Category Archives: The State

Election is Not the Same As Selection!

You’ve got the power to choose who will rule the country after September 23rd – we’re all waiting on your input! Your vote will help elect a Prime Minister and ruling party. You will have a range of choices of both electorate and party candidates – some voters will have over 25 options. That’s democracy, right? The people choose, right? Not really.

The tricky thing is that your input regarding the selection of the candidates is not asked for. The process that led to either Bill English or Andrew Little becoming one of your only two choices for Prime Minister is not under your influence, not even in the slightest.

As Richard Goode of Not A Party pointed out in a recent address, New Zealand has had either a National Party Prime Minister or a Labour Party Prime Minister for the past 80 years.

And you don’t get to select either of those. You get to vote for one list of people that you have zero input into, or another list of people that you have zero input into.

So what your vote amounts to, as an elector, is little more than a ceremonial acknowledgement of the completion of a process that started a long time before election day. Like the Queen cutting a ribbon to open a new library, it’s merely a show for the cameras.

The process that matters – where the political power is – is the process that puts a person into the position of leading their party in the first place. And the Establishment will have seen to it, as it does every other time, that both the National leader and the Labour leader are their puppets.

So it doesn’t matter if you vote for the left wing or the right wing of the shitbird – the leaders of both wings have been selected by the people who really have all the power in society, and it isn’t you.

That’s why Andrew Little and Bill English are indistinguishable when it comes to several major social issues. On the issue of cannabis law reform, Little is no less conservative than English, constantly harping on about brain damage, and the Labour Party policy webpage makes no mention of cannabis law reform whatsoever (although funding a motion-capture studio in Dunedin was important enough to mention).

In the end, we shouldn’t expect Little and English to be distinguishable. What the rulers of this country want is to frighten the markets as little as possible, and that means reducing democracy to a sham election between two candidates pre-selected for their total absence of any capacity for novel thought.

Ultimately, the people who benefit from the status quo have far too much invested in it to allow it to be upset by plebs like you!

Not even voting for a third party is possible. Watching the Green Party mortgage their soul at ever-increasing rates of interest over the past 18 years taught us one thing: a maverick third party can only win power in our system to the degree that it makes itself indistinguishable from those who already have it.

That the country will be led by someone who sees you as a unit of livestock to be milked for productivity and taxes is a given. It might appear that the only reasonable course of action was to refuse to vote and to work on building a parallel society away from the gaze of psychopaths beholden to international banking or ideological interests.

Election is Not the Same As Selection!

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

Murder by proxy

This may annoy some of you, S.F.B.I.

I feel the need to explain something that has been bothering me since 2012 when I was journalist at a pirate radio station where we called a civil war a civil war before anyone else did, a civil war still going on. The world’s two largest arms exporters have savaged a country run by an autocratic dynasty involved in massacres of insurrectionaries over multiple generations of the same family. A leader who was taught in a school with the children of the British elite to be an autocratic dynastic leader. A leader who manipulated the government of neighbouring smaller nations for his own ends.

He is backed by an autocratic former secret policeman who rewrote his constitution to maintain power, organises the overthrow of regimes he doesn’t like, poisoned the leader of a neighbouring country, invaded three and is nicknamed “the butcher” for carpet bombing cities and having journalists and environmental activists beaten and killed by state security forces. The second biggest exporter of arms on the planet.

On the other side is the world’s number one weapons exporter. A rapidly evolving surveillance state, invader of many nations also prolific in overthrowing regimes it despises to install dictators and also expert at bombing civilians, executing without any trial including some of its own citizens, torture and targeting journalists and environmental activists with state forces.

I am of course talking about Syria. I fail to see how anyone concerned with human rights can support either Russia or the US in this fight. One side kills less than the other? Charles Manson killed less people than John Wayne Gacy that doesn’t mean we should cheer for Charles Manson. Both the US and Russia are bombing civilian areas, both use proxy forces on the ground, both are mass murderers who demonise the refugees fleeing their slaughter as potential terrorists.

The avalanche of state sanctioned propaganda from the two sates currently singing “Drill baby Drill!” in the rapidly dwindling Arctic wilderness is rather frightening, not because two oligarchies I have followed and been horrified by for decades are telling lies about Syria the media repeats. But because people who otherwise oppose despotism, oligarchy, arms exports, bombing of civilians and torture are sharing this propaganda and suddenly falling victim to the lesser evil argument that one imperialist is preferable to the other. A leader who inherited daddy’s autocracy is not someone anyone should legitimate, mercenaries have been actively engaged with some factions to subvert Assad and replace with a US client since 2012.

It’s not like there isn’t any other option, the Rojava Kurds are most terrifying to both Russian and US imperialists for daring to attempt direct democracy, decentralised power and arming women. If their collectives are allowed to survive it might give the rest of us ideas for our own autonomous regions and we may destroy their other clients. The oligarchs in the US and Russia could even be overthrown and replaced themselves by actual freedom!

If you want to argue about this I have been paying attention for years, my politics have not really changed on Syria. But I can’t really be bothered. That’s not why I wrote this. I want you to just think for a bit about it. All imperialists are enemies of freedom, environmental vandals and warmongering oligarchs. How can you in good conscience support any of them?