The Three Elementary Threats Used by the Ruling Class to Establish Compliance

In an ideal state, the ruling class doesn’t need to threaten people, because they will rule correctly and this will inspire devotion. Whether this is unrealistic or whether we live in a degraded age is unclear, but what is clear is that our ruling class threaten people a lot, sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly. As this essay will show, the ruling class has three major strategies for keeping the plebs in line.

The easiest way to keep the plebs in line is to starve them. Starvation is represented by the element of clay. In the old days, the rulers of the community would gather together all the product of that season’s agricultural harvest and portion them out to the deserving. Anyone deemed to be undeserving was given a smaller portion of food, or none at all. This is natural logic – one can see it replicated in lion prides.

If a child is seriously misbehaving, the go-to strategy for many parents is to send them to bed without any dinner. This is unpleasant for the child, because it plays on deep, primal fears of starvation. Much like a hand around the throat, which quickly gains compliance thanks to the fear of death, withholding food from someone can quickly cause submission. People are hard-wired to be afraid of hunger, for obvious biological reasons.

Starvation is more subtle than just denial of food. It can also refer to denial of the means to procure food, i.e. money. The way this is most commonly achieved in the modern world is to create uncertainly about the future of one’s job. All talk about economic downturns, mass layoffs, global financial crises etc. has the psychological effect of inducing submission among the plebs by stoking subconscious fears of starvation.

Some people often wonder why, in poor African countries, people still starve despite the enormous amounts of foreign food aid that is pouring in. The answer is that the people in charge of those poor African countries regularly refuse to distribute food aid to those groups thought to be enemies. If the dictator in charge comes from a particular tribe, he might withhold food aid to that tribe’s traditional foes as a way of settling scores.

Threatening to impoverish someone by taking away their food supply is the most elementary and primal way to establish control and compliance, which is why it’s so effective. This is the ultimate reason why men “follow orders”, even when those orders are criminal – the alternative might be unemployment, which means starvation.

Imprisonment is represented by the element of iron, and is the way that the ruling class threaten anyone they cannot starve. If you can access your own food supply, or earn your own wage with which to buy food, fair enough, more power to you. It means you have avoided enslavement at the level of clay, but the ruling class can escalate things to the level of iron.

Imprisonment is what happens to you if you break the law. The law is how the ruling class gets you to do things when the threat of starvation is insufficient.

The ruling class determines what the law is by drawing up a list of all the things they don’t want you to do. The initial list is one of all the things that common law has agreed causes harm to people, because making these things against the law grants the ruling class legitimacy. To this list they add certain things they don’t want people doing.

For example, the Western ruling classes have been afraid that if cannabis were legal, their livestock would be less productive. The belief is that cannabis use saps ambition, which our economy relies upon. This belief is warranted to some extent – cannabis use tends to cause a drift away from materialism, which implies less interest in money and consumption. So making it illegal causes the cash cows to grow fatter.

The threat of imprisonment is the threat of ripping someone away from their usual environment at gunpoint, and then putting them in an enclosed environment with people who have caused harm to others. Furthermore, if you don’t want to go in the cage the Police will kill you on the spot. It’s the threat of a deeply unpleasant experience, which is why the threat of iron is so effective at modifying the behaviour of the peasantry.

Ostracisation is represented by the element of silver. As silver is more subtle than iron, so is ostracisation more subtle than imprisonment. However, as silver is more valuable than clay, the fact that it is more subtle than iron makes it stronger, and not weaker. Ostracisation can affect people who cannot be targeted for enslavement in the realm of clay or iron, on account of that their behaviour is not objectionable enough.

The ruling class can still threaten to destroy their social reputation, and these threats are just as capable of insidiously affecting a person’s mind as the threats of starvation or imprisonment. Whispering campaigns and rumour-mongering are both capable of making someone’s life much less pleasant, and the threat of being subjected to these is often enough to induce compliance where other methods are inapplicable.

In practice, ostracisation is an extremely powerful tool, because all it takes to employ it is to tell enough lies about the target. A sufficiently motivated rumour-mongering campaign can blacken the reputation of even the most exalted of people. Such campaigns can be waged with the strength of thousands if the person spreading the rumours is influential enough.

Moreover, the clay and iron strategies of starvation and imprisonment only work if the ruling class has clear physical dominance. Ostracisation can be employed by any member of the ruling class, established dominance or not. All they have to do is induce people to feel contempt for some other member of the collective. They can also target other members of the ruling class with such means.

Ostracisation also plays on fundamental primal fears, because humans are a social animal, and the vast majority of us cannot function well without healthy social interaction. The real beauty of it, from the ruling class’s point of view, is that it’s always possible to change what’s fashionable within society, and therefore always possible to ostracise a person (or group of people) so long as the apparatus of propaganda are controlled.

Through combining these three major threat strategies, the ruling class is able to induce submission in virtually all of the members of the lower classes. These three are enough to cover the entire spectrum of man’s lower nature, and therefore are sufficient to appeal to all elementary human fears.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

The Gender Wage Gap Is Bullshit

Periodic outrage arises at something called the “Gender Wage Gap.” We are constantly being told that men are paid a certain percentage more than women because of anti-female discrimination and prejudice within the workplace. The problem is that the idea of a gender wage gap is absolute bullshit. Demographer Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, explains.

There is, indeed, a correlation of 0.23 between net median income and being male (and commensurately a correlation of -0.23 between net median income and being female). This is not a very strong correlation, and in this study is only on the borderline of statistical significance.

This does mean that men control slightly more of the nation’s money supply than women do. Some people, particularly on the left, make the assumption that all human population groups are precisely the same, and therefore any difference must be the consequence of oppression. The existence of a positive correlation between personal income and being male is taken as proof that women are systematically underpaid.

However, a closer look at the data reveals the lie in this lazy assumption.

The correlation between being male and having a personal income above $150,000 was 0.03 – essentially nonexistent. The correlation between being male and having a person income between $100,000 and $150,000 was even less than this, at 0.01. This shows that the distribution of the highest-earning jobs is almost perfectly even between men and women.

Indeed, we can see from Understanding New Zealand that there is essentially no difference between men and women when it comes to higher education. The correlation between being male and having a Bachelor’s degree is not significant, at -0.04, and for the postgraduate degrees the correlation is weaker still. So the equal share of educational achievement leads naturally onto an equal share of the top professional jobs.

The best-paid jobs in New Zealand are appointed on the basis of education and not gender. Further proof for this comes from the fact that the correlations between working as a professional and having any degree are extremely strong – around 0.80 to 0.90. The correlation between being a professional and being a male, by contrast, is not significant, at -0.10.

Nearer the centre of the earnings scale we can see that the correlation with being male rises, to 0.22, for an income between $50,000 and $60,000. This correlation is borderline significant, but it is in the wage brackets between $40,000 and $70,000 where the bulk of the nation’s income is earned. All of these wage brackets have a positive correlation of at least 0.18 with being male.

Lower down the earnings scale, we can see that the correlation with being male is negative for all income brackets below $30,000. It is a borderline significant -0.19 for the prime beneficiary’s income bracket of $10,000 to $15,000. Indeed, we can see that the correlation between being male and being on the unemployment benefit is -0.39, so women are significantly more likely to be bringing in less than average.

So if women and men are paid the same at the top levels, why do men earn more in the middle levels?

As mentioned above, the reason that men make more money than women overall is because of the fact that there are more of them in the $40,000 to $70,000 range and fewer in the $30,000 and below range. But the reason for this is not prejudice.

Most of this difference can be explained by the correlation of 0.48 between being male and being in full-time work. There is also a correlation of -0.48 between being male and being unemployed. Simply put, this means that men work a lot more than women do. Further proof comes from the negative correlations between being male and being on the unemployment benefit (-0.39), being on the invalid’s benefit (-0.26) or being on the student allowance (-0.21).

What this means is that the plum jobs are shared out equally between men and women, but the lower one goes down the socio-economic scale, the more likely it is that women will become unemployed instead. This makes perfect sense, because the less one earns the more marginal working becomes in comparison to spending that time on one’s family, and women are much more likely to make such a calculation than men.

The gap in earnings between men and women can be best explained, therefore, not by sexism or any other form of prejudice, but by life history patterns. Men tend to work hard as young adults and then work hard as older adults. Women, by contrast, tend to work hard as young adults and then transition to part-time work as they get older, shifting the primary focus of their concern from their career to their family.

What the statistics show is a very reasonable pattern of women starting out as professionals if they can, otherwise starting at the bottom and transitioning into family care as they age. Men also start out as professionals if they can and also otherwise start at the bottom, but the difference is that they tend to transition into managerial positions as they age. This is evidenced by the correlation of 0.49 between being male and working as a manager.

The “gender wage gap”, therefore, is best explained as the result of different choices made by the average man compared to the average woman. It has nothing to do with prejudice or sexism, and anyone claiming that it does is either misguided or lying.

*

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

A Universal Basic Income Would Pay For Itself In The Bitching It Would Prevent

The Internet is full of bitching about who is entitled to what and who is ripping who off. Endless back-and-forths that have been running for decades already, and sometimes for centuries before the Internet was invented. This bickering does a tremendous amount of social damage, fostering distrust, suspicion and cynicism at all levels. As this essay will examine, a universal basic income would pay for itself by settling much of this bitching.

One of the eternal debates relates to the pension age.

Our society is currently structured so that 64-year olds are made to work under threat of starvation, but 65-year olds are gifted $370 a week from the state until they die, no questions asked. A person’s life is radically different from the week before they turn 65 compared to the week after. Turning 65 grants you access to so much free money that it’s like winning the lottery.

The problem, from the state’s point of view, is that the pension already costs New Zealand some $16 billion dollars per year – a figure that is rising by about a billion a year. This means that there is a great incentive to cut down on costs by raising the pension age. On top of that, many argue that the current pension arrangement in unsustainable, on account of that people are in good health for longer.

Naturally, proposals to raise the pension age are bitterly resented by those close to it. Howls of outrage are inevitable every time the media raises the subject. Also naturally, those younger still, who have no hope of the luxury pension lifestyle that today’s elderly enjoy, don’t give a shit, and are happy to just laugh. Therefore there is bitter resentment on all sides.

We already have a universal basic income for those over 65. If we would lower the size of the payment to something more reasonable, and then extend the age limit all the way down to 18, would could get rid of the need to argue over the pension age entirely.

Another eternal debate revolves around making a distinction between the mentally ill and the lazy. The logic is that it’s fair to pay mentally ill people welfare because they can’t be expected to hold down a job, but it’s not fair to pay lazy people on welfare because it will just encourage them to not work.

The difficulty is, of course, that it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between the two. It’s not at all routine to find agreement between two psychiatrists as to whether a given patient is mentally ill or a malingerer. It couldn’t possibly be, given how complicated the average mind is and how long it takes to get to understand it.

In practice, there’s essentially no way to tell whether a person’s unwillingness to work stems from mental illness (thereby demanding a feminine solution) or a failure of the will (thereby demanding a masculine solution). There is no scientific test, so the psychiatrist just asks a bunch of questions and then offers a degree of help commensurate with how much they like the patient.

This means that a large part of the welfare apparatus – that devoted to distinguishing the “deserving” from the “undeserving” – is superfluous and could be scrapped at no loss. A universal basic income would remove the need for absurdities such as the requirement to get a doctor’s certificate every year or so to “prove” that one was too mentally infirm to hold down a job.

A mentally healthy person will not choose to avoid work, for the simple reason that employment is the only realistic way to meet one’s social needs today. Some people might need to take a break away from intense social pressure on occasion, and a UBI would help them do this. Then they could return on their own terms when able. This would prevent people from being ground down into destruction through the stress of trying to maintain employment with a mental illness.

Seldom does a person stop and think about how much social damage is caused by arguments about who is worthy to receive a basic level of financial dignity and who isn’t.

A universal basic income would settle all of these disputes in one stroke. It would say: there is no such thing as public welfare anymore, only dividends. Every citizen gets a basic dividend of the nation’s wealth, enough to stave off abject misery, no questions asked. No more squabbling about who’s paid in enough and who has been promised what.

There is a lot of talk about a looming financial crisis, and how we can’t lower interest rates to fight it, and will therefore have to print money. The last time we printed money we gave to the banks, and that didn’t help alleviate the human suffering. This time we should print money and give it to everyone to meet their basic survival needs.

If 3,500,000 people received a dividend of $250 for 52 weeks, the total cost would be $45,500,000,000. According to the New Zealand Treasury, crown income was $81,800,000,000 for the 2016/2017 financial year. That same link also shows us that the current cost of social security and welfare is $30,600,000,000, currently paid for by taxation and not money printing.

This means that we could scrap the entire social security and welfare bureaucracy, shift all of the funding for it to a UBI, and we’d only be $15,000,000,000 short. This shortfall could be made up for by money printing, or from increased economic efficiencies brought about by the structural change of every person having government-backed poverty insurance.

One likely side-effect of a UBI is that is will make many things much cheaper.

For instance, without the life-or-death pressure of needing to get a job before one starves, Kiwis would be much more willing to live in places with fewer job opportunities. This would create a drift to rural areas and release some of the demand pressure on urban land. Introduction of a UBI would, of course, mean the termination of the Accomodation Supplement, as there is simply no justification to live somewhere you can’t afford if this isn’t necessary for work purposes.

The fact is that New Zealand needs entrepreneurial activity if it is to succeed this century, and much of this will necessarily be Internet-based owing to New Zealand’s extreme geographical isolation. A UBI would make it possible for small start-ups to get off the ground in the smaller centres, because these start-ups would have much lower initial costs.

The rest of the value might be made up from the social benefits of putting a definitive and official end to all questions about who was worthy of Government assistance and who was a bludger, malinger, thief etc. Everyone gets $250, and when the rate goes up it goes up for all. Because everyone gets it, and the same amount, there would be no question over who is entitled and who isn’t.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Democracy Has Failed

It’s starting to appear that the democratic system now causes more misery and chaos than it solves. The ancient Greeks were well aware of its shortcomings, and now that our cultural decay is starting to become conspicuous, we’re learning about its shortcomings as well. This essay shows how democracy in the West has terminally failed, and what we can do about it.

In The Republic, Plato wrote about how the franchise begins with a small number of people and then gets expanded, in successive waves, to encompass everyone. When it does encompass everyone, it encompasses unwise people who don’t know how to keep their egos and desires in check, and these people cause the government to make bad decisions in trying to placate them.

Democracy leads to tyranny because people eventually get so fed up with the chaos, pandering and incompetence that they vote a strongman into power to sort it all out. This strongman usually rigs things so that it’s hard to get him out of power, and with that done, the system can become extremely brutal and autocratic. It’s a story so old that even by Plato’s time there were enough examples to describe a generalised form of it.

Democracy is to the people’s will to resist as a lightning rod is to the lightning bolt. The purpose of it is to dissipate energy so that it doesn’t do any property damage. Democracy takes the people’s anger about the way they have been abused and uses it to fuel this great ritual called an election. The point of the election is to dissipate the people’s anger by making them feel as if they are being listened to.

In order to keep people voting (and thereby not rioting), politicians have to keep up the facade that the people are in charge. If they can’t keep this facade up, then cynicism will become widespread, and people will start supporting other politicians or systems other than democracy. This cynicism, then, is the sign that a political system is failing.

Much like a fiat currency, a democracy needs to inspire confidence in order to keep existing. This can only happen if the people feel that they are in charge. Unfortunately for everyone, it’s now obvious that the people are not at all in charge.

The Brexit charade has now been going on for three years. It has been three years since the British electorate voted to leave the European Union, but not only is Britain still in, their rulers appear to have no clear plan for leaving. It’s obvious that the British Parliament has done everything they can to delay the process in the hope that it can somehow be abandoned outright.

There are many within that Parliament who appear to think it legitimate to work against the will of the people at the same time as drawing a paycheck for representing those people. They plan to force a second referendum and, if that should lose, a third. Some have responded to news of this plan with talk of civil war. Resisting Brexit has caused massive cynicism and resentment, dealing a crippling wound to British democracy.

The mainstream media, joined at the hip to the political class, pumps out propaganda as if there was a war on. The Economist magazine ran an editorial this week demanding yet another Brexit extension, at the same time as running a feature article about the danger of rising cynicism among the voters. All over the West, the mainstream media appears oblivious to how badly it has failed in its duty to inform.

In New Zealand, a similar situation is arising with refugees. It’s already more than apparent the vast majority of New Zealand do not want an increase to the refugee quota on account of that there are already 12,000 Kiwis on the public housing waitlist. Despite this, the Sixth Labour Government doubled that quota, knowing that most of the beneficiaries of doing so would be lifelong Labour voters.

Worst of all, the New Zealand First party that campaigned on a reduction to immigration is the same one that refused to table an objection to the doubling of the quota. This betrayal, among others, will further reduce faith in democracy among the very population groups whose confidence was wavering the most.

On top of all this, it has come to public awareness that pedophile rings operate at the top levels of government in every Western country. Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein were not outliers, but emblematic of a wider predilection among the ruling classes. Our ruling classes are literally raping our children en masse, and voting does nothing to stop the rot, as all of our elected representatives are on the same side as the child rapists.

It seems that the existing social contract is dead. There is no longer any pretence that the ruling class need take the opinions or even the wellbeing of the plebs into account. It’s now transparent that the ruling class make decisions based on what benefits them and their sponsors as a group, and the suffering caused to the lower classes is simply ignored as insignificant.

If it doesn’t matter when the demos gets overruled, left without shelter or raped by grooming gangs of predatory foreign men, then democracy is dead. What we have now is a tyrannical oligarchy held together by extremely sophisticated propaganda and a dogged refusal to allow any non-approved items onto the agenda.

The problem with declaring democracy dead is that there are a great many shitty alternatives to it. One of the foremost of these is the idea that the abolition of democracy constitutes a green light to getting rid of “them”. Authoritarianism is no alternative to democracy because it always leads to warfare, as authoritarianism naturally provokes all manner of people into becoming enemies.

However, that isn’t the fault of the observers, it’s the fault of those who killed democracy – the liars, the bullshitters, the opportunists, the narcissists and psychopaths whose conduct eroded faith in political co-operation. Let us not forget, the alternative to political co-operation is violence. For future co-operation to be possible, however, the three major failed ideologies must be rejected and a comprehensive understanding of inherent human rights embraced.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

Mummy Politics and Daddy Politics

If religion is for those who have outgrown their parents, as Freud had it, then politics could be said to be for those who haven’t outgrown their parents. The only reason why any person would want to vote for a ruler is because of an emotional juvenility that caused them to seek after a surrogate parent. As this essay will describe, there are essentially two reasons to vote for a politician: you either want a Mummy, or a Daddy.

When you’re a kid, it seems like adults have got a pretty good handle on what’s going on. In the majority of cases, your parents manage to keep you from starvation or death. Seldom does it occur to you that they’re doing this, at best, by their seat of their pants, and at worst, influenced by a pile of unresolved mental traumas that you’re about to inherit.

To the contrary: adults initially appear as gods, and then as either angels or demons depending on how fortunate you are. In any case, they know how things are. They understand the world, life and reality and can provide invaluable guidance. Their knowledge and wisdom seem limitless, as if they can genuinely see into the future.

The realisation that adults don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, no more than any monkey climbing a banana tree knows what it’s doing, comes as immense shock to many people in their teenage years. Most teenagers sublimate their dissipating adoration for their parents onto sports stars, movie stars, writers or musicians, and then use this to springboard themselves into an independent adult career.

A great number, however, don’t ever fully recover from it.

The shattering realisation that one’s parents don’t know what the fuck they’re doing leaves a gaping hole in the lives of many people. They need an authority in order to feel secure, otherwise they get panicky. This is probably an old instinct relating to herd behaviour. If this gaping hole is too deep, those people will try to fill it with a great power – either a religion or a government.

If a person decides that they need more government in their lives, it’s inevitably for one of two reasons. Either they need a Mummy, or they need a Daddy.

Mummy is kindness. Daddy is safety. These are the two fundamental motivations that lead a person to vote for a leader in a democratic system. These motivations have led to the formation of the left and the right wings, which closely correspond to Mummy and Daddy politics. After all, the right wing originally existed to keep the French king safe and the left wing originally existed to seek a kinder, more compromising position.

If a person is poor, they want Mummy. This is because poverty means hunger, which means one is slowly dying. Mummy’s breast brings absolution from hunger, therefore Mummy’s breast brings absolution from poverty. Mummy gets resources from elsewhere (we don’t care where) and gives them to us. Therefore, Mummy protects us from neglect.

Mummy rocks us to sleep with enchanting lullabies, and tells us bedtime stories about how the good guys win in the end. Mummy tells us how our side is morally superior to those filthy others, and how she knows that we’re going to get the bastards in the end. Mummy makes us feel warm inside.

If a person is wealthy, they want Daddy. Daddy keeps the thieves away by punishing them. If someone threatens me, then Daddy gets angry at that person to ward them off. If someone wants to take one of my ten houses away, Daddy smashes their skulls in.

Daddy keeps us safe from threats by laying down the law. He brooks no challenges the his authority. Daddy is Jupiter, laying down rule and order by application of might. Daddy causes our enemies to go weak at the knees. Daddy organises things, and gives orders that get followed.

Mummy politics secures resources for the needy, and it secures the home. This it achieves through soft words and smiles. Daddy politics keeps thieves away, whether those thieves come from inside or outside of society. This is achieved by hard words and threats.

Generally speaking, the older someone gets the more they prefer Daddy politics to Mummy politics. This is especially true once they secure their own income, because then they’re not dependent on Mummy anymore. Anyone who has not achieved independence will tend towards Mummy politics. Anyone who has accumulated enough resources to attract thieves will tend towards Daddy politics.

The Western democratic system has evolved, as per Duverger’s Law, into a plurality of different parties as it moves further towards proportional representation. This has meant that the duopoly that characterised the first-past-the-post system has developed into a multiplicity of parties representing different interests.

Nevertheless, the basic division between Mummy politics and Daddy politics still exists. The Greens might constitute an alternative to the old left, but it’s really just a better educated Mummy – a scientist instead of a kindergarten teacher. Likewise, the ACT Party is just a yuppier version of the old plutocrat Daddy who runs the National Party.

Those who don’t need a parent tend to not be interested in politics, unless they are trying to play the parent to someone else. If they are, they may be running a political party of their own.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The Three Failed Political Models of Our Time

There are three very popular political models in the West at the moment, each one promising utopia through its own path, if only it is followed. The problem is that these three popular models have all failed catastrophically, and furthering any of them only brings more misery into the world. This essay explains these models, why they have failed and what we can do about it.

Elementalism holds that there is an ideal form of everything, and a practically infinite number of degraded forms all throughout the Great Fractal. The ideal form and the degraded forms exist along the Great Masculine Axis, which is itself divided into the masculine elements.

If we take a perspective that divides the Great Masculine Axis into four masculine elements, we can see one ideal political form and three major groups of degraded political forms. These three groups correspond to the three sub-golden elements of clay, iron and silver.

Clay refers to Communism or Democracy. These two terms can be equated because the masses will always tend towards desiring the redistribution of resources, and will always vote for people who promise this when given the opportunity. This is essentially the hyperfeminine model, or the slave morality model. According to this model, the collective – and the needs of the collective – are paramount.

Iron refers to Fascism or Ethnosupremacism. This is the political model that has failed because is it hypermasculine. Like a severely autistic child, the iron model seeks to put the rest of the world to order by force, and doesn’t care if the world consents. The resentment and resistance that this model provokes is usually its downfall.

Silver refers to the hedonistic consumer capitalism that the vast majority of VJM Publishing readers live in (whether they wish to or not). This model is neither hyperfeminine nor hypermasculine, but is characterised by being an insipid compromise between the two. Its fundamental problem is that it is not enough of either. Hence, people who follow this model are usually nihilists or hedonists of some sort.

All these models oppose each other, and so the world seems to be forever at war, pulled between three different poles depending on which primitive instinct holds the most sway at the time.

The clay model of Communism, true to the slave morality that motivates it, resents those who follow the iron model (who are dismissed as “racists” or “fascists”) and those who follow the silver model (who are dismissed as “greedy”). The basic motivation of those who follow this model is to rip down those who distinguish themselves either physically, mentally or socially.

This model could be described as extremist horizontalism. It fails by destroying itself, because once all the capable people are sufficiently hindered then the society becomes incapable of anything. If anyone making an effort is ripped down, people come to adapt by not making any effort for any reason. When they do this, society can no longer be maintained by the free will of its members.

The iron model of Supremacism opposes both the clay model and the silver model for being soft – the former for being natural weaklings (“subhumans”), the latter for being moral weaklings (“degenerates”). The iron model is not compromising, and people who follow it intend to kill their opponents rather than work with them. Failing that, it’s enough to intimidate them into submission.

This model could be described as extremist verticalism. In this sense, it’s naturally very similar to military rule, in which every participant knows their rank and therefore their place. As mentioned above, this model fails because of the massive resentment it provokes. It seems to be human nature to seek revenge for acts of cruelty, and the iron model eventually falls under the weight of its many enemies.

The silver model of neoliberal Capitalism is a very centrist mentality in all sorts of bad ways. This model considers the clay model and the iron model to be two poles of the same axis – the axis of brain-dead, brutal state authoritarianism. Neoliberal Capitalism, therefore, is the path of freedom. The silver position has a lot of merit – but their solutions are far from complete.

This model sees the followers of the clay model as dumb and weak, and the followers of the iron model as dumb and strong. The latter may be more dangerous as individuals and in small groups, but the former are capable of gathering by the multitude and enforcing their will through sheer numbers. It isn’t entirely wrong – followers of ethnosupremacist or collectivist ideologies tend to be dumb. For this reason, the silver model tends to destroy itself rather than get destroyed from the outside.

It was neoliberal Capitalism that arose first from the carnage of World War II, the iron model having exhausted itself, and the clay model having been crippled in the process. As a consequence, we are currently living under the silver model. It’s certainly much nicer than being in a deathcamp or gulag, but unfortunately for we who live in it, the silver model is currently hitting its limits in every sense.

The American opioid epidemic is currently killing 150 people every day, a body count that cannabis and the psychedelics put together haven’t managed in over a century. In New Zealand, the suicide rate gets higher every year, and this upwards progression shows no sign of stalling. A sense is spreading that we are living in the End of Times, as when the Western Roman Empire was falling.

These political models may all have great differences, but they also have one quality in common – they are all materialist. This is why they have all failed.

The three great political models of our age have all sought materialist solutions to the problem of human dissatisfaction, not realising that spiritual suffering is equally as important as material suffering. The clay and the iron fight each other while the silver looks on from a pile of cheeseburgers – but none are happy.

What’s missing is the gold model, one that takes into account the Will of God.

The gold model is not such a thing that can be easily described. Plato had a go, at length, in The Republic, and this essay cannot hope to come close. In short, however, it can be said that the gold model will incorporate knowledge that reflects the true, eternal and untarnishable nature of consciousness. It will return the political realm to its rightful place, under God.

Organising civil society around a ritual that reconnected people with God – something like a reborn Eleusinian Mysteries – would allow for people to suffer less in the spiritual realm. Absent this spiritual suffering, they will be less inclined to attempt to satiate themselves through control of the material world, which is the mentality that underpins all of the three failed political models.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The Young Perish, and the Old Linger

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, King Theoden uses the phrase “The young perish, and the old linger,” to describe the accursed state of his kingdom of Rohan. The phrase strikes a chord, because most people can intuitively understand that society ought to exist to further the young, and that the old ought to gracefully let go of power when their time is up. As this essay will examine, New Zealand has become a place every bit as rotten as Tolkien’s fictional kingdom.

Provisional suicide statistics released this week by the New Zealand Chief Coroner are frightening in many ways. Not only do they reveal the highest suicide numbers on record (685 deaths in one year), but they also reveal a number of patterns once you drill down a level or two. The data is broken down by demographic factors, and these can be compared to previous years’ statistics.

Perhaps the most disturbing of these patterns is that the young are committing suicide at greater rates, while the old are committing it less.

The suicide rate for Kiwis aged between 20-24 was 26.87 deaths per 100,000 people last year. By way of comparison, the murder rate in Mexico was 24.80 deaths per 100,000 people in 2017. Some might be shocked to hear that, even with all the cartel violence and gang warfare in Mexico, our young adults are killing themselves at an even greater rate than Mexicans.

The suicide rate for Kiwis aged between 65-69 was 8.72 per 100,000 people – less than a third of the rate for people aged between 20-24. Old people in New Zealand don’t start to kill themselves in significantly higher numbers than this until they get to 90. The quarter century between the ages of 65 and 90 is now the prime of life for a New Zealander.

Compared to 2010, young people are killing themselves more often – the suicide rate among 20-24 year olds in 2010 was only 21.23 per 100,000. For all Kiwis aged between 15 and 29, the suicide rate was 18.88 in 2010 and 23.62 in 2018. All this means that young people are now killing themselves about 25% more often than they were in 2010.

However, old people are killing themselves less often. The suicide rate in 2010 for people in their golden years (between 65 and 84) was 9.20 per 100,000. By 2018, this had fallen to 8.36 per 100,000 – a decline of some 10%. The young perish, while the old linger.

These suicide statistics reveal a fact about our society that is rarely spoken of: New Zealand is an awesome place to be old, and is increasingly getting more awesome for old people as the economic balance tilts ever-further in their favour. However, it is a truly shit place to be young, and is increasingly getting more shit for young people.

New Zealand is an awesome place to be over 65 because there is a universal basic income for such people, of $370 a week. As Dan McGlashan showed in Understanding New Zealand, there is a correlation of 0.82 between being on the pension and living in a freehold house in New Zealand. This means that the vast majority of pensioners don’t have to worry about paying rent out of that $370 – most of it is disposable income.

If you already own a house, getting paid $370 a week just to hang out in it for a quarter century when you are aged between 65 and 90 is a sweet deal. Anyone owning their own house also has a permanent community, and therefore gets a strong sense of social inclusion. To get $370 a week, no questions asked, to enjoy that lifestyle is an incredible privilege.

There’s little wonder that the suicide rate is so low among people who have got it so good.

New Zealand is a shit place to be young, on the other hand, because they are the ones who have to work and pay for the luxurious retirements of the old. In order for our elderly to get $370 a week of free money for a quarter century, the young have to be taxed brutally. This makes it much harder for them to pay back their student loans, to own their own house or to raise a family.

Most pensioners in New Zealand are homeowners because it used to be possible to buy a house on the average wage in this country. Analysis shows, however, that the average wage would now have to be almost $80 an hour for young people to have the same chance of owning a house that their parents’ generation had. Young people nowadays face a level of financial desperation that their parents never came close to experiencing.

Studies have shown that financial pressures are the second most common contributing reason to suicide attempts, behind only depression. Stressful life events are powerful predictors of future suicide attempts. These stressful life events are much more common for the young, who face unprecedented levels of uncertainty over housing and employment. Unfortunately for them, high stress is all but inevitable as the Boomers demand to be catered for to the level at which they are accustomed.

In a normal, properly-functioning nation, the elderly will happily sacrifice themselves so that the younger generations can prosper. Knowing that the young are the next generation of themselves, the elderly are happy to lay the foundations for the prosperity of the young, even at their own discomfort. This has always been the case in healthy nations.

In New Zealand, the elderly throw the young to the wolves so that they can have more for themselves. Many of the suicides of young people could be prevented if we had a properly-funded mental health system. The old people who control the national purse strings, however, have directed almost every penny towards ensuring their own comfort, and have left the young to go without.

New Zealand spends $15,000,000,000 a year on pensions, much of that going out to people who don’t need it. Many people in their sixties and seventies run a business and get $370 of pension money a week on top of that. This colossal expenditure is evidence that our society is run to the benefit of the old, at the expense of the others.

Precise figures for mental health funding are impossible to find for New Zealand because of our district health board system. In Australia, though, some 5% of total health spending goes on mental health care specifically. We can assume a similar figure for New Zealand. Because we spend about $17,000,000,000 a year on healthcare, 5% of our total health budget works out to be about $850,000,000.

It’s not clear exactly what percentage of funding goes to those aged between 15 and 29, but assuming a figure roughly equal to that age bracket’s proportion of the population, we arrive at roughly $200,000,000 per year. Considering that New Zealand spends $400,000,000 per year on enforcing cannabis prohibition, $200,000,000 for the mental health care needs of an entire generation seems absurdly little.

And it is – it’s an absolute disgrace.

The solution to this state of injustice, and a partial solution to our increasing suicide rates among young people, is to lower the age of universal basic income from 65 to 18. This would allow relief from the insane financial stresses that are now levied on those young people.

Lowering the universal basic income age from 65 to 18 necessitates that today’s wealthy Boomers will have to share their pie with others, so we can expect that they will fight this suggestion tooth-and-nail to the bitter end. The overall outcome, however, would be a reduction in suffering, as the Boomers’ loss of luxury would be compensated for by the younger generations’ emancipation from poverty.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The Government Should Legalise Cannabis For The Rugby World Cup

Kiwis are rejoicing at the news that our owners have permitted us extended hours to drink alcohol on licensed premises while Rugby World Cup games are on this Spring. It’s true that anything that facilitates New Zealanders coming together in a spirit of goodwill is a good thing, and VJM Publishing applauds this move for the sake of the nation’s mental health. The really great move, however, would be to legalise cannabis for the Rugby World Cup.

A famous half-truth about New Zealand culture is that rates of domestic violence spike every time the All Blacks lose. The full truth is that domestic violence rates spike when the All Blacks win, too, because every time the All Blacks play, men get together and drink alcohol. When they do this, a certain proportion of them will end up bashing their wives and girlfriends (or kids, parents, brothers/sisters etc.).

Alcohol is great fun, and the value it has in facilitating socialisation and enjoyment of life cannot be measured. It’s impossible to quantify the quality of life improvements that follow having a really excellent time partying with alcohol, or the warm memories that come from having a great time drinking with friends, or the value of the friendships made because alcohol broke the ice.

On balance, alcohol is a good thing – but the negatives of it are considerable nonetheless.

As mentioned in Chapter 12 of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, alcohol is present in an estimated 30% of domestic violence incidents that the Police attend, and is believed to be responsible for 3.9% of all deaths in New Zealand. Including sicknesses caused by it and lost work days to hangovers or other alcohol-related conditions, the monetary cost of alcohol use runs into the billions.

Again, in no way is this to make the argument that alcohol is bad or should be further restricted. The problem is that there is no recreational alternative to it. You’re not allowed to go into town and watch the All Blacks at a cannabis cafe, and you’re not allowed to sit in a town square and watch a public big screen while smoking a joint. You’ll get arrested and put in a cage.

If you want to socialise with other people this Rugby World Cup, you get the same deal as at all other times. Drink alcohol or just fuck off back home.

Imagine a Rugby World Cup where Kiwis could come together without being pressured into consuming alcohol in order to socialise. This would finally mean that there was a recreational alternative for all those people who knew that they weren’t good on alcohol (arguably some 20% of the population).

It’s not a secret that the participants in most of those 30% of domestic violence incidents will be people who already know that sometimes they don’t behave well on alcohol. Imagine if these people were able to use a recreational substance that allowed them to be part of the festivities but which did not have the side effect of inducing them to get violent or aggressive. Many of them would take it – to everyone’s benefit.

Liberalising drinking hours for the duration of the Rugby World Cup might lead to more violence, sexual assaults and people killed in car wrecks, but it need not do so. If the purpose of liberalising such laws is to create a festival atmosphere for the duration of the tournament (and nothing can bring the country together like a Rugby World Cup), then it is possible for us to have our cake and eat it.

The way to achieve this is to legalise cannabis for the duration of the Rugby World Cup.

This would not mean a repeal of cannabis prohibition, at least not yet. What it would mean is a moratorium on arrests for public outdoors cannabis use for the duration of the tournament (or at least for as long as the All Blacks are still in it). We could pass a law that said, while the World Cup was in progress, Police would ignore public possession, use and personal trading of cannabis (although commercial enterprises would still be illegal).

This would mean that people could smoke cannabis in public as they can now smoke tobacco. They could meet in bonds of love, and share good cheer with a smile and a laugh, as alcohol users are permitted to do.

One can confidently predict the result of such a move, because one can observe how people behave in places where cannabis is already legal. Making cannabis legal for the duration of the Rugby World Cup would serve to create a relaxed, convivial, celebratory atmosphere for what is arguably the Kiwi nation’s most cherished quadrennial religious festival. It would create many good memories.

This will have several benefits over and above creating a festive atmosphere. It would also show New Zealanders that they don’t necessarily have to shit and piss their pants in fear at the thought of cannabis law reform. If cannabis users were given the opportunity to show that their behaviour was preferable to drunks they would probably take it. It would allow for a much better-informed cannabis referendum debate.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The First Shall Be Last And The Last Shall Be First

The phrase “The first shall be last and the last shall be first” is mentioned in many different spiritual or religious contexts, perhaps most famously in the Bible. It refers to a Nietzschean revaluation of all values, where the existing social order is completely inverted. This essay takes a detailed look at the various ways that such an inversion can happen.

There are four realms of elemental alchemical energy: the realm of clay, the realm of iron, the realm of silver and the realm of gold.

When one transitions from one realm to another, it inevitably means that the previous social order is upset, often to the point of being completely reversed. Sometimes it means that the very actions that led to success (or failure) in the one realm lead to the exact opposite result in the new realm.

For instance, large men with big muscles dominate in the realm of iron, because they are better at fighting. But if their group should transition into the realm of clay, the base survival level, being big is a disadvantage. In a state of resource scarcity, the largest individuals have the greatest stress trying to obtain enough resources to meet their metabolic needs. The best fighters tend to be the worst scavengers.

When Jesus used this phrase, he was referring to the transition from the realm of silver to the realm of gold. The time that Jesus lived in was one when the advances of civilisation had led to a grossly materialistic culture. He was warning those who benefitted from that materialism that their positions at the top of the hierarchy weren’t as secure as they wanted to think.

There are other transitions: from iron to silver reflects the imposition of an age of peace, from silver to iron represents the collapse of a peaceful age into a one of war etc.

In all of these transitions, there is an element of the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The man of silver, whose gregarious and social nature makes him the dominant party during peacetime, usually becomes a weakling when society transitions into the realm of iron. Likewise, the man of iron, whose physical courage and unyielding nature makes him a war hero, becomes a criminal delinquent when society transitions into the realm of silver.

On Earth, it’s possible to accumulate vast wealth and power. Doing so for the sake of rising in social status is something that is common to all social animals, and in the realm of silver it will increase your position on the hierarchy. Upon the death of the physical body, however, the connection to all of that wealth is lost, and one’s soul stands before God once again.

Should it be God’s judgment that your wealth was accumulated at the cost of other people’s suffering, then your likely fate is to be reincarnated into a world where people behave like you did. Your next life, then, will be fraught with the suffering caused by greed. You will, of course, not complain, because before God you will understand that it’s perfectly fair for you to reincarnate in a world full of beings on the same frequency as yourself.

By this means, a man who could have been the very highest of all in one material world might become the very lowest of all in the next one.

This is not at all to imply that it’s immoral to be wealthy. It’s entirely possible that a person’s great wealth is the result of being showered in gratitude by the multitudes who that person has helped. There’s no reason to automatically assume that any given fortune was acquired by crime. It’s simply a fact that advantage in one realm does not correlate with advantage in the next one.

On the other side of the divide, there are many people today who possess vast spiritual knowledge but who sit at the bottom of the social hierarchy on account of that such knowledge is not valued. We may live in a degenerate age, perhaps even a Kali Yuga. This means that the sort of person who once concerned themselves with spiritual knowledge is now inevitably an outcast.

The knowledge that is valued today is that which causes one to grow in material power or wealth. Spiritual knowledge, and the desire for spiritual knowledge, are more or less considered mental illness. Those who currently rule the West are so utterly Godless that they have pathologised the very belief in God. We have fallen very far from the realm of gold.

Once upon a time the spiritual man would have been a shaman or a sage, and warrior-kings would come to speak to them about things that no-one else understood, and their advice would thereby lighten the suffering of many myriads. Great witches, likewise, would have been consulted on decisions that set the course of kingdoms and empires.

Today we look at the shaman or witch and, instead of seeing a person whose mind is set on the spiritual at the expense of the material (and therefore holy), we see one whose mind is set on delusions at the expense of the real (and therefore diseased). We see a psychotic to be treated with disdain rather than a visionary to be treated with regard.

However, the time may come when a revolutionary spirit is stoked and when the shackles of materialism are thrown off. It’s already apparent to many that the obsessive focus on GDP growth at the expense of all else is causing more misery that it’s alleviating. A transition to another realm could involve the introduction of a new Golden Age onto the Earth.

The world is rapidly approaching a revolutionary transition between realms in any case. The elite governments of our world are hopelessly corrupt, and awareness of this is spreading faster than ever (a process that some are describing as The Great Awakening). The pre-existing fractures in our society will not be able to survive the stresses that are coming.

Perhaps the first shall become last in the sense that the elites of one corrupt system are cast down when it is overthrown, and the last shall become first in the sense that the good people who were kept down by corruption will rise to their natural place in the hierarchy. The best thing is to work on raising one’s own frequency so that one can take the right measures when the time comes.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

The Advertising Standards Authority is Becoming the Ministry of Truth

In George Orwell’s 1984, one of the major departments of the Big Brother government is the Ministry of Truth. Ostensibly, the purpose of this division is to determine truth from falsehood, and to discourage the latter from being spoken or written. The reality, of course, is much more sinister. New Zealand is seeing the emergence of its own Ministry of Truth, in the form of the Advertising Standards Authority.

New Zealand doesn’t have a constitution, but we do have a Bill of Rights Act. Modelled on the American constitutional version, our Bill of Rights Act is meant to clearly delineate the areas in which the Government may not act to restrict our freedoms. Section 14 of this Act describes the right of every New Zealander to “freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

The right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things that aren’t true. I’m allowed to say that the world is flat. I’m allowed to say that cannabis has no medicinal value. I’m allowed to say that the Germans started World War Two. I’m allowed to say that a warlord who raped a nine-year old was the perfect man, that consciousness is extinguished when the physical body dies or that anyone who doesn’t worship Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef is going to burn in eternal hellfire.

I’m even allowed to write an entirely fictional novel about a two Anzac machine cultists and a machine that can control minds by satellite (as I did here), and present it as if were true for the sake of taking the reader for a ride.

Not only am I allowed to express any number of false ideas, but I’m allowed to express them in any form.

The first sign that alerted New Zealanders to the monster that the Advertising Standards Authority was becoming was the actions it took over the One Treaty One Nation flyers, published by the 1law4all movement. In an incredible act of arrogance, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that these flyers were not allowed to be distributed.

Incredibly, they ruled that speaking of the benefits of colonisation to the various Maori tribes “was likely to cause offence”, and was therefore verboten. Maori alt-media figure Tim Wikiriwhi wrote about how he did not find the flyer offensive, calling the Advertising Standards Authority’s move “yet another example of patent hypocrisy and pretentious arrogance against a legitimate political perspective that is calling for the abolition of treaty separatism.”

New Zealanders have the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, there is no Governmental agency that can arrogate to itself the right to decide when we’re not free to express ourselves. Unfortunately, evil individuals and groups have the free will to defy and deny these rights if we can’t stop them.

The Advertising Standards Authority shows no sign of wanting to end their power trip any time soon. Their latest effort involves forcing themselves into the political arena, by claiming the right to decide which political statements are permissible and which are not. Ominously, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that an advertisement made by the National Party “will be investigated for being potentially misleading.”

This move is in line with the wider agenda of the Sixth Labour Government to crack down on free speech by censoring everything that doesn’t suit their narrative. Megalomaniacal “Justice” Minister Andrew Little has already suggested as much. He weighed in on the issue to promote his pet project of criminalising hate speech by saying that the flyer “peddled myths” and calling its author an “ignorant fool”.

Given that it’s a fairly extreme move for a Government Minister to take to the mainstream media to insult and threaten a private citizen who is acting within his rights, many will be astonished to find out what the flyer actually claims. It’s actually a very tame document that merely asserts obvious and well-known truths, such as the fact that Maoris benefitted from colonisation.

The grim fact is that New Zealand is rapidly moving towards the point where we will only be allowed to express opinions that are on a pre-approved Government list. We are aided towards this miserable goal by entities such as the Advertising Standards Authority, who are acting exactly like 1984‘s Ministry of Truth.

The solution is to organise around the Sevenfold Conception of Inherent Human Rights. This would involve all true Kiwis agreeing that we have the God-given right to free expression, and that this right cannot be abrogated by arrogant shitheads in Parliament, no matter how narcissistic they are.

This would necessitate that all Kiwis agree to what is known as the Right of Silver, which is that all of us have the right to free expression, and that no Kiwi shall act to abrogate the right of any other Kiwi’s free expression. This means we agree that anyone acting to abrogate this right is an enemy of the New Zealand people on account of that they cause us suffering.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.