"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten." - George Orwell 1984
Orwell is in vogue these days; culture after all is downstream from politics. Everyone and their grandmother invokes Orwell’s ghost at anything done by the government. It is PC culture gone mad to charge someone for screaming and harassing strangers minding their own business. The idea of perhaps looking into all these school shootings is indicative of a totalitarian Orwellian New World Order pushed by (((globalists))) to commit literal white genocide. The one area where Orwell is hardly mentioned in all this dystopic gibbering is ironically the area he thought was most important – the changing of the meaning of language as a way of controlling discussions. For example: No Child Left Behind – which justified massive budget cuts and educational reform that disadvantaged many public school children. The PATRIOT ACT (and its expansions by Obama) – which justified torture, the removal of Habeas Corpus (the right to face your accused and be presented with the evidence for charges against you), indefinite detainment without jury trial, for Americans (and far worse for non-Americans). And my personal favourite: “Tough on Crime”. Just saying this phrase to conservatives is enough to get them turgid and throwing ballots in your direction. It’s like coke for middle class people - all nice and pretty and white - because it speaks to their deeply rooted anxiety that the filthy commoners might one day realise just how badly they’re being screwed by the very ‘meritocratic’ system they espouse.
So what exactly does tough on crime mean?
If we are talking about punishing people for breaking the law then it begs the question why only 18% of those who commit tax evasion in New Zealand are prosecuted, compared to 67% of those who commit welfare fraud, considering that the former costs 1.24 billion dollars a year and the latter costs 30.55 million. After all tax evasion is far more destructive to the functioning of New Zealand society – we’re seeing the ugly legacy of nine years of budget cuts in infrastructure, mental health, and education from a supposed lack of money. If we believe that we should lock people up for murder then we have to ask why those who commit murder on a global scale, such as the leaders responsible for the Iraq War (which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and displaced many millions more) are walking around free? After all, aren’t our countries governed by the almighty ‘rule of law’ and that is precisely what makes us so special and superior to the corrupt shitholes in the developing world.
If we were to apply the legal precedents established in the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials – which the Americans insisted was not a punitive ‘victor’s justice’, then shouldn’t we hang Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Blair, Johnson for war crimes and crimes against humanity? If it was acceptable and ‘just’ to hang Colonel Yamashita for war crimes committed without his knowledge by his subordinates, establishing the Yamashita Standard as a legal precedent in international law for the responsibility of commanders for preventing war crimes. Then what pray tell is the excuse for the Commander-In-Chief of the military force responsible for more war crimes than any other nation (wars of aggression, deliberate targeting of civilians, use of torture and inhumane weapons of war, illegal wars under international conventions) in the world. What exactly does it mean to say that you are ‘tough on crime’ when the biggest criminals walk free and the minor offenders get the book? It is rules for thee, but not for me – but tell me again how we live under the ‘rule of law’.
If stealing is a punishable offense then why are the biggest thieves – the bankers responsible for the Great Financial Crisis – Wells Fargo lying to customers and creating false accounts, Goldman Sachs lying about risks to investors with subprime mortgages – rewarded with billions of our tax dollars while someone who steals to survive is thrown in a cage? Is it ‘tough on crime’ to publicly crucify Metiria for earnestly speaking out against the Byzantine and punitive welfare system by sharing her experience of how she committed welfare fraud to feed her daughter, while simultaneously praising Bill English for stealing exponentially more with false housing tax claims, and John Key for committing electoral fraud. When you lie you are a disgusting worthless parasite who is the epitome of moral degeneration, when I lie I am an honest hardworking bloke who is smart and resourceful at gaming the system.
When political aspirants and conservatives talk about being ‘tough on crime’ what they really mean is you must be this rich to enter. Instead of this two bit hustling you need to be in the premier leagues – forget gangsters you see like Al Capone, it’s the gangsters you don’t see you should be worried about.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
This isn’t some bleeding heart liberal virtue signalling from the safety of their middle class suburb, this is former US Marine Major General Smedley Butler speaking out in 1935 about the American pillaging of the planet and his role in it. The same game is being played now in Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan. The players have just gotten better at hiding it under euphemisms of ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘fighting terrorism’.
When well-heeled lawyers, predominantly from ‘respectable’ middle class backgrounds, talk about justice being blind and impartial they’re either talking out the wrong end or not paying enough attention. What would an Iraqi man violated, water-boarded, electrocuted, beaten and given fake executions to unhinge him, under false claims of terrorism while being denied the right to face trial or see the evidence against him say about justice? What would the Maori boy flung in jail for being caught with weed, while middle class white youth who do worse are given a slap on the wrist, say about justice being fair and impartial? 
If we want to talk about crime and justice, we need to ask two very crucial questions. Who writes the laws, and what purpose do these laws serve?
First we need to ask who writes the laws – after all do we, the people subject to them and governed by them, write the laws. At best we are given a token role in voting through referendums which stall and drip along at an agonizing pace. At worst they are made behind closed doors and imposed on us, with the threat of fines and imprisonment if we disobey. Before the advent of democracy laws were made by monarchs and sovereigns, sometimes advised by councillors and ministers drawn from the nobility, sometimes of their own accord. Today laws are written by judges, who disproportionately come from the upper and middle classes, before being voted in by members of parliament, who once again tend to come from these ‘respectable’ well to do backgrounds. The rules might be a little different but we’re still playing the same game.
From the perspective of game theory, the rational logic that conservatives love to claim monopoly on compared to the librul snowflakes crying about their fee fees, if I have the ability to determine how a system operates (especially a system that distributes resources through methods like taxation or regulations) and possess a thorough and nuanced understanding of it, there is nothing stopping me from creating small loopholes that myself, and those equally adept at understanding the system (or rich enough to hire people to do it for them) can benefit from. Amateurs steal with a gun, professionals steal with a pen.
It’s nothing personal, it’s just business – and it is generally conservatives who love to extoll the virtues of business and the free market – of economically rationalising greed and claiming it a virtue. You could argue that such individuals entrusted with such power and responsibility may answer the call of their conscience and heed the cry of civic responsibility. These noble gold souls of Plato’s Republic, these enlightened philosopher kings who must benevolently guide us dirty unwashed peasants and aren’t swayed by the same base materialistic desires we are. But that would be fundamentally incompatible with the professions that draw the highest proportion of narcissists and psychopaths. For me to not leave these loopholes in place would be actively working against my own rational self-interest – the inherent traits that govern narcissistic and psychopathic behaviour. People accuse socialists of being fuzzy headed utopians who don’t understand HUMAN NATURE while believing that a system that relies on a small number of individuals to be entrusted with enormous power and wealth will somehow act benevolently.
Even if we were to assume that saints to outnumber the sinners, that not all members of parliament are greedy and self-interested and that enough of them believe in actually serving the people and not their pockets, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy reveals that premise is fundamentally flawed.
Pournelle’s Law states that “in any bureaucracy the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated completely.”
In layman terms what does this mean. Let’s use a real world example – the Catholic Church, dedicated to spreading the gospel and glory of God who preached love, compassion, and justice. How is it then that such an organisation has repeatedly engaged in covering up numerous paedophile rings conducted by members of its bureaucracy, in silencing the rampant sexual abuse of minors under their care. I don’t recall Jesus saying it is okay to molest children in Sunday school but perhaps Korean Jesus is a bit more puritan.
This is because the primary function of the church as an institution (as opposed to the individuals who comprise it) is to protect itself and its enormous financial stake (collected from tithes of church goers) in order to continue to spread the gospel. Now the people who are the most ambitious and driven to rise in the ranks, whether this is to try and ‘reform’ the system from within or for personal gain, are going to care more about their bread and butter, that is the institution, than its humanitarian goals. The people who responsible for promotions within the church (higher ranking members) are going to be similarly minded, that’s how they got to their positions in the first place .After all in any system the most successful agents are the ones most capable of operating and exploiting its rules. The justification will then emerge that the cover ups are ‘moral’ because if the church is outlawed or investigated for its horrific abuses then it will be unable to provide the spiritual services that save souls from damnation, and once I am in charge I will reform and fix the system. I am so special and smart and talented that I can fix everything if only I had power everything will be better for everyone. This is the mind-set of those drawn to power who drink from the kool aid of neoliberalism laced with Great Man Theory. At best they are egocentric and misguided, at worst they are opportunistic narcissists.
Now the people in the church who are morally consistent and behave with integrity (often in the lower ranks since they have less financial stake in the institution) and want to speak out against the abuses and cover ups are marginalised and silenced as fringe radicals by those in power because they threaten their position. This is true across every institution in our society because of rational self-interest and game theory – the values most lauded and praised in our hyper-individualistic society that worships at the altar of business – to be actively consistent with the goals of the institution is often to hurt your personal career prospects if you upset the status quo of the institution. We’re always told not to make waves, to obey orders, to keep your head down and kowtow to those above you. So if you have any aspirations of power and advancement, you care more about the institution than its goals, the most successful agents are the ones who are aware of this and become part of the system. Your managers and bosses, those above you, are far more likely to promote you if they like you - this isn’t rocket science. In the business world they call it ‘office culture’ or being an ‘auburn man’. Outside the business world we call it selling out.
With this idea in mind we now have to ask what exactly is the purpose of laws? Why is murder illegal? It sounds absurd to ask this, people will bark out of Pavlovian reflex that this is COMMON SENSE, but if we want to understand the purpose of laws and how they function we need to start with the basics. We have to as Mr Pitbull would suggest, go back-back- back in time.
One of the most influential philosophers on the social contract (how we live together in a society) was an Englishman called Hobbes. Hobbes witnessed first-hand the brutal chaos and violence of the English Civil War where roundheads and cavaliers bashed each other over the head over how the English government would function – would it be run by parliament or by monarchs? Hobbes concluded that if you want to ensure peace and stability you need a ‘leviathan’ a singular sovereign entity who has the biggest stick in the yard to keep everyone from murdering each other. We call this the monopoly on violence – only the ‘leviathan’ (the state) has the right to initiate violence (through police, military, etc) under the principle of keeping the peace. That is why there are very strict and clear guidelines on self defense and civilian use of violence, why we can’t just willy nilly murder each other.
This is an important concept because it shows us that the purpose of laws is control, ideally a benevolent form of control, but control nonetheless to maintain a stable and peaceful society. Therefore the enforcers of the state – lawyers, police officers, judges, magistrates, etc – are sworn to uphold all laws, regardless of how just or unjust they may be because their primary role is protecting the functioning of society, maintaining its status quo. While individuals within these institutions may be good or bad or a mix in between, the fundamental role of the institution is not to ‘protect and serve’ their communities but to control them. Their bottom line is not justice but maintaining order at the behest of those who pay them.
Let’s look at a historic example: the outlawing of marriages between whites and blacks in America. These laws remained in place in many states til 1967 (and in Alabama til 2000). To put it in another context: when Obama was born and up until he was five, there would have been many parts of America where he would have been seen as the child of an illegal marriage with his parents being under threat of imprisonment. What is the purpose of such an archaic law, reminiscent of Nuremburg Laws in Nazi Germany that forbade Germans from marrying Jews, in a society that supposedly claims freedom as its highest calling?
In the early days of planter America there existed poor indentured white servants (because of the extremely low survival rates in early America it was far cheaper to hire servants for a period of seven years, than to buy a slave for life) living alongside black slaves (increasing in number as the financial cost/benefit ratio began to skew toward slaves, or as economists call it an ‘innovation hike’). Both black and whites lived at the mercy of the aristocratic planter class, who viewed and treated both as dirt, and had far more in common – socially and economically – with each other than with the blue bloods sneering down upon them. Interracial marriages naturally emerged from people who came to see each other as similar despite the colour of their skin, and with it came a great anxiety in the landed gentry. After all, they had eyes to read history books, they knew of Spartacus and the Servile Wars; they knew that those who sow misery will reap anger. They were faced with increasing economic demands from the indentured servants who survived to complete their term and demanded land from their feudal masters,
“And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.” (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
The planter class knew that the slaves and servants were many, and that they were few, and that the many had guns too. Interracial marriages forged bonds of solidarity amongst two groups, both crushed under their patent leather boot, and united they could topple their unequal society. So they delivered a political masterstroke – outlawing interracial marriages under the guise of puritan morality: protecting the noble and virtuous white race, from polluting their bloodline with the inferior savage black race. They began to treat their white indentured servants better. They insisted that their white indentured servants were connected to them by shared noble lineage and superiority over the dark skinned races, giving license to freed indentured servants to stake a claim in the lands west (after all the property rights of the natives was disregarded under Terra Nullius – empty land). They began hiring them as overseers and managers over the field slaves, creating a middle class – successfully dividing and conquering the working class by redirecting their justified anger toward the ruling elites toward each other based on arbitrary and tribalistic distinctions. It maintained the status quo; it kept a stable and peaceful society for the ones who wrote the laws.
When confronted with this many Americans will immediately raise their hackles and bark that they live in a post-racial society, that there are only Americans, engage in whataboutism and finally conclude that it was all in the past and we are over that now. That their society isn’t still marked by the legacy of Apartheid and Nazi style governance, that they live in a land of justice and freedom. I will quote former President Lyndon B Johnson, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best coloured man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” How different is this from the exhortations of Making America Great Again from the white heartlands ravaged by opioid addiction, poverty, and unemployment, which look down at ‘shithole’ countries that possess a fraction of American wealth yet have the same problems. The Nazi Third Reich lasted just six years; the American Reich has lasted for hundreds.
It is no coincidence that American police officers originated from slave catchers, Confederate Marshals to forcibly conscript poor southerners (especially in the Appalachian region), and right wing vigilante groups. You don’t see NWA rapping Fuck the Fire Department, or Immortal Technique spitting his hit single NHS Murder Me. There is a reason why the groups that are so vocally anti-police – Blacks, Latinos, poor communities – are the ones most exposed to them. Why do you think during the L.A Riots the poor communities like Korea Town were abandoned while the gated middle class suburbs were fiercely guarded? Why do you think you always see heavily armed and armoured police stationed outside corporate buildings every time there is a hint of social unrest, while the poor communities where small businesses burn are abandoned? Why do you think we are always being told in every which way to hate the other who you see every day in your neighborhood working the same jobs, struggling to pay the same bills, and not the rich you don’t see in their exclusive communities?
When you start questioning who writes the laws and what purpose they serve you can begin to understand how a tiny minority controls the majority of wealth. How race and class are inexplicably entwined and to ignore justice for one at the pursuit of the other is an exercise in meaningless moral masturbation. Martin Luther King was assassinated not for civil rights but for organising poor white and black sanitation workers to push for economic justice, for speaking out against the war crimes in Vietnam. Malcolm X was gunned down for renouncing his hatred of the white man and embracing a universal brotherhood with all those who want a better world. “Power never takes a back step – only in the face of more power”, and we have that power for “quantity has a quality of its own.”
So whenever a politician waffles about being ‘tough on crime’ let’s call it what it really is – class war - recruiting poor to suppress poor while the rich plunder in broad daylight. It is time for us to see just how badly we are being swindled by this Orwellian manipulation of language – this Newspeak for our post truth society. They’re right about our societies needing to be tough on crime. It’s time for us to get tough on the real criminals – the ones in suit and tie who steal from greed and not out of need.
 https://balancetranslations.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/pdf-balance-leestafel-04-george-orwell-1984.pdf see also appendix at end of 1984 detailing Newspeak and its functions.
 https://www.truthdig.com/articles/why-im-suing-barack-obama/ - PATRIOT ACTs extension under Obama
 http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-greed-vs-need visual representation of original study conducted at Victoria University
 http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6393&context=expresso argument against the legal insanity of the Yamashita Standard and Command Responsibility
 https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/war-is-a-racket-major-general-butler-1935-2/ the speech where the quote comes from
https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt his book which outlines in detail the function of the Military Industrial Complex
 http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/spotlight-movie - list of sources breaking down the real story depicted in the movie Spotlight.
 “We on the left have forgotten that the question is not how do you get good people to rule, most people who rule are mediocre at best and usually venal. The question is how do we make those in power frightened of us and not be seduced by formal political processes.” – Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges
 Source unknown – misattributed between Stalin and Napoleon.
Born somewhere between the old world of Korea and the new world of New Zealand Isaac is an award winning writer, teacher of literature and nomad currently residing in Nanjing.