The Incel Problem is Older Than the Human Species

If I don’t get laid, nobody gets laid

People are afraid of a dark shadow looming on the horizon of our culture: a spate of angry men who can never get laid, and who take their frustration out on others violently. Names like Elliot Rodger are now synonymous with explosive acts of vengeful mass homicide. They are otherwise known as the involuntarily celibate – incels – and this essay looks at how to deal with them.

The incel problem is fundamentally a question of biology. The reason why the problem is so hard to solve is that the problem itself is a byproduct of a greater, more fundamental problem within animal species. This is why we can observe behaviour analogous to the violent human incel in other primates.

The essential challenge for females of sexually reproducing species is to find a breeding partner that is going to give the offspring the highest possible chance of success. Because the female investment in the production of offspring is heavy (compared to the male), the female is very choosy about who she breeds with. Because the male investment in the production of offspring is light (in a state of Nature), the male tends towards promiscuity.

This combination of high female investment and low male investment creates the possibility of multiple partners for high-quality males. This can be observed in extremis in walruses, but it is also evident in gorillas. Adult male silverback gorillas tend to control a small harem of females, most of whom carry his offspring. What’s more, this is evident in humans, only to lesser degree.

For the most part, the female of every species is happy with this arrangement. As long as she is capable of acquiring enough resources to raise the offspring, she might as well go for the best male genes she can get, even if another female already has done so. Because women have evolved to go for males with good genes and reject those without, given enough free female choice, a certain proportion of the male population must be incels.

Observing how this plays out in other primates, we can see why the presence of incels is a problem in human society as well. In other primates we can observe that young males who never get laid, and who have no chance of it because of the monopolisation of sexual resources by violent alpha males, stop contributing to the overall wellbeing of the tribe. They start to attack the other males in their tribe (the ones who are hoarding the females) and may even refuse to defend the tribe against outside invaders.

We can see, therefore, that the incel problem is older than the entire human species. The problem itself can be stated thusly: what can be done with men who are involuntarily celibate, and who have no incentive to fully participate in society? It’s worthwhile looking at how this problem has been dealt with historically.

Nature has developed a panoply of strategies for dealing with this problem. At the most primitive level, the incel problem has traditionally been solved with violence. The reproductive capacity of the female of the species can be considered a resource and fought over in exactly the same way as territory or bananas. So there was no incel problem – any male wishing to get laid simply had to find a fertile female and then beat the shit out of every other male she attracted.

Abrahamic religion is a particular way of solving the incel problem. The idea is that if all men get together and throw women under the bus, collectively, then every man gets one woman and that’s the end of it. Having more than one woman is a crime (bigamy), having sex with anyone outside of marriage is a crime (adultery) and divorce is not permitted.

This means that the number of incels, and their rage, is minimised by way of stripping all rights and dignities from women. The “Women’s Liberation” movement was a reaction away from this logic. Many intelligent women (correctly) came to perceive themselves as having been sacrificed to further someone else’s political objectives, and through their efforts the Abrahamic solution came to be seen as unsuitable.

Another potential solution might be described as the “Bonobo solution”, which is basically that everyone gets laid, regardless of any sexually unappealing quality they might have. This solution replaced the Abrahamic solution in the West, and is usually encouraged by the liberal consumption of drugs, listening to rhythmic music, and use of the contraceptive pill. One can observe the outcome of the application of this solution in any Western city on a weekend night.

The logic of this solution is that enough men get laid and often enough that there are no incels, because any male wanting to get laid simply has to hang around drunk women long enough and one of them will eventually let him have a crack. As a consequence, there is no incel rage to discharge. This strategy has arguably had a deleterious effect on the structure of the average family, but it has nevertheless persisted until very recently.

Today, the incel problem has taken on new forms. Because of the fact that socialising at a pub or bar is falling out of fashion, and because of Internet dating and apps such as Tinder, it’s never been easier for high-quality men to find willing sexual partners wherever they go. Commensurately, it’s never been easier for women to avoid low-quality men.

In other words, not only are there more incels than ever before but ever more of those are hopelessly incel. This has had manifestations already in the form of men like Rodger, but there are festering forms of it that might yet find dark expression. There are several online communities where young incels gather and where their rage turns to hate. Future political movements might exploit this energy.

It’s not clear how the incel problem is going to be solved in the future. Possibly with the (even) wider promulgation of pornography, perhaps state-funded prostitutes, perhaps teledildonics. The alternative to successfully redirecting this sexual energy might be some kind of orgiastic bloodshed that makes the Eastern Theatre of World War II look friendly.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

Te Reo With Mnemonics: Truth and Falsehood Words

Truth, to be true – pono

An adolescent boy’s parents are scolding him for his computer use habits, asking “Is it true that you watch all these pornos?”

Lie, to lie, Bullshit – teka

A salesman is asked by his boss how the day has gone. “Any takers?” the boss asks. The salesman shakes his head, and the boss accuses him of lying.

Secret – toropuku

A man reads something in a book, and shows it to another man. The other man rips the book into pieces, and says “Now it’s a secret.” He tore a book up.

Belief, to believe – whakapono

At a camping ground, a woman points to a cabin on a hill and says to a family “I believe yours is the far cabin, yo.”

Claim, to claim – kerēme

A woman appears on television and claims that “The claim of the country is that this is our best cream.”

to admit, confess, disclose – whāki

A man shows a strange looking contraption to some friends, and says “Now, I admit that this looks a bit fucky.”

The Maori word for ‘fact’ – meka – sounds like the English phrase “me car”

to confirm, confirmation – whakaū

Some spies are holding a man’s head underwater. They pull it out and say “Can you confirm what we told you?” The man says “Fuck you!”

to deny – whakahore

In a courtroom, a judge asks the defendant “So you deny that on the night of 12 August you did fuck a whore?”

honest – matatika

Some policemen show a video of a holdup at a supermarket to a seated suspect. They say “Be honest. Are you the mart attacker?”

dishonest – hīanga

A twenty-dollar note blows along the ground, and a man picks it up. Another man comes along and says “Did you see my twenty?” The first man says “Here? Nah.”

Fact, to be true – meka

Beside an expensive car, a man is pleading with a skeptical policeman. “It’s true that it’s me car! It’s a fact!”

to pretend, deceive – hangarau

A lady is hanging some clothes in rows on a clothesline. She says “I’m pretending to be a laundrywoman! Come, hang a row!”.

*

The above is an excerpt from the upcoming Learn Maori Vocabulary With Mnemonics, by Jeff Ngatai, due to be published by VJM Publishing in the summer of 2018/19.

The Holocaust Religion

If this makes you upset like the depiction of no other historical event can, you might be a follower of the Holocaust religion

Most people think that, with the decline of Christianity, there is no longer a religion that unifies the Western world. These people are in error, because the forces and social phenomena that led to the rise of every previous religion still exist, and continue to give rise to new ones. Not only has the Holocaust been mythologised to the point of being an actual religion, but this religion, as this essay will examine, is now the one that unifies the West.

Where history becomes religion is when you aren’t allowed to question it without facing strict censure. In any society, whatever it is that you’re not allowed to question is the mainstream religion, which has to be respected otherwise the transgressor will face the wrath of God.

Back in the day, you couldn’t question God or the Bible, else you be shunned and persecuted by your fellows. Now you can’t question whether or not the Holocaust happened. British writer David Irving got a three-year prison sentence for denying the Holocaust in Austria, and many Western groups would like to bring in similar laws in their own country.

There might well be piles of evidence that supports the contention that eleven million people were killed in the Nazi extermination camps, of who six million were Jews. This essay does not contest this belief. But there are piles of evidence for many historical events, yet questioning any of these is permissible – even such events as the genocide of the American Indians, involving ten times as many deaths as the Nazi genocide.

The Holocaust occupies a unique place in that it is uniquely unquestionable, taboo – sacred.

After all, you’re allowed to question everything else, no matter how obscene. You’re allowed to question whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or whether European colonisation of the New World was a good thing, or whether ghosts exist. You’re even allowed to argue that mutilating the genitals of a newborn baby is a legitimate spiritual or medicinal practice.

But question the Holocaust and people gasp and go quiet, and a dark shadow seems to fall, as if one was playing with opening Pandora’s Box.

In this new form of Abrahamism (perhaps we could call it Holocaustianity), the Jew is Abel and the Nazi is Cain. Hitler is the devil, the Germans the Romans and the Jew is collectively Jesus: enlightened, persecuted, innocent. The creation event is World War Two, when the Allies banded together to defeat the Nazis. This was the act that bonded the West together and created the modern world.

Because of the pre-eminence of the Holocaust religion among Western political and media elites, we’re led to believe that the deaths of the six million somehow collectively won us a spiritual peace or absolution from evil. This sacrifice replaces the sacrifice of Jesus as the one that we should all be grateful for; we should all grovel before the priests because of it. Questioning this narrative is worthy of rage, disgust, social rejection.

The charge of “Holocaust denial” is a modern way of saying blasphemy, the religion so blasphemed against in this case being the Holocaust religion. To suggest that fewer than six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust is to blaspheme. This is effectively a heresy, in other words a sin against God, and deserves to be treated as such, with the utmost contempt and censure. Germany even went as far as putting an old lady in prison for questioning this sacred myth.

The reason why this Holocaust narrative was chosen and given sacred status is not because of the machinations of some Jewish conspiracy, finally triumphant. It has arisen simply because it serves the geopolitical aims of the Western ruling classes.

Israel serves very effectively as a Western colony and beachhead in the middle of the Middle East, allowing the Western ruling classes to project power into that area easily, which keeps the oil flowing. If that oil stops flowing, the world population is set to drastically decrease, because that oil is the basis of the fertilisers that grows most of the world’s food. Hence, the presence of Israel solves an immensely important strategic objective.

To that end, the Holocaust religion has been promoted to dispel the sense of outrage that the Israeli presence in the Middle East would otherwise have. The Jews must have Israel, we are told, because the alternative is Holocaust.

Central to the Holocaust religion is the belief that Jews must be completely absolved of any blame in the events of World War Two. The Holocaust didn’t happen because of things like the Jewish support for the German Revolution of 1918-19, or the Jewish influence in the Holodomor that starved ten million Ukrainians to death. The creed states that the Holocaust happened because of the inexplicable unique malice of the German people, or at least the Nazi Party.

This means that anything Hitler is believed to have said is exactly wrong and something we shouldn’t do. Note that this has no relevance to what Hitler actually did say. It doesn’t matter, for instance, that Hitler said that Islam was a natural warrior religion and would have suited his vision for an all-conquering Germany perfectly – if a person criticises Islam, that sounds like someone criticising Jews and therefore criticing Islam makes you a Nazi.

Any discussion or line of discussion that leads to even the smallest likelihood of someone raising what some like to call the “Jewish Question”, like alt-right talk, is the forbidden fruit, and media figures like Lauren Southern are the hissing serpent that wants to corrupt the minds of the innocent. This is the power that the Holocaust religion has.

The curious thing is that America has just recently become a net exporter of oil, thanks to technological advances that have driven down the cost of recovering oil from shale and from tar sands. This means that the geostrategic imperative to prop up Israel is about to disappear. One can predict from that that the grip of the Holocaust religion will also fade.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

Writing Borderline Personality Disorder

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a condition characterised by extreme emotional instability and sensitivity to criticism. This means that characters with the condition are naturally well suited to dramatic fiction. This article looks at how to write interesting and believable characters with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Originally named because it was the label given to those on the border between diagnoses (in particular psychosis and neurosis), BPD has taken on a somewhat different meaning in recent editions of the DSM. Indeed, some believe the name is no longer accurate, and the condition ought to be renamed as something like “Emotional Disregulation Disorder”.

People with BPD tend to have extremely strong reactions to criticism. This is believed to stem ultimately from a weak sense of self, which makes them prone to being heavily impacted by what other people say about them. It’s as if they don’t have the same defences that most people have when it comes to accepting criticism and resisting bullying.

They also tend to have problems when it comes to interpersonal empathy. A character with BPD might seem a bit narcissistic or psychopathic to other characters because of their apparent refusal to take other people’s feelings into account when making decisions. Alternatively, they might perceive someone to be angry at them when they really are not.

If the protagonist of your story has BPD, it might be that they experience even mild criticism as brutal, sharp and denigrating. This could make them seem extremely sensitive, or even narcissistic, to other characters. The difference between BPD and narcissism in this sense is that a person with BPD can be reassured that the criticism was not intended to be wounding, whereas a narcissist would likely bear a grudge.

People with BPD also tend to have a very strong fear of abandonment. It is uncommon for them to feel secure in romantic relationships. A protagonist with this condition will probably experience a lot of thoughts of jealousy and suspicion going through their minds. They will frequently perceive their partner as flirting with others when they really aren’t.

A protagonist that gets involved in a romantic relationship with another character who has BPD is probably in for a rocky time. People with BPD tend to treat their lovers like a demigod one minute and dogshit the next. This is often very difficult for those lovers, who then don’t really know where they stand. The line between this kind of behaviour and narcissistic abuse is not obvious.

On the other hand, a character with BPD might be more than memorable in bed. The combination of emotional intensity, need for reassurance, and lack of inhibition can make for an incredible sexual experience – perhaps even enough to make up for all the insanity otherwise endured. A psychologist can tell you that this kind of treatment is liable to become addictive, which makes for a tumultuous time.

Realistically, an experience with BPD is more likely to be deeply unpleasant than it is to result in legendary erotic achievements. Self harm is common among people with the condition, and could be considered characteristic of it. If the protagonist of your story encounters someone with scars on their forearms, this could foreshadow some intensely emotional scenes.

If your protagonist encounters a character with BPD, they might realise something is amiss on account of that that character has dysfunctional life goals. The borderline character might seem to drift from one meaningless activity to another, with little awareness paid to the fact that they’re getting older and that time is passing them by. This might manifest as a nihilistic streak.

A character with BPD might be disliked by other characters, sometimes intensely, if they don’t have sympathy for the condition. Because people with it tend to be deeply wounded by criticism, they can develop a tendency to lash out hard at minor insults. This can make them antagonistic and grudge-keeping. Other characters might get the perception that they have to walk on eggshells around the borderline or else run the risk of being attacked.

BPD is around three times more common in women than it is in men (this is likely one of the main reasons why women are often seen as less emotionally stable than men). This can add to the difficulty of having the condition. If you’re writing a female character with BPD, that character might discover that other people don’t take their condition seriously, because their prejudice leads them to put it down to being a woman etc.

In the eyes of a protagonist who is encountering a character with BPD, the borderline character might just seem like a loose cannon, akin to certain other conditions like Schizophrenia and Histrionic Personality Disorder. Much as with those conditions, the risk of self-harm and suicide is often present with BPD. This is partially a result of the disinhibition that comes with the disorder but it is also the result of the fact that people with BPD tend to have difficult lives.

All in all, a character with Borderline Personality Disorder is a good choice if your dramatic fiction needs some more drama. Things are unlikely to remain stable for long with such a character around. However, care will have to be taken to portray such a character with compassion, and not make them seem like an arsehole.

*

This article is an excerpt from Writing With The DSM-V (Writing With Psychology Book 5), edited by Vince McLeod and due for release by VJM Publishing in the summer of 2018/19.

Cricket Is More of a Global Sport Than Soccer Is

Geographical spread of Soccer World Cup winners

Another Soccer World Cup, another champion from Europe. Everyone is waxing lyrical at the moment about how wonderful the Soccer World Cup is, and how it bring all nations together in harmony with a common goal. The truth, as this essay will demonstrate, is that cricket is more of a global sport than soccer by at least three major measures.

Geographic representation

As can be seen by the quarterfinalists of the recently concluded Soccer World Cup, soccer is still very much a European sport. Six of the eight quarterfinalists came from this one continent that contains less than 10% of the world’s population.

Over the last three FIFA World Cups, 23 of the 24 quarterfinalists have come from either Europe or Latin America. The single exception was Ghana, back in 2010. So only two continents are ever really represented by the finalists in Soccer World Cups. Asia, Africa, Anglo America, Australia and Oceania don’t feature – a group of countries that includes the world’s five most populous.

For the most part, only Europeans and South Americans really play soccer, but they are capable of getting an extremely high level of performance out of Africans that have been integrated into European structures. Sufficient evidence for this comes from the fact that France won the 2018 World Cup just now.

Since World War Two, only one team from outside Europe and Latin America has ever made a Soccer World Cup semifinal: South Korea in 2002, and they only advanced that far thanks to some extremely questionable refereeing decisions. Every single other semifinalist has been from one of two continents. This is hardly befitting of “the world sport”.

The Cricket World Cup, by contrast, brings the entire world together. The last Cricket World Cup, in 2015, featured teams from four different continents at the semifinal stage: Asia, Africa, Australia and Oceania. Teams from North America and Europe have previously contested finals, meaning the overall reach of the sport is greater than that of soccer.

Population

Some people object to the statement made in the first section of this essay. Although most are willing to concede that the geographical representation of soccer is not great, many will nevertheless insist that Europe is a great population centre and therefore can’t merely be counted as one continent. This may have been true a century ago, but no longer is.

The population of Europe is 741,000,000. The population of Latin America is 640,000,000. This means that virtually all of the Soccer World Cup quarterfinalists throughout history come from a bloc of 1,381,000,000 people, roughly 20% of the world’s population.

The remaining 80% of the world’s population – comprising China, India, Africa, Indonesia and Pakistan – essentially never get representation among the final eight teams of Soccer World Cups. India and Pakistan have both won Cricket World Cups, by contrast, and are perennial quarterfinalists along with Bangladesh, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

The population of India, where cricket is the only game in town, is 1,325,000,000, essentially the same as the combined populations of Europe and Latin America. This is a fact that needs repeating for those who think that soccer is the global game: the combined populations of the only places capable of competing at the top level of soccer only just equals the population of India alone.

Measuring population properly requires that we add, to the cricket-fanatic side of the ledger, Pakistan (pop. 208,000,000), Bangladesh (pop. 163,000,000), Sri Lanka and Australia (c. 60,000,000), plus several million others in England, South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland and the West Indies, where cricket might not be the national sport but is still one of the major ones.

Against this, soccer has much less overall market share in the countries in which it is popular than cricket does. In Europe and Latin America, soccer has to compete with volleyball, basketball, tennis, handball and golf; in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, cricket is completely dominant. Therefore, it must have more total fans in the world than soccer does.

Appeal within nations

Possibly the most crucial of the three difference between the sports is this one. Soccer mostly appeals to a lower socioeconomic demographic, for who the sport is an escape from the drudgery of everyday life, akin to a circus. Cricket, by contrast, appeals to a higher socioeconomic demographic, for who the sport is the complete test of mental and physical strength and skill and more akin to improvisational theatre.

Soccer players are frequently crude, brutal, thuggish. They cheat so shamelessly that many consider it part of the game. Cricket is a sharp contrast. Men like Rahul Dravid, Ross Taylor and AB de Villiers are complete gentlemen: gracious in victory and defeat, magnanimous, charismatic, serene. Former Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni is literally a prince. He is the upper class of the upper class, an aristocrat by any measure.

If any doubt remains that soccer fans are inherently more base than cricket fans, simply examine the writings of former cricketers like Martin Crowe and Kumar Sangakkara on CricInfo. There is no soccer equivalent.

What soccer is – and this is the cornerstone of its apparent popularity – is the McDonald’s of world sports. It’s a corporatised appeal to the dopamine-deprived brains of society’s lowest common denominator, which is all it can really be on account of its simplistic and luck-based nature. Soccer fans like to tout the ease of understanding the sport as one of its drawcards, but it reality this simply makes it boring to anyone with an IQ over 110 or so.

Over a billion people watched the final of the 2018 FIFA World Cup, according to FIFA themselves. However, more people saw the India vs. Pakistan match during the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The world record for concurrent viewers to a live-streaming platform was set at 10,700,000 earlier this year, not by the final of a European soccer league but by the Indian Premier League of T20 cricket.

What does it mean that more people watch a group match in the Cricket World Cup than the final of the hypefest that is the Soccer World Cup? What does it mean that more people watch the final of an Indian cricket league than the final of any European soccer league? It can only mean that cricket appeals to more human beings than soccer does.

In summary, the delusion that soccer is the “global game”, simply because it’s played in Europe, Latin America and Africa, has to end. Europe is now less than 10% of the world’s population, barely more than half of the population of India alone. If those Indians are to be considered people of equal value to the Europeans, it must be conceded that their passions are of equal value. If so, cricket is a more passionately-followed sport than soccer, measured on a global basis.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

VJMP Reads: David Seymour’s Own Your Future VII

A Liberal Vision for New Zealand in 2017

This reading carries on from here.

The sixth chapter in Own Your Future is ‘Immigration’. It starts with an attack on Winston Peters’s “twenty year racist dogwhistling campaign”, in which Seymour takes the opportunity to position himself as a crusader against racism and bigotry. This is a wise strategic move on Seymour’s part, considering that his party gets more votes from the foreign-born than any other. The Greens are also accused of racism for wanting to lower immigration levels.

Astonishingly, Seymour makes a passionate appeal to New Zealand’s moral obligation to help displaced refugees – but at no point in this book so far has he made any appeal to New Zealand’s moral obligation to help its own people, especially its poorest and most disadvantaged. Here Seymour comes across as the out-of-touch, highly privileged urban dweller who is horrified by a tennis ball to the head.

Ironically, Seymour pillories those who cry “racist” at everyone who claims that we need some immigration restrictions, despite doing the same thing himself on the previous page. This he does in an attempt to position himself as the supporter of a “smart” immigration policy, pointing out that no-one wants no immigration and no-one wants open borders.

He lists at length what he perceives to be the good things about New Zealand, as a way of explaining why so many people want to come here. He claims that New Zealand has a “generous” welfare system, no doubt by way of comparison to Samoa or India. Noting that New Zealand would be swamped tomorrow if we decided to throw open our borders, he seems to think it’s good enough for New Zealand to be doing better than the global average. No word about our domestic violence, child abuse or teen suicide rates.

He also makes some fair criticisms of the current immigration system, such as the absurdity of getting an investment visa from buying and holding for a few years a couple of million dollars’ worth of Government bonds. He laments the shortage of workers at tech companies and hospitals, but manages to resist the temptation of arguing that we need to attract them through lower tax rates.

New Zealand First comes in for special criticism here, with Seymour going as far as to claim that their “poisonousness” is “intended to hurt those who want to bring their skills and settle in New Zealand”. Seymour might not be aware that Maoris vote New Zealand First much more often than white people, so one wonders what he makes of this. Are Maoris racist for not wanting mass immigration? No-one knows.

There are many contradictions in this essay, many of them glaring. Possibly the most grievous encountered so far is when he complains that previous Governments have failed to make sure that the immigrants coming there are those who will integrate and contribute to economic growth, but in the very next sentence complains that those Governments only “reluctantly and begrudgingly” increase the refugee quota when concern about overseas suffering becomes “overwhelming”.

Anyone with the most passing familiarity with the situation in Europe knows that refugees are precisely the sort of person who are least likely to integrate, and who will offer negative economic growth. This contradiction is so glaringly incredible that it’s unclear if Seymour is being dishonest here or if this essay is simply poorly written.

Hilariously, Seymour is willing to grit his teeth and write that New Zealand doesn’t need “upper middle class foreign citizens flashing their bank accounts at us on their way through customs to get to a beach house” – when those people make up most of ACT’s voters. Also, we don’t need more Pacific Islanders “taking the piss” by using family migration to get their extended family “to come and live and take advantage of our generous welfare system”. Seymour writes this, apparently completely unaware that, earlier in the chapter, he pilloried New Zealand First and called them racist for saying much the same thing.

Seymour concludes this chapter with some virtue signalling about how our refugee quota is an “embarrassment”. He doesn’t appear to understand that keeping the number of Muslims and Africans low is the only way that the New Zealand population will remain favourable to immigration in general – this has been the lesson of the last twenty years in Europe. This contradiction is typical of what has so far been the most poorly written and argued essay in this book so far.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

Writing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an unusual condition in that almost everyone has it to a greater or lesser degree, but few realise the impact that it has had on their lives. As the name implies, the condition describes when a person’s stress levels or reactions don’t go back to normal after a major traumatic experience. This article looks at how to write believable characters and situations involving PTSD.

PTSD is caused by exposure to a traumatic event, usually one in which a person thinks they are going to die. The classic examples are exposure to warfare, traffic accidents, sexual assault or physical assault. Experiences like these cause the brain to flood with fear, which can form long-term associations with the other stimuli present. This means that future exposure to those stimuli can trigger that deep fear again.

The classic symptom of PTSD is becoming full of adrenaline and going into combat mode when exposed to a loud noise or a touch to the head. In the former case, the loud noise might remind a character of the explosions of grenades and shellfire in combat; in the latter case, the touch to the head might remind of early childhood abuse at the hands of a parent. In either case, powerful memories of immense fear can quickly come flooding back.

The effects of PTSD are what could be expected from a close brush with gruesome physical death: adrenaline and cortisol prime the character for either combat or running. A character with the condition might easily become stirred into fight-or-flight mode as a response to the trauma. Here it can be seen that PTSD has considerable overlap with other psychiatric disorders, in particular Panic Disorder, Avoidant Personality Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder.

Other effects are an increased propensity for self-harm. After all, one of the natural consequences of having a massively traumatic experience is that a person comes to realise that the world is much nastier or more dangerous than they thought it was. Some people with PTSD might decide that this world is actually pretty shit and not worth living in, given the horrors it contains.

In the case of violent crime or rape, a person might also come to lose all trust in a major societal demographic, which entails everyday difficulties. If a woman comes to distrust all men or a robbery victim comes to distrust all blacks, their life might become a lot harder and quickly, for no real fault of their own. Like children who have had bad experiences with dogs, a person with PTSD might come to dislike anything associated with their initial trauma.

Because PTSD is frequently portrayed in dramatic fiction, care must be taken not to write in cliches. The example of a nightmare leading to someone waking up in the middle of the night screaming, only to realise that the object of their terror is no longer present, is a striking one but also very heavily used. So too is the man staring into the distance, reliving a traumatic experience, not hearing someone calling to them.

A protagonist who suffers from PTSD might be aware of their condition or unaware.

If they are aware that they have PTSD, they might be a deep and sensitive character. They could be directly aware that a particular early life event has damaged them irreparably. This might be the reason for their unusual levels of compassion – the character knows what it feels like to be scared to death and commiserates with others who also do.

A story featuring such a character might be one about how they overcame their psychic damage and managed to find a way to engage joyfully with life. Often this involves healing oneself, the shamanic path. An extremely wise character may have attained their insight through having overcome an equally extreme trauma earlier in their life. Perhaps this experience caused them to understand what another character is going through.

It’s common to have PTSD and to be unaware of it. This is especially plausible on account of that people who incur severe psychological trauma might not show signs of it until many years later. A person might grow into early adulthood with a particularly surly or nasty character because of some heavy trauma incurred while a child. They might also show other signs of being strongly emotional, reckless or impulsive.

Just because a character with PTSD is not aware that they have PTSD, doesn’t mean that other characters will not be aware. In some cases it will be very obvious, because they will observe the first character go into kill mode for what seems like an insufficiently grave provocation. The character with PTSD might soon find that their condition is part of their reputation – they seem “damaged” in the eyes of others.

A combination of the two can also tell a story, such as the case of a protagonist who gradually becomes aware that they have PTSD or something like it. Perhaps they are perceptive enough to realise that a prior event has damaged their psyche – for example, they observe that they feel intense anxiety when presented with a stimulus that reminds them of a particular traumatic event.

If your protagonist encounters a character with PTSD, how that protagonist behaves might depend on their naivety and openness. A naive character might think that simply by being nice to someone with PTSD they can get them to behave normally. Although this is sometimes true up to a point, the reality is that PTSD often carries with it sinister undertones of bitterness and resentment.

It’s common for people who have PTSD for similar reasons to bond strongly over the fact. This is especially true in the case of soldiers, emergency personnel and survivors of abusive relationships. For one thing, misery loves company, but for another, severe trauma is often the kind of experience that deeply shapes a person and their conception of life and reality, so people who share the trauma often share an entire worldview that’s based on it.

C-PTSD (Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) isn’t actually in the DSM-V, but it’s worth covering here for the sake of completeness. Essentially it’s a similar condition, only brought about by repeated exposure to a traumatic person or stimulus, as opposed to one single, horrifying event as is usually the case with regular PTSD.

The major difference with C-PTSD is the loss of a sense of self. One’s boundaries are violated with such consistency that it becomes hard to say where one ends and the outside world begins. This can be related to Depersonalisation Disorder and frequently coincides with a deep sense of distrust about other people.

*

This article is an excerpt from Writing With The DSM-V (Writing With Psychology Book 5), edited by Vince McLeod and due for release by VJM Publishing in the summer of 2018/19.

Te Reo With Mnemonics: Rugby Words

Hooker – kaikape

A gorilla stands over a fry pan and stovetop. He is the cook ape. Someone calls out for him so he puts on a number 2 jersey and joins a scrum as hooker.

Fullback – haika

A team is waiting to receive a kick off, when suddenly the fullback breaks into a haka.

Scrum – kakari

A bunch of schoolboys form a scrum to break their way into a classroom. On the door of the classroom it says “Cookery”.

Drop goal (verb) – whana whakapiro

A player drop kicks a ball, and it goes through the goal but hits a row of fans and they all fall over. The drop goal was a fan fuckup.

Penalty goal (noun) – hāmene whakapiro

A player successfully kicks a penalty goal while a choir sings behind the goal posts. They try to sing in harmony, but they sound terrible – the penalty goal was a harmony fuckup.

Penalty kick (verb) – whana whiu

A player kicks a penalty goal, but the touchjudge is busy fanning himself as if it was too hot to pay attention. He says “I thought I’d just fan a few (minutes)”.

The Māori word for ‘penalty’ – hāmene – shares a h-m-n-e sound with the English word ‘harmony’

Penalty kick (noun) – whana hāmene

The kicker lines up a penalty kick while a choir sings behind the goalposts. Dancing girls come and fan the choir – they fan a harmony.

Referee – kaiwawao

A fight breaks out on the pitch and the referee runs in, blowing his whistle and shouting “Okay, whoa, whoa!”

Lineout – whakarārangi

A Maori boy runs through a carpark. His friend yells, “To the far car, rangi!” and throws a ball as if into a lineout. The Maori boy, when reaching the far car, leaps in the air to catch it as if a lineout.

Kickoff – tīmata

A player stands waiting to kick off, and an old lady yells at him to hurry up. The player says “I can’t kick off until I get the tee. Mother.”

Penalty – hāmene

The referee awards a penalty, and the crowd starts singing in perfect harmony.

Try – piro

A player scores a try and celebrates with a pirouette that a ballet dancer would be proud of.

*

The above is an excerpt from the upcoming Learn Maori Vocabulary With Mnemonics, by Jeff Ngatai, due to be published by VJM Publishing in the summer of 2018/19.

A Great Secret That You’re Not Privy To

If you’ve moved in conspiracy circles for long enough you will have heard the name of Albert Pike, and his prophecy of three future great wars, one which would see the old empires of Europe mutually annihilate each other, another that would see extreme nationalism and extreme communism mutually annihilate each other, and a third that would see Judaism and Islam mutually annihilate each other. This essay reveals a few truths about these prophecies.

In Pike’s time, freethinkers faced the problem of not being allowed to discuss intellectual subjects freely because of the paranoia of the ruling classes. This necessitated that free thinkers met behind closed doors, and that those who sought entry were heavily vetted. Recognising that these efforts to suppress the truth were grossly immoral, some schemers got together and hatched a scheme that would destroy all opposition to free inquiry and free speech.

Their plan was to use the principle of coincidentia oppositorum to destroy all of the corrupt institutional forces that made it impossible to honestly study and discuss the natural world and the things in it. This involved setting those institutional forces against each other in a series of wars, in blocs of equal power that would bleed each other dry. The kings would be first to go, then the dictators and finally the priests.

All of this is a great work of alchemy. As followers of this newspaper are aware, there are three masculine elements of iron, silver and gold, and each of them has a corrupted form that must be dissolved for the truth to shine through.

The corrupt form of iron was destroyed in World War One when the great European Empires that had developed from the military caste (i.e. the men of iron) destroyed each other. The corrupt form of silver was destroyed in World War Two when the great political falsehoods (i.e. the products of silver) in the form of national socialism and communism destroyed each other. The corrupt form of gold is destined to be destroyed in World War Three, when the great religious falsehoods (Judaism and Islam) destroy each other.

This is the great secret that you’re not privy to. Once you are privy to it, the rest of it all makes sense.

This is the reason why the Western world, whose politicians are beholden to the schemes of the great schemers, moved so certainly after the conclusion of World War Two to secure the position of Israel. The relentless pushing of the Holocaust religion ties into this as well – it has come to be considered extremely immoral to oppose a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.

The ceaseless propagandising on behalf of Israel serves two purposes.

First, it flushes out Jews from among Western populations and induces them to emigrate to Israel. Concentrating all of the world’s remaining Jews in one spot is an important precursor to exterminating Judaism – after all, if they were all in Israel it could be done with a handful of nuclear missiles.

Second, it primes the Western World for the massive retaliation against the Muslim World that we are intended to engage in once Israel is destroyed. The Illuminati scheme calls for the West, insane with rage and fear after Israel’s annihilation, to itself annihilate the Muslim world in revenge for their unthinkable crime against Israel. To this end, we are artificially being induced, by ceaseless media bombardment, to pay attention to the impending Middle Eastern cataclysm.

On the surface of it, allowing mass Muslim immigration to the West seems like absolute insanity. It has long been known that those who live among Muslims come to hate them, and for good reason, since Islam is an ideology of hate. Too many Muslims genuinely believe, as Christians once did, that their superstition is destined to rule over the whole world by the Will of God, and that violent acts that hasten this end are justified.

But stoking this hate is part of the plan. The people of the West have to be conditioned to despise Muslims so that we are motivated to provide the righteous flames of revenge to them after they destroy Israel. We become conditioned to despise them as a result of their presence and behaviour in the West. Therefore, opening the borders to them now causes Westerners to become ready to play their role in the third part of this great scheme.

Male infant genital mutilation is another part of it. Abrahamists would have you believe that the practice of male infant genital mutilation is not harmful and does not cause any trauma to the infant boy. To the contrary, it causes a massive amount of trauma, proportionate to having one’s earlobes sliced off, but this is desired and is intentional, because of the psychological malleability it produces.

This trauma makes the victim exceptionally receptive to certain suggestions, in particular suggestions to do violence against others. This is why the vast majority of the world’s terrorists, mass murderers and serial killers are mutilated. Revenge-fuelled outbursts of violence are natural for innocent beings who have been forced to undergo such a severe trauma for no good reason.

The three most notable areas of male infant genital mutilation are the Muslim world, America and Israel. The reasons for this are simple: these are the people who have been selected to play the starring roles in World War Three. Therefore, they have to be mutilated so that they’re submissive and malicious enough to follow the orders to destroy huge numbers of people when they are given them.

How this will come about has long been foreshadowed: Israel has been claiming for over two decades that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. Iran might be, Iran might not be, but the point is that it is part of the plan for them to develop nuclear weapons, and it’s part of the plan for them to use those weapons on Israel.

When this happens, the world will be so shocked, horrified and traumatised that we will be in a prime state to accept the introduction of a New World Order that promises to keep humanity permanently free from the great corruptions. This will involve the introduction of a world religion based on the perennial philosophy, and a world political system based on what we have learned scientifically from psychology and evolutionary biology about how the human species actually functions.

When this day comes, borders (iron) politics (silver) and religion (gold) will all be obsolete, because all humans will have been reunited with their birthright to know the truth. This will signify the end of the Kali Yuga and the start of a new Golden Age.

Of course, none of this really is a secret – you can find all these plans on the Internet if you have the patience to collate them. The real secret is whether or not what I’m saying is true. Is it truth, or it is bullshit dreamed up by some schizophrenic cannabis addict larping as a publisher while living at his mother’s house? You don’t know, you can’t know, unless and until you do the research, and in any case there’s nothing you can do about it. So enjoy the ride.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

How Mass Immigration Leads to The Loss of Freedom

The right to free expression is not a universally held cultural value, and can only be maintained as long as a sufficient proportion of the population support it

Historically speaking, the main reason why people have resisted mass immigration into their territories is because it usually leads to a loss of freedoms, in particular freedom to practice one’s culture. In recent decades, Westerners have been told that mass immigration to the West would not cause them to lose freedoms, but this turned out to be lies. This essay will examine how immigration, especially from undeveloped countries, leads to a loss of freedoms for the host population.

For people to have any freedoms at all they have to value those freedoms highly enough to assert them. If they cannot assert them, the ruling class will take them away. It can be seen in every society that, in order for people to value those freedoms highly enough to assert them in the faces of the ruling class, they have to share them in common, enough so to call it a culture.

Without a shared belief in the value of certain freedoms, they cannot be maintained. If only part of a population believes in a freedom, then the ruling class can ban it and not enough of the population will believe in it to assert it. Therefore, it will be lost. We can see, then, that freedoms are lost as soon as the proportion of the population that supports them falls below a certain level.

For example, naturally speaking, people are free to walk the land. There is no private property in a state of Nature, and originally there were no prohibitions on where one could go. Over the past 5,000 years, as something called civilisation got invented, this freedom was eventually stripped from the people by rulers who commanded men of iron able to use violence to drive undesired people away from certain territories.

The Swedes, possibly on account of the hard-won lessons of solidarity learned by their Viking forebears, were not willing to lose their right to walk the land freely. Thus, they asserted that right in the face of enclosures, and won what they call the allemansrätt (this was known as the Freedom to Roam back when Anglos used to assert this right). This means that Swedish people have the right to walk through property owned by other people as long as they do not come within sight of the main house (and some other restrictions).

Immigration is not likely to threaten allemansrätt anytime soon, but it is threatening (or has already destroyed) other freedoms, all over the West.

New Zealand Federation of Islam Associations president Hazim Arafeh voiced his opposition to a talk by journalist Lauren Southern in Auckland earlier this month, leading to it effectively getting banned by Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s refusal to approve a venue for it. Arafeh, in his attempt to get the talk banned, stated that “I don’t think insulting Muslims comes under free speech, that’s an abuse of freedom of speech.”

As everyone who actually values free speech knows, free speech is precisely what that is. The cultural value of free speech entails that the responsibility is on the listener to not chimp out when they hear something provoking. The reason why this is important is that it makes it possible to talk about things like rational human beings instead of keeping quiet out of fear, because this leads to resentment and then violence.

Satire, windups and pisstaking necessarily come under this umbrella, as do insults and criticisms of governments and religions.

Free speech acts as a safety valve that releases political pressure when the ruling class starts veering off path. An incompetent ruling class will always try to crack down on criticism rather than accept that they have been incompetent, and for this reason free speech must be ardently defended. The alternative is that ruling class corruption and incompetence becomes entrenched.

It is because the Anglosphere values free speech that we have never had a fascist or communist dictatorship come to power in any of our countries. None of Britain, America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand have ever had a totalitarian government, for the reason that our right to free expression enables us to criticise the bastards, and thereby to organise opposition, before they fuck everything up. Thus, no Hitlers, no Stalins, no Pol Pots, no mass starvation of tens of millions.

Arafeh, not being a Kiwi, doesn’t understand any of this. It’s not important to him. He will not defend it.

Islamic culture forces women to cover up because it considers those women responsible for the urges that their appearance might induce in men. The onus of responsibility is not on the Muslims, but on women, who are inferior, to moderate themselves. By the same token, the culture forces people whose speech it disapproves of to keep their mouths shut because it considers those people responsible for the violent urges that their speech might induce in Muslims.

The onus of responsibility is on us Westerners, as inferior, to moderate ourselves. We can see from what happened with Lauren Southern that Muslims are forcing us to shut our mouths in the same way they force their women to cover up – under the implicit threat of violence.

It’s obvious that if we had not allowed any Muslims to immigrate to this country, Arafeh could not have written a letter to Goff “on behalf of 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in New Zealand”. It’s equally obvious that if we let in another 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims, we will lose even more rights, because we can see this happening in other countries that have made the mistake of opening themselves to mass Muslim immigration.

Multiculturalism necessarily means that the only freedoms that remain are universal values that are supported by all people. What Westerners have failed to understand is that free speech is not a universal value. Most people on this planet are pathetic slave-creatures, not educated citizen-orators that can be expected to assert their rights through reasoned debate.

In short, we’re losing our freedom to speak freely because we’ve let in a lot of people who do not value free speech, and this is just one example. As shown by Europe, if we continue to let these people in, our rights to free expression will be further curtailed, and then the rights of people to walk certain neighbourhoods free of molestation will be curtailed, and then the rights of women to walk in public without covering up will be curtailed.

As long as banks continue to demand mass immigration for the sake of propping up house prices, gutless politicians will continue to placate those making the threats of violence for the sake of appearing to maintain order. We need to take care that our immigration policies don’t end up robbing us of our hard-won rights of free expression.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).