black Magic.

The purpose of black magic rituals are to increase the personal power of the practitioner, either by focusing their mind on an objective or by drawing emotional power from onlookers, such as participants or sacrificial victims. In the act of making a sacrifice, a black magician gains power by absorbing the fear of the victim and of any onlookers. The basic logic is that “power goes where attention flows” – namely, the black magic practitioner absorbs the energy of anyone paying attention to them at the time of their working.

This element of sacrifice is evident within the electoral system in that one or the other side must lose and see their enemies take power and control. Either the poor are sacrificed at the altar of greed or the productive are sacrificed at the altar of envy. Both sides naturally fear the outcome of most elections, in particular if they are especially poor or productive, because they stand to lose more than the others. This fear generates power for anyone willing to exploit it, and the political class seldom hesitates when more power is up for grabs.

The fact is that the vast majority of politicians, regardless of whether they exploit the poor or the rich, are black magicians. This is why politics has been so long associated with lying and stealing – black magic thrives on deception, as this leads to confusion which leads to fear, which in turn is the fuel of the energy of the black magician. Many politicians, aware of the reputation that they have, position themselves as rebels who are against the others. Inevitably this is a ruse, as anyone willing to run in a democratic election is fundamentally a power monger, no matter how righteous their self-delusion.

The element of fear-generating confusion can also be seen in the effects of the electoral ritual, which leads to the very strange and very widespread belief that the act of seizing power that inevitably follows an election is justified by the “consent” offered by the participants. This leads as a matter of course to people accepting all manner of abuses carried out by democratic governments, as the people have given their power away by the act of participating in the election.

Make no mistake – the act of voting in a democratic election, or watching an election on television, or considering the winner of an election as a “ruler” or a “leader”, transfers power from you to the political class, about whom you have no guarantee of the correctness of their motives. Power goes where attention flows, and the greater the emotional reaction the political class can generate within you the greater the degree of power they have over you.

This is why every general election has a underlying theme of fear – if the wrong side wins there will be hell to pay, war, societal degeneration, etc. The fear is a necessary component of the ritual, and it is why every politician will seek to create the impression that their opposition will introduce fearful policies.

Elections are black magic rituals that seize some power from anyone foolish enough to vote in one. Are you a victim of black magic?