NAP Candidate for Rongotai

Hi. I’m Simon Smythe and I’m a politician.

I first suspected I might be a politician when I tried to solve a problem with a bunch of other people’s money. And subsequently wasn’t very good at it. In fact, my need for control at other people’s expense was actually making things worse. Of course I denied it at first. And no matter how much money I would force people to pay, the problems still largely remained. There were just enough moderate changes being made made to create the illusion of something being done.

I have now come to realise that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the epitome of insanity. But when you’re making a fairly decent living from the problems you’re not addressing it’s very easy to keep deluding yourself that you’re doing the right thing. Especially when approximately 70% of the eligible population is validating your existence every three years. And you’re telling yourself and everybody else the other 30% is just lazy and irresponsible. So after many years of being given far too many chances, only to let everyone down again and again, I finally understood that the first step towards recovery was going to be admitting I was the problem.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can. And the wisdom to know that the unquestioning belief in (and exaltation of) a glorious parliamentary battle arena where voters are apparently represented by shameful displays of name calling and pompous witty retorts we call “the democratic process” is a thinly veiled unjustifiable rationalisation for the oppression of others by wielding trumped up questionable opinions about how they should definitely be living their lives, exacted in the most impersonal way possible. And it doesn’t even work good.

So I urge you this election for everybody’s sake. DON’T VOTE 2017.

Victory For NAPathy!

Not A Party

9 March 2017

Victory For NAPathy!

Hey look. Another landslide win for Not A Party (NAP). A 70% non-turnout. Who could have ever predicted it?

The official results of the Mt. Albert by-election were announced by the Electoral Commission today. On hearing the news of Not A Party’s second major coup, NAP candidate Simon Smythe responded, “What happened? Oh right. Makes sense. I’m thinking of making a nice roasted vegetable salad for dinner. Who wants some?”

The Saturday before last 13,763 voters went through the motions of Active Participation Fantasy Syndrome in the Mt. Albert by-election. NAP did its best to come last, but says thanks to the 19 cards who did vote for them as it resulted in a small trouncing of some communists. What hasn’t been mentioned at all is how 31,125 registered non-voters came out in support of Not A Party and steered clear of the polling booths altogether, exercising their democratic right to do whatever they wanted instead. Once the 19 votes for NAP were added to the 31,125 non-votes for NAP it made very little difference. Such is the process of voting.

Just as it was in Mt. Roskill last year, so has this been a delightful encouragement for proponents of a post-democratic New Zealand. The people of Mt. Albert have stayed home in force and conscientiously shunned the endorsement required to validate this “safe Labour seat”. How promising it is to see so many enlightened free thinkers non-voting for what they believe in. The future might not be all doom gloom and ginger ale after all. Hazzah!

If we look at the 13,763 who did vote and compare them to the 60,531 who live in Mt. Albert, there’s your representation right there folks. What kind of mandate is that for the pen and sword wielding ruling classes to continue darkening our lives with their Roman attitude towards population control? Long may the avalanche of sensibility and the fine show of being excellent to each other continue and be present at the upcoming general election in September.

NAP would also like to congratulate Hacienda Ardennes on her new job with the United Nations.


What’s the best place for a guerrilla soup kitchen?

Having a by-election so close to an election stabs a thorn in my side every time. Can’t we just let everything slide in the interim? I don’t see any panic in the streets of Mt. Albert from constituents running around crying out about how everything is coming to a grinding halt without a colossal in charge. Have you been to Spain lately? Surprise! It’s still there.

But anyway, it’s happening. So here’s my bile-election promise. If I’m elected I’ll gut the electoral office and turn it into a soup kitchen. Not A Party are great at deconstruction.

If you don’t like this idea, don’t get mad. Just don’t vote for it. However, if you vote against it by voting for someone else, you should do so with the understanding that you helped legitimise something you didn’t want. That’s the beauty of democracy.

Why a soup kitchen?

Because cooking a feed for the local hungry folk is respectable, compassionate, and most of all, it’s achievable. And before anyone tries to get all governmenty about it, know this. Any talk of means testing for a toasted sandwich will be met with a well earned clap of derisive laughter. If anyone’s hungry enough to walk through the shame cloud entrance of a begrudging government soup kitchen, they already passed the means test. Do we think people are going to say they’re hungry when they’re not hungry? If they do they are obviously suffering from mental illness and should be offered a food immediately. Pakoras and sabji stat!

What’s in it for me if I’m not hungry?

Good question. Glad you asked. When a grimy footpath reprobate asks you for change, you can direct them to the soup kitchen instead of giving them money. Money that you’re worried they’ll only spend on drugs … because that’s probably what you would do if you were living on a footpath.

Why a “guerrilla” soup kitchen?

Because regardless of our commitment to serving  fresh food cooked with safe handling practices in a clean kitchen, we refuse to pay any tithes to the local protection racket, aka Auckland City Council. Threats of being stood over by the latest stand over gang should never be complied with. Cowering only encourages them.

It’s long past time politicians started serving the people. Not A Party are here, happy to oblige.

NAP during the race again!

Hello New Zealand.

My name is Simon Smythe. I put the myth in blacksmith. And the sigh in the unquestioned acceptance of a centralised government. Putting myself forward as the NAP candidate (Not A Party) in the upcoming Mt. Albert by-election happened yesterday about 4:20 pm in the convivial atmosphere of the Manners Mall Electoral Commission Office.

My motivation for hurling myself into the bi-elecectory stoplight comes from my humbly magnanimous sense of community spirit when it comes to reminding people of their democratic right to not vote if they don’t want to.

We hear whisperings on the winds that enough is enough. Which is true in itself because enough is neither too little nor too much. But let’s not go crazy and fool ourselves into thinking that voting will have any effect on this phenomenon of enough being enough. The sentiment leads to other sentiments like… ‘somebody should do something!’ and… ‘who let this happen?’

When we vote we let this happen.

The platform I’m campaigning on (with Richard Goode aka Agent Orange as my invaluable campaign manager) is all about representing the accused and maligned among us who are so often dismissed, called apathetic, and snidely looked down upon because we actively decline that most generous of invitations to vote.

As a dedicated and responsible non-voter I stand, with the rest of the NAP squad, at the vanguard of a serious and compassionate movement to illuminate and eliminate the irrational attacks of sanctimonious guilt and shame so often aimed at today’s forward thinking non-voter. The youth of today are just slackers. Somebody should make them do something.

Seriously though. The truth is, if you do vote you have no business complaining after the fact when your team lost. That’s just bad sportsmanship.

So basically our message is this:

#DontVote2017. Voting is NOT a victimless crime. And have an A1 day.

Your Representative: Simon Colin Smythe.

What’s with the NAP?


Not A Party

17 November 2016

What’s with the NAP?

Last week Not A Party (NAP) announced Richard Goode as their candidate in the Mt. Roskill by-election due to be held on Saturday 3 December. Since then the most commonly asked question has been, “What’s your agenda?”

Our agenda is straightforward. We are here to mobilise the non-vote in Aotearoa New Zealand. And to end the divisive guilt associated with not voting.

When asked if he was even serious about not voting, Goode said, “Yes, I am serious. Political jokes are not at all funny and I certainly don’t condone voting for them.”

The thought of not voting can come as a shock at first. But voting is not the holy grail of civic duty our decision makers would have us believe. Being allowed to be part of the decision making process every few years is nothing more than a Claytons involvement in politics.

Every election we are being persuaded to maintain the belief that not voting is a form of civil disobedience. But it isn’t even. In this country we cherish the democratic right to not vote.

“The insidious maligning of non-voters has gone on long enough,” says Goode. “And I say, stop it. If it helps, I will say this, and I’ll say it right to the cameras. Stop it.”

Ridiculous claims have been made. Goode refutes them thus:

# If you don’t vote you have no right to complain

“This is flat out wrong and back to front. If you vote, you are accepting the outcome of the election whoever wins and you have no reason to complain when your chosen party or candidate loses the personality contest.”

# People who don’t vote are apathetic

“How could this ever have happened?” Goode laughs. “Could it be that they’ve become disillusioned by past voting experiences? Apathy about the graciously provided three yearly opportunity to participate in the voting bonanza doesn’t mean people don’t care about the political direction of this country. It means they care enough not to validate the tyranny and oppression by voting for it.”

# A non vote is a vote for the other guy

“Really? Which other guy? If you do the math I think you’ll find that the people responsible for voting in [insert perceived enemy here] were the people that voted for them. Not the people that didn’t.”

“The gangs that run our country, whether they’re in power or waiting their turn, are having a fine time enjoying the baubles of office at everyone else’s expense.” Goode concludes, “It’s time to think about how we can put an end to unnecessary central government and run our own towns and communities without lavishing huge sums of money on these leeches.”


Annihilation Of The Vape

Here’s A Violation of the NAP for ya!

“The NAP is a big cloud of vape conjured from some trenchcoat’s bellowing mouth fedora.”


Okay okay  …I don’t mean to ATTACK the NAP for it’s sentiment.  Because it’s a great sentiment.  But that’s all it is.  A sentiment.  Righteous in all it’s glory.
02-20-12 Sentiment

First of all, what is the NAP?

Sounds good huh?  Until you get to property rights.  Let’s have a thunk about this.  For the NAP to be effective beyond anything but sentiment, everyone has to agree on the specifics of some property rights.  Whilst it’s not wrong to own things, imagine you’ve come home to your plantation to find me walking out your front door  with your TV set and a packet of Tim Tams.  This is considered an act of aggression under the NAP, and you are now free to shoot me in the head with a clear conscience.  Does  this seem right to you?  Of course it’s wrong for me to steal your property but there are two quite different values of aggression going on here.  The NAP seems to value property rights over human rights.  This can’t be not good.


Also –  What if the plantation you “own” actually belongs to someone else, some original owners, who never agreed to the social construct you’ve exhaled in a big bubblegum flavored cloud and called The Non Aggression Principle.  What if these previous individuals somehow misunderstood the deal to swap the earth itself for some blankets, influenza and syphilis?  And what if it wasn’t me, but this guy below who you came home to find yoinking your consumer comforts and confectionery comestibles?  Is there a whiff of hypocrisy in the bubblegum yet?


However should we settle such a property dispute?  And how far back should we go?  Should we make like modern day gentlemen and meet with pistols at dawn on the Gaza Strip?


As well as that  …let’s investigate how you gained the collateral to buy your coveted Tim Tams and TV set in the first place.  Of course, you don’t own slaves!  Omigosh that would be deplorable, not to mention a violation of someone’s property rights (Toby’s body is Toby’s property).


No no no  …the good folk who work on YOUR plantation all signed a mutual contract whereby for the exchange of their time and labour, you dutifully and graciously provide them with food,

Back Camera


The Accommodation

…and a small stipend with which to buy clothes.


All perfectly acceptable under the glorious concord we understand as the NAP.  Because if these happy go lucky worker bees don’t appreciate it, they are forever welcome to move to Somalia.  Or if they’re not too stupid and lazy they can sack up and acquire their own plantation. (heavy sarcasm emoticon)

So anyway, that’s my opinion.

And now this  (the other NAP)…



Edward Bernays, father of lies

Diabolical bullshit merchant Edward Bernays was the nephew of well known repressed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.


After a well played career as a government administrator, Bernays realised from his uncle’s work that, with an understanding of manipulation and people’s innermost desires, companies could design their advertisements and marketing campaigns to tell people exactly what it was that they wanted, and then make them feel like tragic losers who would miss out if they didn’t go out and buy it immediately.

He was the first to coin the term “public relations,” when referring to propaganda, and also introduced corporations to the concept of focus groups.


Edward said that he believed those in power had an obligation to control the general public in order to prevent them from reverting to what he regarded as a dangerous “herd instinct” that would see society descend into primal chaos.  But… (cough), Edward said a lot of things…


However, Bernays depended on this “herd mentality” to dupe the population into believing capitalist consumerism was a grand idea and that communism was a clear and present danger to America which required the installation of U.S. friendly government regimes in countries that had desirable populations and resources to exploit and pillage.  Let me introduce you to the United Fruit Company.

When you spend a lifetime betraying your fellow man and generally behaving like a smug asshole you might end up looking like Edward (the father of lies) Bernays. It’s not a pretty picture.


The Century of the Self is a documentary worth watching if you want to fully appreciate the depth of this wreched man’s unbridled depravity.

Try Not To Move To Somalia.

Africa, Somalia, Bosaso. 05/10/2015. Bosaso: the coastal city of 700,000 inhabitants. It is the main port of Somalia and it is the capital of Puntland; this macro-northern region, compare to the rest of the country, enjoys of a relative political and military stability. A kid look at the Buulo Mingis Settlement IDP camp.

First up, let’s have a gander at why anyone would make such an alarming suggestion in the first place. When you’re discussing tyranny with someone on the internet (as you do), and you bring up the fact that it’s not about who’s in power as much as it’s about there being someone in power at all (as you do), a common response you’ll be likely to hear is “well if you don’t like it, move to Somalia”.


This is (of course) a highly amusing (albeit lazy) way of telling you they don’t wish to discuss tyranny after all. It shuts down the discourse and proves that they can’t think of a proper argument.


So why Somalia? In 1991 the Siad Barre regime crumbled to pieces. See the hollywood blockbuster Black Hawk Down for details. Or… look below for a quick summary of “actual” information.

The intended inference is that Somalia has no government, so anybody who aspires to living their life without being governed should appreciate living in the warlords wet dream that we know as Somalia.


But Somalia got it’s so called anarchy by default. It didn’t arrive through any process of anarchistic revolution, or agorism, or anything like that. It was born from the gut shot bowles of a big punch up between the various megalomaniacs and their armies (known as factions) trying to seize power by military force. Exactly the kind of behaviour Anarchists are morally and fundamentally against.


Telling people to move to somalia if they don’t like it is as foolish as suggesting that if the political party you voted for didn’t get in, you should move to Somalia. Or if you don’t like how the guy down the road has all night parties after the rugby club closes, you should move to Somalia.


And that is why telling people to move to Somalia if they don’t like it is nothing but an epic, laughworthy fail.

Tyrannosaurus Wrecks!

The ever elusive 1% (give or take a square mile when you adjust your fedora) are the morally destitute few who reside at the apex, profiting profoundly from all forms of tyranny.


If we are not challenging all forms of tyranny (especially our own, if you have kids you know what I’m talking about) that means we have been divided and conquered and are distracted by subsets and definitions in our search for freedom and enlightenment.  The thing about tyranny is, you can’t legislate against it because legislation is tyranny however well meaning it might have been at the outset.

We have to look further for solutions to our problems, and stop thinking that somebody else should do something.  What can I do to help us all move towards a community that finds all forms of wretched, swaggering authoritarianism abhorrent and socially dangerous?  The argument against capitalism or socialism or communism by themselves is a confused one because people aren’t even speaking the same language and it becomes a battle of definitions.  If we talk about the plutocracy that runs reckless in each of those ideologies we can get closer to moving the mindsets that enslave us in our own heads.


When considering viable socio-political options it has to be, not just okay, but also appreciated that people have differing aspirations and want different outcomes from the same general existence.  If we try to bend others to our will or exploit others unfairly for either our own gain or for a supposed greater good we are missing the point of what freedom from tyranny means and continuing the cycle of social chaos …moving in directions that aren’t forwards.

It’s great to experiment by cutting straws on the diagonal and being imaginative but acting out a process that TELLS PEOPLE WHAT TO DO, and even simply tolerating such a performance,  is how we keep ourselves from rising up and moving on as a species.


But how do we deal with obvious wrongs like theft, rape and murder without telling people what to do?  There are two enemies here. Acts of rape and murder are included in the crime of TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO, whilst theft is about dishonesty.  Dishonesty is a lot more complicated to draw moral conclusions about in a world where involuntary directives and dishonest tactics are accepted and venerated by voting populations.


The contradiction of power structures that punish theft and violence with theft and violence instead of leading by example should be glaringly obvious but it seems they well and truly are not.  Why is that?  Is it because there is very little encouragement for honest critical thinking and self responsibility?  Is it because mistrust is easier than curiosity in matters we don’t understand?


It seems fashionably acceptable for people to get offended and lash out instead of exploring why we feel offended.  Another option besides chimping out and getting uppity is to ask ourselves if this feeling is rational and fair, or if it’s just a belligerent non acceptance of someone elses point of view.  Even if it’s the most thoughtlessly bigoted and backwoods retarded thing we’ve ever heard in our life, playing the victim of someone’s boorish stupidity and reacting in kind is, well …what does that say about us?


My political question is this:

>>>How do we tell people to stop telling people what to do without telling them what to do?<<<