Class Consciousness Is Dead – And It Was Murdered

Class consciousness was once widely understood to be the vehicle that the workers would use to liberate themselves from the divide-and-conquer tactics of the rulers. For that reason, the rulers sought to oppose the flourishing of class consciousness wherever they could. Today, class consciousness is dead – and we can tell you how it was killed.

From the point of view of the ruling class, watching class consciousness take root is like being a feudal lord and watching the peasantry assemble outside your manor with pitchforks and burning torches. You know that you’re going to have to do something about it sooner or later, or risk losing your position.

For the rulers of our society, it’s an imperative to destroy class consciousness wherever they can.

For a long time, the go-to tactic for destroying class consciousness was virulent nationalism. The ruling class had learned that they could take the hate and anger ordinary people had as a result of their suffering, and channel it towards rival neighbours. All they had to do was subject their working classes to several years of propaganda about how the neighbouring nation was evil, and then those working classes could safely be marched off to kill each other, at no threat to the rulers.

The ruling class eventually overplayed their hand. After the Hemoclysm of World Wars I and II, class consciousness made a resurgence. Although fraternisation between opposing troops was rare, it was common enough that the average soldier was able to figure out who their real enemy was – their real enemy was behind them all along.

Returning to the West, these soldiers brought with them an immensely strong class solidarity and a dogged refusal to allow the ruling class to divide and conquer them. This powerful class consciousness set the stage for the economic boom times of the 1950s and 60s. Because class consciousness was so strong, wages were high and working conditions were favourable. One worker could easily buy a house and raise a family on one wage.

The extreme unfashionability of nationalism meant that workers were no longer willing to kill another man simply because he wore a different uniform. The ruling class needed a new way to divide and conquer the workers. The ongoing Civil Rights Movement would provide the inspiration for their next strategic advance.

The masterstroke was to divide and conquer the workers in the exact opposite way to how they were divided and conquered before 1945. Thus, the workers never saw it coming. Whereas they were once united along ethnic lines, now they would be divided among them. Since the advent of neoliberalism, which was when the ruling class started to win back the territory they had lost over the previous 40 years, the working class has been divided among racial lines.

The secret to this has been manipulating a rise in the level of racial consciousness. The logic was that, if racial consciousness could be increased beyond a certain point, both working-class and middle-class people of the same race would come to see each other as being on the same team, and start to see people of the same class but a different race as being on a different team. With this achieved, working-class people of any race would stop fighting for their class interests.

To that end, the ruling class directed their lackeys in the mainstream media to overemphasise racial issues and underemphasise class issues. Any incident of racial conflict was magnified out of proportion and made to appear a terrible evil, while measures that damaged the working class were trivialised or made to appear inevitable (and therefore not objectionable).

Thanks to all of this, the number of people who identify with their race first and foremost has increased sharply, while the number of people who identify with their class first and foremost has decreased. People now say “If Maoris do well, then New Zealand does well,” but no-one ever says “If the working class does well, then New Zealand does well.” They used to – back in the days when class consciousness existed.

Wages were much higher back in the days when class consciousness was stronger than race consciousness, as was housing affordability, which ought to provide a couple of clues as to why it’s important. Sadly, not enough people get it.

Today, the ruling class knows that it can divide the working class neatly in two, simply by appearing to exclusively help the non-white half. They don’t have to actually help them – the Government gives with one hand and takes away with the other – they just have to give the impression that they do, and that they’re ignoring the white proportion of the working class.

As they do this, they tell the non-whites that this advantageous treatment is the result of past white racism. When the whites complain about being demonised, they’re told to suck it up because of the crimes of their ancestors. The outrage and resentment that naturally arises from this inevitably causes the working class to disintegrate from bickering. Then the ruling class laugh and go back to their gated communities.

The reality is that class consciousness is by far the greater threat to the ruling class’s stranglehold on our society than race consciousness ever could be. It allows the working class to present a united front to their rulers, which makes their negotiating position much stronger, and consequently their wages much higher.

A smart person will ask themselves, the next time they see a racial issue being blown out of all reasonable proportion in the mainstream media: what important issues is this hysteria intended to distract me from? In most cases, a small amount of investigation will reveal a class issue that our rulers would rather sweep under the rug. Racial issues were always a distraction from class issues, and the focus on them has made the working class much poorer.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

How To Get Rid Of The 5% Threshold Without Empowering Extremists

New Zealand runs elections under a Mixed Member Proportional system, meaning that parties contesting the election win a number of seats in Parliament proportional to how many votes they receive. This system has advantages and disadvantages, one of the latter being that it facilitates extremists coming to Parliament. Various methods have been adopted to counter this, such as a 5% threshold – this essay suggests a more elegant solution.

As John F Kennedy warned us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” Although it’s never admitted, the purpose of the democratic system is to pre-empt the violence that inevitably follows when people are not given a say in their own destiny. The problem with totalitarianism is that people resent it, and if they resent it enough they end up killing their rulers.

Democracy is a charade in which the ruling class pretends to take the opinion of the working classes seriously, in exchange for a dampening of revolutionary sentiments among those working classes. If the ruling class can successfully placate the workers, then they can continue to do as they please. If they cannot, then resentment will arise, and this will eventually lead to radical extremism.

Kennedy might have warned us that a 5% threshold to get into the New Zealand Parliament creates a number of problems.

It is set so high that no new party has ever crossed it. In 24 years of MMP elections, the only parties to achieve representation apart from National and Labour were parties that broke away from them (New Zealand First and United Future from National, ACT from Labour, the Greens from the Alliance that itself broke from Labour).

The ruling class considers this a win, but the people consider it a great loss. It has meant that no opinion, other than the mainstream ones, can find expression in Parliament. Only those opinions that have been so thoroughly vetted and curated by the Establishment that they pose no threat are allowed into the House of Representatives. This does little to soothe the people’s feelings of frustration.

It could be argued that having a 5% threshold leads directly to outcomes like the Christchurch mosque shootings. The mass immigration of the last half a century has caused immense resentment among the many who have lost out from it, but their voices are silenced by a system that profits heavily from the cheap labour. Sentiments like these are liable to boil over into xenophobic violence on occasion – a pattern that has been seen all around the world.

There is a possible solution to these tensions – one that has never previously been tried. This is to firstly scrap the 5% threshold, and secondly for each voter to have three votes instead of one. Two of the votes can be cast for any candidate or party, much like the current system, but one vote can only be cast against a candidate or party. This anti-vote cancels out one of someone else’s votes for that candidate or party.

Having two positive votes, one negative vote and no threshold means that (in theory) small parties who do not engender hatred can still achieve representation in Parliament, while the extremists who do engender hatred get eliminated by the negative votes.

Parties like the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, Social Credit, or The Opportunities Party, who have unfashionable ideas but who are not malevolent or extremist, ought to be able to take some seats in Parliament. The ideas that these parties represent are long overdue for serious consideration, but the 5% threshold has prevented them from ever being represented.

Other parties like the New Conservatives, who combine popular ideas like ending mass immigration with horrendous human rights abuses like increasing penalties for cannabis use, are the reason for the 5% threshold in the first place. It was precisely to keep aggressive, narcissistic, Bible-thumping morons like them away from power that it was invented.

In practice, we could expect that parties like the New Conservatives would attract a high number of negative votes. If the total number of negative votes for a given party was greater than the total number of positive votes, they would receive no seats in Parliament. Therefore, the ability to cast a negative vote would mean that human rights abusers could be kept out of Parliament, but not at the expense of other small parties who have ideas the country needs to hear.

Then again, Germany has a 5% threshold (our version of MMP was modelled on theirs) and they have six parties currently polling well over that. So it could be argued that the New Zealand political class severely lacks imagination, which is the reason why no party other than Labour, National, Greens or New Zealand First has ever presented a compelling enough case to get over the threshold.

The positive/negative vote model would allow our electoral system to not only measure and weigh the sympathy of the public for the various political platforms, but also to measure and weigh their antipathy for those platforms. The biggest advantage with this suggestion is that platforms that inspired disgust, hatred and contempt would now find themselves judged for that, instead of getting away with it.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Would Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income Scheme Work In New Zealand?

Of all the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the American Presidential Election later this year, none have the intellectual pedigree of Andrew Yang. From the demented Joe Biden to the snotty Elizabeth Warren to the weakling Bernie Sanders, the Democratic field seems mediocre in comparison. This article discusses one of Yang’s most popular ideas – the Universal Basic Income – and whether it’s applicable to New Zealand.

The maths is hard to escape.

Let’s assume we directly adopt Yang’s proposal of $1,000 per month, no questions asked, for every qualifying adult, with no adjustment made for the exchange rate. This equals $12,000 per year per person over 18. As there are at least 3,667,000 such adults in New Zealand, a UBI would require an expenditure of around $44,000,000,000 per year. This a hefty sum of money – but it’s a good deal for New Zealand if the costs of not having a UBI would be greater.

Yang suggests that he would pay for a UBI mostly by consolidating welfare programs and by introducing a 10% VAT on all goods and services.

Something that many UBI opponents fail to consider is that the introduction of a UBI would obviate the need for almost all benefits, which could then be scrapped. The unemployment benefit, the sickness benefit, the invalid’s benefit, the student allowance and the pension could all be shitcanned in one go. This means all the bureaucracy and expense associated with them would also go.

The Government spent $34,000,000,000 on welfare last year, a figure that includes the cost of running the welfare bureaucracy. The Ministry of Social Development, in a manner of speaking, is the welfare bureaucracy – it employs public servants in over 200 different locations around New Zealand. It’s a titanic institution.

With a UBI, all of those public servants would be made redundant, the bureaucracies that employ them would be wound down, and the 200 locations that currently house them sold off. As the Ministry of Social Development costs $27,000,000,000 a year to run – and that’s only the core expenses – getting rid of all this would provide 70-75% of the required funding for a UBI.

The Government brought in around $22,000,000,000 last year from the Goods and Services Tax, currently set at 15%. The GST is a tax beloved of modern Governments because it’s hard to avoid – pretty much every legitimate business has to account for it. Also, being a consumption tax, it’s all but unavoidable even for the most miserly person. Even if you only spend $200 a week to keep yourself alive, you will pay $30 in GST that week.

America doesn’t have a federal GST, so the introduction of one at 10% would be the equivalent of New Zealand raising ours from 15% to 25%. Most European countries have GST rates of between 20% and 25%, so this would be nothing extraordinary.

It’s not guaranteed that increasing GST to 25% (i.e. a relative increase of 67% compared to the 15% it is now at) would necessarily increase GST take by a proportionate amount. Higher taxes may lead to increasing rates of tax evasion (although, as mentioned above, GST is difficult to avoid).

If it did, however, then 67% of $22,000,000,000 would mean a further $14,700,000,000.

Add this to the sum of $27-34,000,000,000 for obsoleting the Ministry of Social Development, and we have somewhere around $42-48,000,000,000. This is enough to cover the cost of a UBI mentioned above. Once Yang’s other revenue-gathering measures (such as a transaction tax) are accounted for, there might even be enough to grant slightly more than $1,000 per month (which would otherwise only be about as much as the current unemployment benefit).

All of this is before we try to estimate the economic benefits of what would, in practice, amount to a powerful stimulus. The economic benefits of empowering individuals to turn down shitty working conditions, coupled with the physical and mental health savings accrued from sharply reducing the financial stress among the population, could be worth several billions in their own right.

In the end, Andrew Yang’s proposal to get rid of the American welfare bureaucracy could be applied in New Zealand wholesale. We also have the problem that we spend billions of dollars on office staff merely to determine who’s worthy of being allowed to eat and who isn’t. Scrapping the Ministry of Social Development, along with increasing GST by 10%, would allow us to fund a Universal Basic Income for all adult Kiwis.

New Zealand has already embarrassed itself by having less enlightened cannabis laws than 70 other nations. Hopefully we won’t have to wait for 70 other nations to introduce a UBI before the merits of such are understood in New Zealand.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Four Main Opponents Of Cannabis Law Reform

With the date for the cannabis law reform referendum now set, the battlelines have been drawn. The opposing forces have taken up their positions: the pro-cannabis forces on the side of God, and the anti-cannabis forces on the side of suffering, misery, ignorance and hate. This essay describes the four major groupings of opponents to cannabis law reform.

The first major group of opponents to cannabis law reform are simple cowards.

There’s a certain kind of person who is terrified of anything new, of any change at all – they can be called neophobic. In much the same way that a certain kind of person shit their pants at the sight of their town’s first Indian restaurant, there is a certain kind of person who shits their pants at any thought of a new psychoactive substance.

This teeming mass of sheep-like idiots comprise about half of the opponents to cannabis law reform. They also comprised a large proportion of the people who opposed homosexual and prostitution law reform, and they will comprise a large proportion of those who oppose the next change, no matter how obviously needed or overdue that change is.

The second major group of opponents are the sadists who oppose cannabis because of its healing and medicinal properties.

Hard as it may be to believe, there are many people out there who just want to create as much suffering and misery as possible, usually because it brings them a sense of gratification and power. In much the same way that sadism exists in many of Nature’s creatures, so too does it exist within the human animal. The human sadist recognises the medicinal properties of cannabis – which is why they seek to withhold it from those who would benefit.

Also in this group are the retards who will guzzle alcohol like there’s no tomorrow and belch smoke like a 19th-century factory from their cigarettes, but won’t touch cannabis on account of that it’s a “drug”. There are plenty of alcoholics out there who have boozed themselves into a state of permanent retardation, and some of these people, owing to this brain damage, support harsher sentences for cannabis users.

The third major group of opponents are the turboautists who can’t into anything as mysterious as cannabis use.

Cannabis use, like other spiritual enterprises, can be an extremely humbling experience. It can teach you that you really knew nothing about the world, and about life. The intellectually conceited sort of person, the one who has an egoic need to establish themselves as a recognised intellectual authority, has extreme difficulty with such revelations. They prefer ideological security and safety.

The intellectually arrogant are the same group of people who see all cannabis use as stupefying. They can’t get their heads around the truth of it because there are no recognised peer-reviewed journals on the subject. For these people, all talk of spirituality is mental illness, and so if smoking cannabis leads to a person talking about God, then smoking cannabis drives people crazy. They don’t want legal cannabis because it shows them up as the spoofers they are.

The final major group of opponents are the spiritual liars.

Cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, and has been used continuously for thousands of years for this purpose. Unfortunately, a great number of people in the West today are spiritually dead. Not only do they not believe in God, but they believe that death is the end on account of that the brain generates consciousness. This is not a natural state of affairs – it is because they have been lied to.

There are spiritual criminals out there who earn a living from withholding from people the truth about God and about consciousness, and then selling some watered-down, padded-out, corrupted version of it for a fee. These criminals have always tried to establish themselves as intermediaries between the people and God, and in order to make this profitable they have needed to destroy all true spiritual movements and methodologies.

These criminals recognise that cannabis makes their position untenable, on account of that it’s a spiritual sacrament that leads people to God directly. Consequently, they act to keep cannabis illegal, for the sake of holding people in a state of profitable ignorance.

These four groups cover the basic emotions that motivate people to oppose cannabis law reform: fear, cruelty and ignorance.

Some people fall into more than one of these groups. Many pretentious intellectuals are also cowards who don’t dare to step outside of well-travelled paths; many religious fundamentalists are also sadists. Someone like Bob McCoskrie might fall into all four: the pants-pissing, shit-talking, hippie-bashing religious bigot is almost the archetypal prohibitionist.

Changing the attitudes of anyone in one of these four groups is easier said than done.

There isn’t much that can be done to persuade the cruel and the evil, because the more information you give them, the more power they have to cause suffering. Those who are ignorant can be persuaded of the merits of cannabis law reform by appealing to the successful examples of reform overseas. Those who are cowards can be persuaded by showing them the rest of the herd changing their direction.

Ultimately, cannabis will continue to be used more by Maoris, by young people, by non-Christians and by freethinkers, and so anyone who hates one or more of those groups will tend towards opposing cannabis law reform out of spite. Anyone not motivated by hate, but rather by honest ignorance or naivety, can easily be persuaded to see how cannabis prohibition isn’t in their best interests.

*

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for liberalising New Zealand’s cannabis laws.

*

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

If The Media Wrote About Jacinda Ardern The Same Way It Wrote About Wrongthinkers

The politician accused of masterminding multiple violations of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is running for re-election this year.

The 38-year old Jacinda Ardern’s Sixth Labour Government has been accused of violating New Zealanders’ rights to free expression, free assembly and free commerce. She has been recorded on film paying homage to the ideology of Marxism, which subscribes to the same totalitarian far-left ideology as the Soviet Union that starved 100 million people to death in the gulag archipelago.

A constitutional lawyer says the accusations facing Ardern are among the most serious, and he believes that criminal charges laid by Police could follow.

VJM Publishing understands that the politician has refused to answer questions about her loyalty to the New Zealand nation. Last April, VJM Publishing revealed that Ardern was working closely with French President Emmanuel Macron to force globalist policies on the New Zealand people without their knowledge or consent.

It is not known whether the human rights violations that Ardern has allegedly committed were committed to further Marxist ideology.

Neither the Police nor the Labour Government would comment on the accusations.

Since the accusations of human rights violations were levelled against Ardern, she continues to make short films in which she tries to justify her actions, publishing these on FaceBook.

Ardern’s actions were first observed by activists who track members of the far left, Marxists and Communists online. Ardern’s FaceBook account has been used since the accusations of human rights violations were laid.

For several years, Ardern has posted racist, anti-nationalist and anti-white comments on social media, including references to a “white supremacism” conspiracy theory. This racist conspiracy theory claims that the low academic performance of browns and blacks can be explained by white prejudice.

“The response I’ve received has been positive. No tech company, just like no government, would like to see violent extremism and terrorism online,” Ardern is quoted as saying.

The account also showcases Ardern’s hate for the New Zealand people, frequently insinuating that they are racists, bigots and criminals.

A Police spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about whether they plan to arrest the politician.

“The accused has not been formally charged, which means that she is at liberty to travel as she pleases,” the spokeswoman said.

Wellington barrister Schlomo Goldberg, who has 20 years’ experience working in constitutional law, said Ardern was the first politician he knew of to be accused of violating New Zealanders’ rights to free expression, free assembly and free commerce.

“For a member of the New Zealand Government to use the position she’s been given to prejudice the human rights of New Zealanders, that’s a big deal,” he said.

Goldberg, who has no involvement in the case, said the politician could possibly have access to Marxist publications that could include tactics, techniques, procedures and plans for subverting national cultures.

“But also, if you have someone like the Chinese Communist Party, they might think it’s kind of handy to have, to get their hands on information that shows them how the New Zealand Government conducts operations because they might want to use those sorts of things themselves.

“There’s a whole load of information which an organisation that is intent on violating New Zealanders’ human rights to achieve its ends might find useful, both from a point of view of how it might conduct its own operations and also how you know what it might anticipate the security services are going to do against it.”

He said the Police were likely wanting to keep any investigation into Ardern’s human rights violations out of the public eye, despite the potential for criminal charges in civilian courts.

This would be done so that classified information involved in the case could be presented without revealing it to the public, he said. 

*

This article is a parody of this piece of digital excrement: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/119231183/arrested-soldier-continues-to-share-white-nationalist-material

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

VJMP Waitangi Day Address 2020

As another Grievance Day dawns on these sleepy isles, the division and hatred between all of society’s components is set to intensify. Today’s newspapers and television broadcasts will tell us all how we hate each other, and how our national history is one of theft, murder and rape. Grifters, shysters and con artists of all descriptions will crawl out of every hole to exploit these grievances. It promises to be a sad and depressing spectacle.

The good news is that all of this discord is destined to end. It will end once New Zealand accepts its inevitable, inescapable destiny – to be united with Australia as a single Anzac Empire.

We are only separated by historical fluke. In 1901, the six separate colonies of Australia agreed to join in union. An offer to join this federation was extended to New Zealand, but it was declined. The reasoning at the time was that over a thousand miles separated the two lands – several days’ voyage by steamer. In the era before aeroplanes, the Tasman Sea was a yawning expanse.

This unwillingness to unite as a single people may have seemed reasonable at the time, given that the British Empire was then at its peak. European supremacy, in the last days of Victoria’s reign, seemed the natural order of things. As no threat to British control of the seas appeared possible, there appeared to be no great need for unity on the part of her subjects Down Under. Our only rivals were each other.

By 2020, given the rise of great Asian powers such as China, India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia, the decision to strike it alone seems, in hindsight, an error. Impulsively made, with inadequate consideration given to the long-term consequences, this mistake has cast New Zealand adrift from our true course for 120 years.

It’s time to revisit that decision in the light of a new century.

The reality is that New Zealanders and Australians are one people, with one destiny.

Both Australia and New Zealand were brought into existence by the same wide-sweeping act of creation. Over the last quarter of a millennium, British settlement transformed this part of the world from a Stone Age backwater, forgotten by God, into one that has won more Nobel Prizes than either India or China.

Our paths of development since then have been the same. Ever since those earliest days of settlement, trans-Tasman immigration has been more intense than immigration within many other countries. New Zealand’s greatest ever Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, was born in Victoria and did not move to New Zealand until his mid-30s. We grew up together.

We also reached manhood together, in the artillery fire of the Gallipoli landings and later in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Our combined struggles in all of these conflicts saw the rest of the world see our kind as one: tough, determined, unrepentant killers and pisstakers. Bloody-minded larrikins, fearless to a fault, who you’re much better to have on your side than against you.

Today, New Zealand streets, workplaces, schools and sportsfields are all but indistinguishable from Australian ones. The streets bear the same names, the flags bear the same stars, the footballs are the same shape. Offshore investment agencies bundle Aussie and Kiwi shares up into Australasian packages, their purchasers often unaware that the two are technically different countries.

Kiwis regularly move to Australia for work, then back to New Zealand for a spell, then back to Australia again. Over 2% of the population of each country was born in the other. Rates of intermarriage between New Zealanders and Australians are extremely high. Not only are we similar in kind, but the degree of intermingling ensures that we can never become much different in the future.

Seen from a global perspective, and not merely from the myopic perspective of a monoglot who considered the British Empire to be the world, there is no meaningful difference between New Zealanders and Australians. There never was. It weighs on us, then, to put an end to the charade of being different. It’s weighs on us to formalise this unity of blood, minds and souls.

We’re impelled to do this by the great difference between us and everyone else.

The thirty million souls belonging to the Anzac Empire occupy a very distinct and very clearly delineated part of the world. To the East of us, there is nothing but the Pacific Ocean. To the West of us, there is nothing but the Indian Ocean. To the South of us, there is nothing but the Southern Ocean.

Our only natural border is to the North, and here we have something very real: a sea that separates us from two hundred million people with very different mentalities and ways of life. The cultural border between Northern Australia and Asia is as hard as any cultural border anywhere.

But no cultural border exists on the Tasman Sea.

Anzac culture can assert its own space on the world stage, distinct to other Anglo cultures. Although we share the outdoors, barbeque, cricket-and-rugby culture with the South Africans, the pioneering mentality with the North Americans and a linguistic heritage with the British, other things, perhaps more subtle things, are not shared. Other Westerners tend to be uptight, rule-bound, humourless and meek. Anzacs are none of those things.

Our Anzac Empire would not only be capable of standing proud intellectually and culturally, but it could also do so in terms of hard power.

Anzacistan would have, at time of writing, a nominal GDP of close to USD1,600,000,000,000, making it the world’s 13th largest economy. An economy the size of Russia’s, with a land area half that of Russia’s, would allow for a self-defence program sufficient to safeguard our liberties. It’s fate that this nation, so open to the sea, would one day command a formidable navy, perhaps a fleet of nuclear submarines.

Perhaps most important of all, its future would be secured by the fact that the high standard of living would always make it an attractive destination for the best class of immigrant. The Anzac nation, despite a heavily British base, is today a composite of many of the world’s most industrious and intelligent people. Maintaining this into the future will ensure that we have the human capital necessary to remain prosperous.

The Spear of Destiny continues to move ever-Westward. It has resided in America for some time, but now appears set to cross the great Pacific Ocean. Most of the world expects it to go to China, the Middle Kingdom clearly being the ascendant power of the last quarter century. Some expect it to go to Japan. It’s possible, however, that the Great Magnet of the World comes to reside in the Anzac Lands.

The fate of Australasia is to become a great power – this is guaranteed by her vast size, of some eight million square kilometres. The Will of God is apparent to all on this subject. The only question is whether we shall become the great power. The Southern Stars this century will rise, and rise, and rise, and several of the old Northern powers will exhaust themselves and begin to wane.

New Zealand shall be as the Britain to the Europe of Australia – a moderating and guiding force. Uniting as one Anzac nation, Australia shall provide the clay and iron, and both countries the silver, but New Zealand’s great contribution to this nation shall be the gold of spiritual leadership. Australia can be the shield and armour; New Zealand can be the sword.

It’s time for the Anzac nation to recognise the call of destiny. Unite, and let our people take their rightful place as a great power upon the world stage. Unite, and let Britain become to us as Rome and Greece are to the West. It’s our time. The Southern Sun shines for us!

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

The Establishment Right, The Far Right And The Alt Right

A recent comment on the VJM Publishing FaceBook page asked us to define far-right. This was in response to an article on the company page that had used this adjective in reference to the rising far-right populist movements in Europe. It was not our intent to use far-right as a pejorative, but simply to use it with precision. This essay elucidates.

Politics, correctly practised, is the successful pre-emption of violence. Way back in the biological past, a wise primate realised that if he ensured the bananas were fairly distributed, there was much less fighting. The great advantage with such an arrangement was that the troop became much better able to resist intrusions from other primate troops. Thus, the genes of the primates belonging to the wise one’s troop proliferated.

Human politics is not meaningfully different to monkeys fighting over bananas. As with primates, we don’t really fight over bananas, but rather over the land on which the bananas grow. More specifically, we fight for the right to ownership of land, which amounts to the right to tax the land of its bananas and anything else that grows or is produced on it.

Most of human history is the story of people killing each other over this right to ownership. Politics, when practiced well, is the art of avoiding this killing. Today, instead of the landowners and the peasantry violently fighting over who keeps what, we compromise through things like Parliamentary representation and democratic elections.

The Establishment Right are the remnants of those who first laid down the law. The Establishment Right started with the ancient kings, and membership of it is usually inherited. They naturally clash with those who inherit positions of weakness and poverty. The Establishment Right are those who don’t want any change at all, because they’re sitting sweet already.

On the right wing, there are two alternatives to the Establishment Right: the alt right and the far right. These two groups have several things in common, and overlap to a major degree. However, the distinction between the two is important, and the failure to clearly understand this is why there is so much confusion when it comes to use of the term ‘far right’.

The alt right, like the far right, are those who reject the Establishment Right on the grounds that the latter have compromised too much with the left. However, the alt right still seeks an accommodation with the Establishment. Rather than destroying the Establishment as the far right wishes to, the alt right wants to replace the Establishment Right. This they attempt to do by presenting a superior set of policies.

The far right also seeks to replace the Establishment Right – but as one step in the replacement of the entire Establishment. They’d rather rebuild the entire system from the ground up than merely replace one part of it. The far right is not interested in compromise at all – they would rather build a concentration camp network and put their opponents in there at gunpoint.

The far right, then, is that element of the right wing that prefers violence to compromise. This is different from the alt right. ‘Far-right’ is really another term for ‘extremist’. This follows naturally from the fact that they see their opponents as inherently evil. Because their opponents are evil, no compromise is possible – they have to be smashed.

One distinguishing characteristic of the far right is that their skewed perceptions leads them to see other right-wingers as leftists. People on the far right consider everyone in the Establishment Right and the alt right to be some kind of leftist. The far right operates on a “with us or against us” mentality.

‘Alt-right’, by contrast, is a term for right-wingers who want an alternative to the way things are currently practised. The alt right is separate to the far right, although they are not mutually exclusive. As mentioned in a previous essay from this column, there are two major strains to the alt right: the libertarian and the authoritarian strain.

The libertarian strain of the alt right is exemplified by David Seymour’s ACT Party. They’re not interested in carrying on the stupidities of the Establishment Right, such as the War on Drugs. Neither do they want a prohibition on abortion, prostitution, pornography or euthanasia. These libertarian alt-rightists agree with the Establishment Right that taxes should be low, but that’s about it.

The authoritarian strain of the alt right is very much far-right.

The New Conservative Party want to continue the War on Drugs, and to use violence to put drug users in cages. They are not at all interested in hearing why recreational cannabis users choose to use that substance instead of alcohol. They’re not interested in any compromise with recreational cannabis users – these people are scum to be destroyed.

Therefore, it’s entirely legitimate to refer to them as far-right extremists. All extremists gain power from hate, and the New Conservatives could be accurately placed alongside neo-Nazis in this category of hate-fuelled, authoritarian alt right (the only meaningful difference between the neo-Conservatives and the neo-Nazis is that the former are Abrahamist, the latter not).

These people are very different to alt-rightists such as David Seymour and other right-wing libertarians. If anything, they have more in common with the Establishment Right. The far right can at least agree with the Establishment Right that liberty is bad. Arguably, this means the far right is more accurately considered an extension of the Establishment Right rather than an alternative to it, as is the alt right.

In summary, the lines between the Establishment Right, the far right and the alt right can be drawn thusly: the Establishment Right are the foremost defenders of the Establishment and abhor change, the far right are those conservatives and reactionaries who do not want to compromise and the alt right are those who oppose the both the left and the Establishment Right, the latter who they hope to supplant.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Island Tameness And New Zealand Society

Island tameness is a concept within behavioural ecology that explains some of the behavioural phenomena observed in animals who live on islands separate from any mainland. As the name suggests, it refers to a form of docility that regularly afflicts animals who adapt to island environments. This essay makes a frightening suggestion: that New Zealand culture might itself be afflicted by island tameness.

The most famous example of island tameness might have been the Dodo birds of Mauritius, hunted to extinction less than a century after their discovery by European sailors. This is only the most famous case of what is a widespread phenomenon.

New Zealand itself offers many excellent examples of island tameness. When Maori explorers discovered the archipelago some 800 years ago, they were astonished to find that they could simply walk up to the giant birds that lived there and club them on the head. Having been separate from the Australian mainland for tens of millions of years, the megafauna of New Zealand had developed extreme island tameness.

Much like the moas and other giant birds of ancient days, modern New Zealanders have also forgotten how to recognise predators. This has been a feature of the New Zealand psyche ever since people started being born on these islands.

People old enough to remember World War II can remember how completely unprepared New Zealand was to deal with the Japanese threat, and the utter disbelief that was felt at the Fall of Singapore in 1942. They tell stories of a Home Guard that trained with broomsticks because no firearms were available, and coastal batteries that were outranged by Japanese naval vessels. So green were we that the vast majority of our troops were sent to Europe.

This naivety is a fundamental part of our culture. In other words, it’s impossible to understand New Zealand culture without understanding how island tameness has influenced our attitudes and behaviour. Perhaps the best place to look for examples of this is the lamb-like docility with which Kiwis treat their politicians.

Although less naive nations overseas have fought horrific, bloody wars to keep international bankers from controlling them, New Zealanders voted one into power. Then, when that banker opened the borders at the same time as slashing the welfare safety net, leading to hundreds of extra deaths from the despair he created, Kiwis voted him back into power – twice.

He’d still be the Prime Minister now if he wanted to be, because the mainstream media is owned by international banking and finance interests, and these interests simply directed their media lackeys to tell Kiwis that they lived in a “rockstar economy” and were wealthier than ever. Those interests were the same ones that benefitted the most from mass immigration and slashing welfare, and they gleefully did the cheerleading for Key and for the Fifth National Government.

Likewise, less naive nations overseas have fought horrific, bloody wars to keep Communists from controlling them. But Jacinda Ardern can get elected to Parliament while sitting as President of the International Union of Socialist Youth (credit to those calling Ardern a Communist in that linked article from 2008). Despite having once given a speech in which she addressed the assembled Marxists as “Comrades”, she was elected as Prime Minister.

Imagine voting for a Prime Minister who addressed a hall full of Nazis as “Comrades”!

Nek minnit, our rights to free speech, free assembly and firearms are gone. Even though a blind man could have foreseen that voting for an unrepentant Communist was going to lead to our human rights disappearing, New Zealanders did it anyway. Island tameness has meant that New Zealanders are incapable of recognising the danger of psychopathic individuals or groups in their midst.

Island tameness has also meant that New Zealanders are incapable of recognising the danger of the mainstream media. Just as the Dodo birds naively approached the Portuguese sailors, New Zealanders sit naively before the television, entirely trusting. This explains why a predatory class of rulers can control the minds of the New Zealand populace with the ease of a puppet-master pulling the strings of his mannequin.

The New Zealand ruling class can say anything it wants to the New Zealand people through the television, and the people will believe it. Island tameness has led to a total inability to detect untruths, even when someone is blatantly lying to our faces. We’re so tame that people like John Key and Jacinda Ardern can come to power, destroy the nation for the sake of the profit of their fellows, and we vote them back in because we’re told to.

Unfortunately, the future for New Zealanders seems like it will be similar to that of the Dodo birds.

Island tameness has left us completely incapable of recognising the threats of the new century. Not only do we sheepishly follow the fashions in other nations, but we’re willing to follow them to our own destruction.

We adopted wholesale the neoliberal experiment conducted by our fellow Anglo nations, forever wrecking the societies that our ancestors had built. We exchanged most of our rights and freedoms for a vapid, plastic, McDisney world that we only interact with through screens. Meanwhile, our ruling classes engorged themselves on profit from importing cheap labour.

In Europe, mass Muslim and African immigration has caused sufficient misery to cause the rise of far-right populist parties who promise to bring even more misery. But instead of learning from the grim example of Europe, we’re doing everything we can to replicate it here. Our ruling classes want more cheap labour, and we will sit idly by and watch as they open the gates.

Not only is it impossible to understand New Zealand ecology without reference to the phenomenon of island tameness, it’s impossible to understand our culture either. Island tameness is so deeply ingrained into our psyche that, much like at the Battle of Passchendale a century ago, we will happily throw ourselves into slaughter if commanded to do so. Only by understanding this phenomenon can we begin to be free.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Why The New Conservatives Could Get 5% In September

Following overseas trends, it’s apparent that an intense degree of discontentment exists among Western voters. There are protests all over the West – some violent, most confined to the ballot boxes for now. This article explores the possibility that discontentment in New Zealand could see the New Conservative Party get 5% of the vote in this year’s election.

It’s all but official that the neo-Nazi Sweden Democrats are the most popular party in Sweden now. Five opinion polls in a row, all from different polling companies, have established that the Sweden Democrats have more current support than any other party. A moving average of recent polls suggests that their support is at least 25%.

The Sweden Democrats might be the most aggressive of the European alt-right parties, having been founded by former Waffen-SS members. Although it’s not an official position, prominent elements within their membership speak of repatriating everyone of a non-Swedish background. They are taking full advantage of the fact that support for the Social Democrats is at its lowest ever level.

In France, opinion polls suggest that the National Rally’s Marine Le Pen, long decried as an extremist, is threatening to win the French Presidential election in 2022. She is polling equal to Emmanuel Macron on the first round, and is polling at 45% to his 55% on the second. This is well up from Le Pen’s 33% result in the second round of the previous Presidential election.

In Germany, the Alternative fuer Deutschland is polling at around 15%. In the Netherlands, Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy is the second-strongest party right now, having briefly been the strongest earlier this year. In Italy, the nationalist Lega Nord is now dominant. In Spain, the right-wing populist bloc is now polling at 17%, up from 10% in the general election less than a year ago.

The mainstream New Zealand media will never report on any of this.

The reason for all this discontent is the increasingly apparent failure of the Establishment to manage the Western World in a way that reduces the suffering of the Western people. The ruling class of the West transparently stopped giving a fuck about their people’s suffering many years ago, and the ensuing resentment has become bitter.

The mass immigration to Europe of Muslims and Africans over recent decades has heavily lowered the standard of living of the average European citizen. On the flipside, however, it has generated immense profits for those who benefit from this suffering. Those with an interest in hiring cheap labour, selling accommodation to the highest bidder or profiting from ethnic strife and division have seen their stocks rise handsomely.

This oversupply of cheap labour has made it all but impossible for young, working-class people to get into a position where they own a home suitable to raise a family in. Young people in New Zealand have less than 40% of the house-buying power that their parents had, and it’s getting worse. Most aggravating of all, the Western Establishment has shown no interest in changing this state of affairs.

This refusal to change course, when the current course only benefits 5-10% of the population, is the ultimate reason for most of the current discontent in the Western World. We can conclude from the examples in Europe that any party taking a meaningful stand against the New Zealand Establishment has the potential to win up to 25% of the vote.

The New Conservatives are the most prominent of the parties on the right that oppose the Establishment. Therefore, they are the only party appealing to the Kiwi equivalents of the Sweden Democrats, National Rally, Liga Nord etc. voters. Their constituency is angry, white, rural and male – the same demographic that won the World Wars.

It’s obvious to most by now that there is no meaningful difference between National and Labour, both being business-as-usual neoliberals whose overriding concern is keeping the economy going at full tilt.

The big problem is that there’s no meaningful difference between these two parties and any of the Greens, ACT or New Zealand First. The Greens are even more globalist than Labour, and ACT are even more globalist than National. For anyone who opposes globalism the traditional choice has been New Zealand First, but their close co-operation with Labour and the Greens has now made clear to all that they are as globalist as the rest.

In the minds of most dissenters, this leaves few options. Leftist discontents have been fond of throwing a vote towards the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, and no doubt many who turn out for the cannabis referendum will do so again this year. Most of the discontent at the moment, however, is inspired by right-wing sentiments, and people motivated by this tend to despise cannabis users and consider them subhuman.

For the right-wing discontents, the realistic options are ACT and New Conservative.

As this column has previously argued, ACT could get 5% if they were willing to step into the alt-right niche, instead of merely following puppy-like behind the National Party. However, they are clearly not willing. ACT is perfectly comfortable being the party of big-money corporate neoliberals, because that ensures that they get plenty of funding. David Seymour flirts with anti-Establishment positions, but his heart isn’t in it.

For this reason, the New Conservatives are the only party that are primed to take advantage of the wave of discontent that is sweeping the West.

At the time of the most recent poll, the New Conservatives apparently had less than 1% support. However, that poll was almost two months ago. Since then, several things have happened, and all of them follow the general trend of stoking discontentment towards the Establishment. If they keep happening – if that great wave of populist discontent reaches New Zealand – the New Conservatives might rise all the way to 5% before September 19.

As Dan McGlashan showed in Understanding New Zealand, there is a very strong correlation between voting Conservative and voting National (0.77), and therefore a strong New Conservative vote is likely to significantly weaken the National vote. If it does, it will not shift the balance of power in 2020. In fact, it could even strengthen Labour’s position if the New Conservatives get less than 5%, thereby causing the votes of many people who would otherwise have voted National to be wasted.

The far-right populists have shown in Europe that, in times of high discontentment, it’s possible for them to attract voters from otherwise left-wing demographics. New Conservative will attract anti-Establishment voters from National, but they could also attract a significant number of voters from those who would otherwise have cast their lot in with Labour, New Zealand First or ACT. If they succeed at this, New Zealand could be in for an electoral surprise in September.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Clown World Chronicles: Who Are The ‘Alt-Left’?

Because Clown World is a failed system, there are many people proposing alternatives. A previous article here discussed who the alt-right are. There’s equally as great a need to explain their opposites on the alternative spectrum – the alt-left. Like two cheeks of the same arse, one doesn’t find the alt-left in isolation from, but rather in symbosis with, the alt-right. This article explains.

The alt-left, basically speaking, are those who reject the Establishment on the grounds that it’s not horizontalist enough. Like the alt-right, the alt-left considers the left, the right and the centre all to be much the same thing – one corrupt, monolithic entity. They consider that the left, the right and the centre are all represented by the same ruling class, so that all three groups are too cozy with each other to ever change.

What the alt-left wants is more horizontalism. That means anyone calling for hierarchy, separation or division of any kind is considered evil. The alt-left are the loudest voices calling for open borders, on the grounds that physical restrictions to movement are immoral. They are also the ones calling for a dissolution of the boundaries between genders.

Unfortunately, this extreme form of horizontalism necessarily implies getting rid of some borders that are there for good reason. The alt-left has no time at all for arguments about the disproportionate number of sex crimes committed by immigrants to the West from Muslim and African countries. Mentioning this is racist, and we should hold the borders open to all no matter how much sexual abuse they commit.

More insidiously, the alt-left also seeks to dissolve the sexual borders between adults and children. Wherever you have alt-leftists, you almost inevitably have people who are sympathetic to the argument that adults having sexual contact with children can be healthy for the children. The idea that sexual boundaries between adults and children are immoral is very persuasive to the alt-left.

The alt-centrist perspective is that both the alt-left and the alt-right are dangerous extremists.

This is reciprocated by the alt-left, who consider the alt-centre the same sort of Nazi as everyone else. Because the alt-centre agrees that the alt-right is correct about some things, the alt-left lumps the two in together. They do not realise that there is such a thing as the Fifth Rejection, according to which alt-centrists reject alt-right thought as fundamentally lacking empathy. Anyone not with the alt-left is against them.

The alt-left has authoritarianism in common with the alt-right. However, whereas the latter longs for another authoritarian figure, perhaps an avatar of the white race, the former enforces horizontalism with the same authoritarian zeal. It’s an extremely aggressive form of slave morality, in which any individual or group who excels at anything has to be ripped down.

The morality of the alt-left could be summed up with the following maxim: in every conflict, always take the side of the weaker party. The logic is that no weaker party would purposefully start a conflict, therefore the aggressor in any conflict must be the stronger of the two sides. Since morality demands that one oppose aggressors, it follows that one must take the side of the weaker party in every conflict.

This logic leads the alt-left to, for example, take the side of the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestine conflict, to take the side of the natives in any conflict against settlers and to take the side of women any time they accuse a man of anything. The alt-left does not brook any disagreement with the maxim that weakest is best. For them, it’s vulgar to make the argument that the stronger party in any given conflict might be the morally superior one.

The authoritarianism of the alt-left is part of the reason for the Fourth Rejection. The alt-centrist doesn’t have a problem with authoritarianism, in and of itself – but it has to be correct, proportionate, necessary and grounded in an accurate understanding of reality. The authoritarianism of the alt-left is none of this.

The authoritarianism of the alt-left is every bit the psychopathically controlling hate ideology that caused so much suffering to the people of the Soviet Union, and whose horrors were detailed in writings such as The Gulag Archipelago. The alt-left would happily recreate a gulag system, so absorbed are they in their own moral certitude.

The alt-left and the alt-right are in a state of conflict, and this will grow more intense as the Establishment fades. Both sides are gagging for a final, climactic and decisive battle so that they can forever crush their enemy or be destroyed in the attempt. As the individuals populating the Establishment continue to die of old age, the pro-war individuals will continue to grow in influence.

In summary, the alt-left is mostly made up of those who reject (and/or are rejected by) the Establishment. They are mostly the kind of freak that couldn’t fit into the system, although they often genuinely want to do so. This leads to the resentment that underpins all slave moralities. This resentment manifests as hatred for the oppressor class, where ‘oppressor’ is defined as anyone with wealth, influence or privilege.

The alt-left responds to this with oppression of their own, usually in the form of a swarming multitude of shaming attacks from as many people as possible. A favoured tactic is trying to destroy the reputation and livelihood of wrongthinkers by reporting them en masse to the authorities. The shadows of the Stasi informer network can be seen behind the alt-left’s constantly ratting out their enemies.

Whereas the old left looked to find accommodation with their opponents, the alt-left wants to annihilate them. They use tactics such as cancelling and deplatforming, preventing their enemies from communicating with an audience. They see no shame in this, reasoning that the more their enemies get to speak, the more powerful those enemies are.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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

VJMP Reads: Religion, Property, Violence I

The next edition in the VJMP Reads column is Religion, Property, Violence: A Revolutionary Idea For Society by Horst Niclaus. This book was purchased cheaply from TradeMe. The back cover asks the question “Is the creation of God the reason why equality between human beings has not been achieved yet?”

After a short introduction, in which Niclaus recounts his early upbringing in wartime Germany, the first chapter begins. It is called ‘Does God exist?’

Niclaus mentions here that God was silent during the Holocaust and that “he” has no problems with things like the mass child rapes of the Catholic Church. It’s apparent that Niclaus is arguing against a conception of the Abrahamic God, in particular the Christian one. He lists a number of Biblical contradictions here.

In this chapter Niclaus cites Albert Einstein as saying that the Jewish religion is “an incarnation of the most childish superstition.” He then cites a list of arguments against the Abrahamic God and against religion in general, such as the fact that ignorance and fear underpins much religious belief. These arguments all proceed from a materialist perspective, and should be convincing to someone who has fallen at the second hurdle.

This list of arguments is duplicated from elsewhere, and any materialist ought to find them agreeable. One of the arguments copied here is Epicurus’s one, that makes that claim that if God has the power to end all suffering, but not the Will, then God must be malevolent.

The problem here is that Epicurus makes the assumption that the end of suffering is the highest value. The reality is that God encourages an unpredictable degree of suffering for the purposes of entertainment, on account of that infinite bliss is infinite boredom, and therefore more suffering than a the madcap mix of pleasure and pain that is life on Earth.

Many of the arguments listed here suffer from similar problems. They are attacking a Christian conception of God and therefore attack the characteristics that Christians claim that God has. These arguments do not address (e.g.) Luciferian or Hindu conceptions of divinity. As is true of many Western commentators, Niclaus appears to believe that disproving the Abrahamic conception of God is sufficient to prove the non-existence of God.

Most of the arguments in this chapter proceed on this basis, i.e. they are worthwhile criticisms towards Christianity or Abrahamism, but no more. The quoted section makes one cutting observation of missionaries in particular: while their work is risky, the rewards are to be worshipped by those who accept his guidance.

This chapter ends with the mention of some scientists who advanced the materialist world view, and then some letters to the Christchurch newspaper The Press arguing against Christianity.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Where In The World Does New Zealand Rank On Cannabis Law Reform?

New Zealand was once looked to for moral leadership. We were the first country to give women the vote and the first to institute a universal old-age pension, but these were 19th Century issues. On 21st Century issues, such as cannabis law reform, we are no longer close to the frontrunners. This article attempts to determine how far we have fallen.

Perhaps the first major crack in the cannabis prohibition dam came with the legalisation of medicinal cannabis in California in 1996. In the near quarter-century since then, a tidal wave of cannabis law reform has rolled around the world. New Zealand has made a determined attempt to resist this wave, and has stayed loyal to the idea that cannabis users are scum who should be persecuted.

Cannabis is now recreationally legal in California, as it is in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Colombia. That makes for 12 places in just one country that are more enlightened than New Zealand on the cannabis issue – over 100 million people.

Even if a person would say, uncharitably, that all these places are just one country, there are now several other countries that have legalised recreational cannabis. Uruguay did so in 2013 and never looked back. Canada did so in 2018. Georgia and South Africa have also legalised recreational cannabis for possession and consumption (although not yet for sale).

So that makes five countries that have legalised recreational cannabis to some extent – but they’re not the only ones ahead of New Zealand on cannabis law reform.

Many other countries have legal arrangements where cannabis is tolerated without being fully legal. The most famous example is the Netherlands, where cannabis is openly sold from licensed cafes, on the proviso that the cafe is willing to operate under a strict set of conditions. This is not de jure legal, but there is an understanding on the part of the Police that such activity is to be tolerated (provided it stays within certain limits).

Spain has a similar arrangement, where cannabis is legal if kept to private areas such as the personal home or in cannabis social clubs. In this sense, many countries have decriminalised cannabis to a greater extent than what New Zealand has done.

Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovenia, Switzerland and Trinidad and Tobago have all decriminalised cannabis to some degree.

It might come as a blow to the Kiwi ego that several Third World countries are now more advanced than us when it comes to a major moral issue such as cannabis law reform. But it gets worse – even Australia is ahead of New Zealand in this regard now. Cannabis will be legal in the ACT as of next week, and it has already been decriminalised in the Northern Territory and in South Australia.

So that makes 40 countries that have either legalised or decriminalised cannabis to some degree – but the true picture is even worse than this, because New Zealand doesn’t even have medicinal cannabis yet.

Since becoming legal in California 24 years ago, medicinal cannabis has now become legal in a further 32 American states and four territories. Even if we apply the rule from above (according to which all these states and territories only count as one country) there are still many other countries with more tolerant medicinal cannabis laws than New Zealand.

Even Zimbabwe has more enlightened medicinal cannabis laws than New Zealand does – they legalised it in 2018. It might sound incredible to some Kiwi ears that a place with the reputation for corruption and backwardsness of Zimbabwe could be ahead of New Zealand in a major area of medical knowledge. Alas, it’s the truth.

In reality, every single country already mentioned is ahead of New Zealand when it comes to cannabis law reform. We have neither legalisation nor decriminalisation of recreational cannabis, and medicinal cannabis is de facto illegal on account of that virtually no-one can afford what’s on offer.

We were first in the world to repeal the prohibition on women voting. When we eventually get around to repealing elements of cannabis prohibition, we will be no earlier than 70th in the world to have begun to do so. If you count the American states separately, New Zealand will be no earlier than 100th or so.

It might not be easy for the Kiwi ego to accept, but not only are we years behind backwards American states like Louisiana and Alabama, but we are also years behind Third World nations such as Uruguay, South Africa and Zimbabwe. If we ever had any special ability to read the winds of change, or to provide moral leadership to a world desperately in need of it, that is now gone.

By 2020 New Zealand is, morally speaking, right back in the pack. Far from being leaders, we now respond with sheep-like herd instinct to patterns that we’re not intelligent enough to understand. The only way to lift this state of disgrace is to legalise cannabis immediately and across the board.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Narcissistic Sadism And Narcissistic Masochism

Narcissistic people pose a number of challenges for the societies in which they reside. Their selfishness is liable to cause suffering to those around them, and the indifference that the typical narcissist shows to this suffering is liable to cause violence. As this essay will examine, however, there are two distinct types of narcissism.

Narcissistic sadism is what most people think of when they think about the problems that narcissism causes. This is when a person puts their own ego above all other considerations, to the point where they harm others for no good reason. Narcissistic sadism is behind most cases of bullying and many cases of physical abuse.

At its most extreme, narcissistic sadism manifests in conditions such as psychopathy, in which other people are considered nothing more than tools for gratification. Psychopaths act as if the suffering of others is entirely meaningless, particularly when it stands in the way of the desire of the psychopath. People like this are all but indistinguishable from demons, as if brought to Earth specifically to wreak misery.

There is, however, another form of narcissism that arguably does just as much damage, if not more. This is narcissistic masochism – when one sacrifices oneself unnecessarily to glorify one’s own moral rectitude or fortitude. It is the act of putting oneself first by putting oneself last.

At first, this doesn’t sound like that much of a problem, considering that masochism primarily does damage to oneself. However, the fact that all individuals are part of a countless number of overlapping systems means that, in much the same way that it’s impossible to remove one knot without damaging the whole net, it’s impossible to damage oneself without damaging other people.

The most striking examples of narcissistic masochism right now are the repeated displays of feet-kissing by Pope Francis. These performances are supposed to broadcast the humility of the Pope to the entire world – but, naturally, Francis only does them when the cameras are in position and rolling. In his abject submission, Francis supposes that he’s demonstrating his superior moral sophistication to the world.

All kinds of martyr complexes could fall under this rubric of narcissistic masochism. The common element is that narcissistic masochists will glorify themselves as they are destroyed, usually in the belief that they have established some kind of moral supremacy over the rest of humanity. They believe that their destruction has occurred on account of that they are too good or pure for this world.

A more nefarious example of this phenomenon is collective narcissistic masochism. This is most obviously seen today in the form of ethnomasochism.

In particular, there is a strain of ethnomasochism that is constantly berating itself for its supposed role in various historical crimes, in particular colonialism and slavery. This strain believes that collective narcissistic sadism (which perhaps reached its apogee in Germany between 1939-45) is the world’s foremost danger, so much so that we ought to go as far as possible in the opposite direction.

This strain of narcissistic masochism leads to people supporting the mass importation of “refugees” from various disadvantaged parts of the world. Even when these people are told that these imports will commit a massively disproportionate amount of sex crimes, this is waved away as some kind of karmic payback for the nebulous historical crimes of the white man.

The psychology involved here is very similar to that of a masochist who pays a dominatrix to beat him on the grounds that he has misbehaved terribly in the past. In principle there’s little difference between someone grovelling before a dominatrix and someone grovelling because they believe that they have inherited the sins of their ancestors. The brain circuitry that inspires either action is broadly the same.

The archetypal narcissistic sadist is little more than an overgrown toddler. They never grew past the phase of responding primarily to egoic desires. Although their actions may have become more complicated and sophisticated as they became adults, the basic motivation is the same aggression that motivates small children and wild animals – an instinct that puts itself first before any other consideration.

The archetypal narcissistic masochist is the one who hates his family, hates his neighbourhood, hates his city, hates his country and hates his race. He will not admit to hating the world, because that doesn’t give him the opportunity to glorify himself. Anything associated with himself, however, he hates. Therefore, he derives gratification from destroying himself and anything associated with him.

The major difference between the two is that the sadist is other-focused, whereas the narcissist is self-focused. Although both are self-centred, the sadist focuses on destroying the other, whereas the masochist focuses on destroying himself (or any group that he may belong to).

If men like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer best represent narcissistic sadism, perhaps people like Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Pope Francis best represent narcissistic masochism. The latter group of people – although most don’t realise it – cause just as much suffering and misery as the former, if not more. They also cause it for equally narcissistic reasons.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

The Gentlemen Shows That The Normalisation Of Cannabis Is All But Complete


Guy Ritchie’s latest crime caper film, The Gentlemen, is the rollicking, romping gorefest that one has come to expect from the director of Snatch. Behind the larger-than-life characters and the brilliant dialogue, however, are a few hints about where society is going, and a few things made to look normal that aren’t usually normalised. This article explains.

Cannabis users who stopped to think about it may have noticed a few things in The Gentlemen that are different to the usual messages contained within big-budget films. Normally alcohol, tobacco, adrenaline and oxytocin are all portrayed as acceptable forms of enjoyment, but cannabis is not. Cannabis tends to get lumped with opium and heroin as a drug of despair.

The hero of the story, Mickey Pearson, is a British cannabis tycoon. The character, played by Matthew McConaughey, is in charge of an empire that produces 50 tons of skunk every year. Yes, he has done some bad things on the way up through the underworld, but he’s very much a moral player, someone with far more class than the average criminal.

This weed-dealing protagonist is presented as the good guy, who the audience is invited to sympathise with. Not a good guy – because he’s certainly capable of violent crime still – but the good guy. This makes a change from the usual popular culture treatment of cannabis users. Aside from this central fact, several scenes in the film serve to normalise the idea of cannabis in the eyes of the audience.

In one scene, Mickey speaks to a Chinese gangster and heroin dealer named Lord George. Mickey makes the point that the drug he himself deals doesn’t kill anyone, unlike the heroin that George deals. It’s uncommon for a popular culture film to draw a distinction between cannabis dealers and “other” drug dealers. Usually the two are lumped in together, but here Lord George is presented as distinctly less moral than Mickey.

In another scene, Mickey’s henchman Ray (played by Charlie Hunnam) smokes a joint while expressing his disgust for heroin users. While rolling it up he expounds upon his weed preferences, including his belief that the right mixture of cannabis and tobacco is 50:50. In this scene, we are invited to sympathise with the cannabis-smoking Ray, whose classy demeanour presents him in sharp contrast to the heroin users around him.

In yet another scene, the major antagonist is trying to bargain Mickey down on the selling price of Mickey’s business. The antagonist makes the point that cannabis will become legal soon and therefore his enterprise would have to compete with the legal market, which inspires Mickey to demonstrate that his business has been future-proofed already.

The point that cannabis will become legal soon, and therefore that the relative values of positions in the cannabis market will change soon, is made with certainty. Guy Ritchie has his finger on the pulse well enough to know which way things are going, and it’s obvious from the international trends that moves towards cannabis liberalisation will soon occur everywhere. People have thought through most possibilities already.

This means that the plot of The Gentlemen is realistic enough to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. It’s a great film – and for cannabis users eager to see an end to the prejudice against them, it’s great to see cannabis use normalised in popular culture.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Clown World Chronicles: What Is An ‘Incel’?

The history of Clown World has two major phases. The first is the decline into ever-increasing levels of depravity, something that we can call the Weimar Stage. The second is the self-immolation, involving ever-increasing levels of violence and brutality, something that we can call the Nazi stage. This essay discusses a phenomenon that can be found inbetween those two phases: the incel.

‘Incel’ stands for ‘involuntary celibate’. Here ‘celibate’ is used to mean someone who doesn’t have sex, and ‘involuntary’ means that they’d rather be having sex if they could. Of those who abstain from sex involuntarily, some are disfigured or infirm, but others are forced to abstain on account of that they aren’t physically or socially attractive enough to find sexual partners.

‘Incel’ stands in contrast both to a sexually active person and to those who have chosen to abstain from sexual activity. The latter are known as ‘volcels’, which stands for ‘voluntary celibate’. Volcels and incels occupy entirely separate worlds. Whereas the volcel is like a monk or shaman who has transcended the sexual impulse, the incel is like a horny dog who is dominated by it.

In practice, only men are referred to as incels. The reality is that almost every female can get laid if they want to, even if they’re unusually ugly. Some women may be celibate on account of that they’re unable to form an emotional connection with men, but even such women can still get laid if they can get their heads into it.

Internet dating apps have led to something called the “Incel Epidemic.” Because the human mating process is gynocentric – i.e. women hold the vast bulk of the decision-making power – the bottom 50% or so of men now have little chance of finding a satisfying sexual relationship. Women can simply choose that their Internet dating profile doesn’t get seen by (for example) men shorter than six feet tall – and they do.

This epidemic has been accelerated by the further breakdown of society. Ever more young men are autistic, and these men often have too much trouble interacting with women to ever get laid. Many of these young men have been rejected enough times that they have become bitter. Having become bitter they have turned away from women, and from the social occasions that offer chances to meet them.

The icing on the cake is the easy availability of competing pleasures. PornHub can deliver the most intense, hardcore and depraved pornography ever recorded in human history direct to the visual synapses of every 13-year old with an Internet connection. So if women seem like too much hassle, there are plenty of alternatives. Some will say that porn isn’t real, but the incel would retort that most of the dating scene isn’t real either.

All of these things have combined to make the proportion of young men not having sex higher than ever before. There have never been more incels in Western society. The danger with this is clear: not getting laid can lead to incel rage. Perhaps the most infamous example was that of Elliot Rodgers.

On May 23, 2014, Rogers went on a killing spree motivated by incel rage, claiming six lives and wounding 14 others. He left a manifesto detailing his motivation for the killings. In it the explained that he was angry at women for rejecting him, and jealous of sexually active men for sleeping with those same women. This deep-seated resentment exploded in violence, as it so often does.

Many people are concerned that, as the proportion of incels continues to increase, the risk of other young men doing an Elliot Rodgers increases. Many incels have yet to do so because they still believe that they can get laid. But as society disintegrates further, more and more of them will turn away from society in resentment. The incel epidemic promises to get worse and worse.

The nightmare scenario is that another Hitler rises up to channel the incel rage against their enemies. The original Nazi movement was partially motivated by the everyday man’s horror at how slutty and degenerate the everyday Fraulein had become under the Weimar Republic, and a future totalitarian movement could use incel rage to gain power. A new Hitler could blame Jewish media influence for why young men can’t get laid any more.

As this magazine has written about previously, the incel problem is older than the human species. As civilisation has developed, we have also developed a number of solutions to this problem, some more effective than others.

The Abrahamic solution to the incel problem, favoured by many men still today, is to make women into second-class citizens. In practice, the physical dominance of men will always make this option possible. This solution arranges things so that every man gets one woman, and if she doesn’t like it she gets beaten or raped into submission. It appeals naturally to those of a Semitic mindset, but does not appeal to those of an Indo-European one.

Another solution that people joke about, some more jokingly than others, is state-mandated girlfriends. This solution appeals to those men who work, but whose income is not sufficient to really impress women – in other words, whose income enough to raise a family on. It also appeals to the autistic segment of the male population that cannot into charming women.

Yet another solution is to allow rich men to marry multiple women. This solution has been used by many different cultures at different times, usually after a great war has caused a shortage of suitable men. It could be argued that the West is in the process of losing a great spiritual war, and therefore many men are already spiritually dead. It might be better, then, to allow spiritually extant men to marry multiple women.

The ultimate outcome of the incel epidemic is not clear. What is known, however, is that sexual frustration regularly manifests as violence in countless numbers of vertebrate species. There’s every chance that, as the incel epidemic increases in magnitude, the incidence of incel rage-based chimpouts increase in frequency. The energies involves may even contribute to a great collective chimpout.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

How The Left Snookered Itself Into Supporting Hatred

The Western Left has, by 2020, wedded itself to blank slate theory. Not only is it dogmatically true among most leftists that all human subgroups are precisely identical in intellectual capacity, but it’s also dogmatically true that if you believe that human subgroups differ in intellectual capacity you are evil. As this essay explains, the Left has snookered itself thanks to the rigidity of its own ideology.

Inherent to modern leftist theory is the belief that the under-representation of black, brown and Muslim people in prestigious positions in Western business, academia and politics can be best explained by white supremacy. The inherent racism of the white man, we are told, induces him to keep black, brown and Muslim people out of these high positions. The presence of inequality is taken as evidence of the existence of prejudice.

Part of this leftist theory is the adamant denial that white people might be wealthier than other races because of a higher IQ. All the science that suggests that an academic achievement gap – roughly equal to one standard deviation – exists between black and white students, is racism. Any scientist arguing for such an explanation is a racist.

Also part of this theory is an adamant denial that white people might be wealthier than other races because of a culture that leads them to study hard, and thereby to earn high positions on merit. Leftists are not keen on the idea that the Enlightenment of the Ancient Greeks lit the torch for the intellectual achievements of the entire Western World for the past 2,500 years. Much simpler to blame any difference in outcomes on racism.

If you’re the sort of slave-minded person who resents anyone better than you, this philosophy intuitively appeals. There are few things that the weak like to do more than think up reasons why the strong are immoral. Any explanation that ascribes immorality to those who excel will appeal nicely to the vanity of those who have not excelled.

Adopting this belief brings with it some probably unforeseen consequences.

If you say all human groups are precisely equal, the greater over-representation of Jews in high positions in politics, media and academia can only be explained by nepotism and/or an extreme ingroup bias. If it cannot be down to a genetic or a cultural advantage, it can only be explained by Jews weaseling their way into high positions and then corruptly holding the door open to other Jews on the basis of their shared identity.

Something similar applies to Far East Asians in the West, whose achievement often exceeds that of even Jews. In many American universities, Asian students need to get higher marks before they will get accepted – not only higher marks than blacks and Hispanics but higher than whites as well! These universities discriminate against Asians because they are forced to in order to remain ideologically coherent (to the extent that this is possible).

It’s unfair to assume that someone’s excellence is necessarily the consequence of immorality, but this conclusion is now unavoidable for leftists. If Jews in America and Northern Europe have average IQs of around 107-108, as estimated by the world’s foremost intelligence researcher Richard Lynn, then some proportion of over-representation in high positions is all but inevitable (at least while the average IQ of the host population is less than 107). Therefore, leftists are bound to end up hating them.

This was demonstrated by Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign for the British General Election last December.

If you believe in blank slate theory, the different outcomes for groups with different IQs cannot be the result of anything that could be attributed to an inherent superiority, whether that superiority be natural or learned. Therefore, anyone who ascribes to strict egalitarianism ends up snookering themselves into defending positions that, if presented to them in isolation, they would reject.

The more horizontalist a person’s moral viewpoint becomes, the more necessary it becomes to ascribe moral impropriety to anyone who excels. If all human subgroups were precisely equal, then any subgroup that dominates must therefore be exploitative or aggressive than the others. The more they dominate, the more exploitative or aggressive they must be. Therefore, it’s fair to hate any group that excels.

This is every bit the slave morality that it sounds like.

Some leftists have twisted themselves into comically inconsistent positions on account of this dogma. There is a strain of them that will tell you that the underachievement of browns and blacks is the fault of white supremacism, but the overachievement of Jews is, at the same time, best explained by genetic or cultural reasons inherent to Jews.

The problem here is that said leftists have merely adopted an anti-white position, and are therefore just as hateful as any Nazi. The only consistent thing about believing that Jews earned their position by merit but that whites cheated their way to their (lesser) position is a hatred for white people. And anti-white hatred, despite its current fashionability, is not a morally superior position.

The only truly loving conception of reality is one that sees it accurately. Firstly, this means to see it accurately despite the egoic temptations to view it in a way that makes you seem genetically, culturally or morally superior. Secondly, this means to see it accurately despite the egoic temptations to deny that fact that you are genetically, culturally or morally superior when you really are.

This double balancing act is the essence of metaphysical gold. Anyone who can stave off both the traps of narcissistic sadism and narcissistic masochism is a true philosopher.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Slavedrivers Of The Realm Of Silver

Slavedrivers have always been naturally of the realm of iron – or so it seems. The whips and chains and other sadomasochistic accoutrements of the slavedriver all appear induced to cause physical suffering. As this essay will explain, however, there is an entire niche of people adapted to do the same thing, only they use psychological suffering. They are the slavedrivers of the realm of silver.

The slavedrivers of ancient Egypt, of the medieval Arabs and of the American South were all of the realm of iron. They had learned that the slaves would become compliant after enough beatings, and so their niche was to use violence and the threat of pain to induce compliance. The main purpose of this was to get them to work.

Another main purpose of the slavedrivers of the realm of iron is to make sure that the slaves don’t leave the plantation. The slavedrivers made sure that the slaves are restricted to clearly defined physical boundaries. Straying outside of these, whether by refusing to do something or by doing the wrong thing, resulted in punishment, or was simply made impossible from the beginning by use of chains.

The purpose of the slavedrivers of the realm of silver is to make sure that the slaves don’t leave the thought plantation.

Joseph Stalin once said “Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t let our enemies have guns, so why would we let them have ideas?” This summarises the ethos of the slavedrivers of the realm of silver. Their objective is to make sure that the slaves do not have ideas that threaten the objectives of the slave owners, by keeping them within the clearly defined boundaries of the thought plantation.

The first of these slavedrivers that people encounter are teachers. The education system works on the “give with one hand, take with the other principle.” They give people useful knowledge about mathematics, science, grammar and logic, and in exchange they take away the intellectual independence of those people by enforcing conformity of thought.

A person’s teachers will tell them where the boundaries of the thought plantation are. They will cause psychological suffering to any student who strays outside those boundaries, primarily through belittling them. It will be implied that any unapproved thought is stupid, and that any student entertaining an unapproved thought is stupid.

When a person becomes an adult, their teachers are replaced by “experts” on television. These talking heads are the ones tasked with keeping adults on the thought plantations. Because less than 10% of the population is educated enough to understand a scientific paper, and therefore to determine truth from falsehood, television experts are the final authority on whether certain claims are true or not.

The television experts tell people what’s real and what isn’t. The people then parrot the statements of the television experts to each other, and after they’ve heard them parroted often enough they come to be accepted as the truth. The slavedrivers of the realm of silver are the ones who cause people to believe what they do. In the 21st century, they are in charge of the apparatus of propaganda.

The main objective of the slavedrivers of the realm of silver is to induce people to submit to the way that they’re being ruled. They don’t use whips, as do the slavedrivers of the realm of iron, so they have to cause suffering in more subtle ways. They manipulate the way that humans have evolved to cause them pain in social, intellectual and spiritual domains.

One major tactic is to play on a person’s fear of feeling stupid. Because the slavedrivers of silver are always in a position of social authority, their words carry weight. Therefore, teachers and television figures can make people feel stupid for holding any unapproved ideas.

The other major tactic is to play on a person’s fear of ostracisation. No-one wants to get kicked out of their peer group, and if the peer group comes to believe something you better come to believe it as well or risk your position. The slavedrivers of the realm of silver will tell people that “everyone thinks X” or “the group thinks X”, and so anyone thinking differently is guilty of violating social norms, meaning that some aggression against them may be justified.

Both teachers and media pundits encourage people to bully freethinkers as “the idiot who thinks Y”, where Y is a thought proscribed by the plantation owners. In practice, Y could be almost literally anything. American students are bullied today for not having been subjected to male infant genital mutilation, so in theory any perversity can be normalised.

The slavedrivers of the realm of silver condition people into obedience with the same cruelty and aggression as the plantation overseers of the antebellum American South. They do this for the same reasons – to earn the favour of the plantation owners who pay their wages. It’s a whores and gangsters world, and the slavedriver plays both roles.

The fact that people are getting Police harassment visits for social media posts (as is becoming more common all over the West) portends disaster. If the plantation owners are getting slavedrivers of the realm of iron (such as the Police) to do jobs that had previously been delegated to the slavedrivers of the realm of silver, it could mean that the plantation owners are losing control.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

Clown World Chronicles: Who Are The ‘Alt-Right’?

Crucial to understanding Clown World is understanding that the Establishment has failed the people. The alternatives to the Establishment take many forms, but they fall into three major groups: the alt-left, the alt-centre and the alt-right. This essay describes those who fall into the category of alt-right.

In order to understand what the alt-right is, it’s necessary to understand how it came to be.

The old right are the people who originally had power. By ‘originally’, here we mean the very beginnings of history. The ancient kings who were first to organise armies to enforce their will. Such monarchs held power until the late 18th century, with only occasional interruptions (such as Ancient Greece).

By the time of the French Revolution in 1789, anti-monarchical sentiments had grown so powerful that they were able to force a change to the status quo. They were later given the name “left wing” from the fact that they sat on the left wing of the French Parliament. Right wing came, then, to stand for pro-monarchical sentiments that did not favour change, and left wing for sentiments that did favour change.

By 2020, both the right and the left wings have agreed that change or no change doesn’t matter – all that matters is that the money keeps flowing. The Marxists and the ownership class both agree that the mass importation of cheap labour is a good thing. The Marxists agree because they want to stick it to the nationalists, and the ownership class agrees because it drives down wages and pushes up asset prices.

The real alt-right could be said to be that which has developed out of the sense of betrayal that many have felt over the old right falling into the centre. The old right were supposed to be conservatives, and they were supposed to be defending the status quo. Young Westerners today face the reality of becoming minorities in their own lifetimes, and that portends a future every bit as bleak as that of white people in South Africa.

Now that the conservatives have, like the socialists, collapsed into the neoliberal centre, new niches on the right wing have appeared. Some of these have been filled by echoes of the old right, such as the various Christian revival movements. This has led to considerable support for monarchy and for theocracy within the alt-right.

The great divide within the alt-right is between the libertarians (who are little different to the neoliberals in the centre) and the authoritarians (who are little different to the Nazis). These two groups have similar reasons for rejecting the left, but they have different reasons for rejecting the old right.

The libertarian alt-right are the sort of people who read the cyberpunk classics and found them good. This is the sort of person who hears about the Chinese practice of black market auctions of body organs requisitioned from political dissidents and considers it an argument in favour of capitalism. These people reject the old right because they consider it bad for business.

The authoritarian alt-right are often Nazi apologists. They are horrified by cyberpunk novels, horrified by modern life, horrified by everything. They reject the old right because they don’t think it went far enough – they want the imposition of order, by gunpoint if necessary. This strain of the alt-right is the kind that the mainstream is worried about, partly because they don’t care about money.

These two groups are especially divergent on the question of race.

None of the old right, the old left or the old centre ever cared about nation or race. They never needed to, because there were no other races. The old right was the ruling class within the nation, and the old left was the working class within the nation, and neither was divided by race because other races weren’t present.

The alt-left arose as a globalist response to this arrangement, after modernity had mixed the peoples of the world together. It came to prey on working-class resentment in other countries, directing it to the destruction of nationalist sentiments. For the alt-left, racism is the original sin of white people, and therefore all white people must be eternally vigilant against its rise.

The authoritarian strand of the alt-right arose as a response to this. In contrast to the Establishment, the authoritarian strand of the alt-right is obsessed with race questions. They know that, on current trends, white people are expected to become a minority in all Western nations by the end of the century. They anticipate that this will end up like Zimbabwe for white people, and therefore mass immigration is an existential threat.

This strand of the alt-right are biological essentialists, and as such they clash head-on with the blank slatists among the alt-left. The alt-centrist belief is that these two sides, being at opposite poles of the ethnonationalist spectrum, are like two cheeks of the same arse: the ethnosupremacism of the alt-right and the ethnomasochism of the alt-left feed off each other, all but guaranteeing some climactic future conflict.

In this regard, the authoritarian alt-right is very different to the libertarian alt-right. The libertarians don’t give a fuck if there are inherent genetic behavioural differences between the different races – they’ll happily manufacture and market products tailored for any subculture or social niche. As long as the dollars roll in, the libertarian alt-right couldn’t care if the whole West became African.

The alt-right will continue to grow in power as the alt-left does, as the two sides feed off each other. Their combined energy helps to draw power away from the Establishment, which is the basis of the Fourth and Fifth Acceptance. However, the alt-centrist will always see the two sides as dangerous extremists, more similar to each other than different on account of their shared fanaticism.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

The Government, Media and Police Work Together To Suppress The Kiwi People

Many New Zealanders were shocked yesterday by the news that Right Minds columnist Dieuwe de Boer had been raided by Police, ostensibly to look for a now-banned magazine for a .22 rifle. As this essay will show, the true reason for the Police raid was as part of a wider effort to suppress dissent – an effort carried out in co-ordination with the Government and the mainstream media.

The New Zealand Government knows what it wants to do to the New Zealand people, and it’s going to do it to them whether they like it or not.

Like all authorities throughout history, the New Zealand Government has a number of people who oppose it, and a number of arse-licking slaves who support it. Those who oppose it are the New Zealand people, whose natural will is to live freely. Those who support it are the soulless hordes of weaklings who have always fallen in line behind authority figures.

That the Government works together with the Police is obvious. In theory, the Police are supposed to be politically independent. The reality is that most Kiwi alternative media commentators have now received Police harassment visits. Vinny Eastwood, VJM Publishing, Cross the Rubicon and now de Boer have all been targeted in recent months – all selected for harassment on account of their outspoken criticism of the Government.

What is less known is that the Government and Police also work hand-in-hand with the mainstream media. The media plays an essential role in this suppression by manufacturing consent for the crackdowns. They present pro-Government propaganda, and attack the reputations of anti-Government speakers.

Radio New Zealand did their bit by smearing de Boer as a “far-right extremist” who is involved with illegal firearms. In the minds of the Establishment and its loyal sycophants in the Police and mainstream media, anyone who isn’t part of the Establishment is a dangerous extremist. Thanks to propaganda such as the linked RNZ piece, people are more likely to see the Police actions as fair and proportionate.

The Radio New Zealand article was written to stir hysteria about wrong-thinkers, with the implication that there are legions of far-right wingers out there hoarding firearms in the hope of some future opportunity to massacre some Muslims. Anyone who questions the Government, it is implied, stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Brenton Tarrant and may well be a future mass murderer themselves.

The mainstream media, in its capacity as a propaganda machine, works hard to link people like Dieuwe de Boer and VJM Publishing with white nationalism, and thereby to white supremacism, and thereby to Nazism. As mentioned above, their goal is to get the New Zealand public to see the shadow of Brenton Tarrant behind every criticism of the Government, or of the Government’s globalist agenda.

Fall in line or stand with Tarrant, the authorities bark.

The mainstream media does this not only out of sycophancy. They also know that the alternative media is their greatest threat. In America, mainstream media outlets are getting destroyed by alternative media. The alternative media on YouTube, liberated from the problems of scaling that kept new entrants out of television, now gets more viewers than the mainstream media gets on cable.

Thus, the mainstream media plays the major role in making sure that the New Zealand public, in their sheep-like naivety, see the targets of the Government attacks as evil people. Anyone the Government decrees to be a wrongthinker will have their reputations sullied by mainstream journalists working to link them to terrorism.

The New Zealand Government has already compiled a list of wrong-thinkers. VJM Publishing is on it – this we know thanks to having faced a Police harassment visit already as part of Operation Whakahumanu. The New Zealand Police leaked this list to the mainstream media, who dutifully informed the public that they were being watched.

These wrong-thinkers are being targeted in order to suppress their voices of dissent. The point of the Operation Whakahumanu harassment campaign, as with the targeting of de Boer, is to make people think twice before they take action to criticise or oppose the Government. It is to make people think that they better keep their mouths shut in case the Police target them next.

De Boer is no friend of VJM Publishing. It is his brand of Abrahamic conservatism that VJM Publishing was formed to oppose. Like his fellow Bible-thumper Bob McCoskrie, de Boer couldn’t give two shits about the Police raids on medicinal cannabis growers. Users of psychedelic sacraments, in the eyes of Abrahamic conservatives, are just the kind of “degenerates” that would improve society if they were locked behind bars.

However, when the Government sets its attack dogs on the people on spurious grounds, it attacks all of us. They specifically target people like de Boer first because they know that the mainstream media will paint him as an extremist, and that this smearing will discourage people from standing up for him – or for the next victim.

The grim reality is that the New Zealand Government works hand-in-hand with the Police and the mainstream media to manufacture consent for neoliberal objectives. The people who own the New Zealand political class have directed that class to open the country up for the mass importation of cheap labour with the intent of driving wages to the floor and house prices to the roof. Because much of the surplus cheap labour is Muslim, anti-Muslim attitudes have to be smashed.

Whether admitted or not, that is the fundamental reason for the Police attack on de Boer.

Pictured: a propaganda victim

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

*

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

VJMP Predicts The 2020s

Earlier this week, VJM Publishing paid homage to science fiction author J R Mooneyham and his outstanding website. Because Mooneyham’s website relates to science fiction and to predictions of the future, we at VJM Publishing decided to pay more homage by imitating it. Here are our predictions for the 2020s.

We predict that the current movement across the West towards right-wing populism will increase. This was foretold as early as 2012, when Vince McLeod wrote about a Great Right Shift in his cyberpunk novel The Verity Key. We are seeing the Great Right Shift come into play now, and it will continue for several decades.

Western capitalist economies are built on the belief that all human beings are the same, and therefore that it’s possible to boost economic growth indefinitely through immigration. The reality is that human groups are almost as different to each other as dog breeds are, and so our system is doomed to collapse. This is the fate of all systems built on falsehoods.

It’s possible to predict, then, that social cohesion will continue to decrease across the West. Diversity will continue to increase, and this will eat into solidarity like an acid. This decrease in solidarity will be the immediate cause of most of the phenomena listed below.

It’s hard to tell if Trump will win next year, on account of the vagaries of the Electoral College system. If he loses, America will continue to fracture culturally. Even if he wins, the demographic trends will force a sharp increase in white identity. By the end of the decade, it won’t be unusual for people to openly identify as white nationalists.

The Sweden Democrats are currently polling at around 25% – we predict that they will be close to 50% by the end of the decade. Other nationalist movements in Europe will also gain ground. Marine Le Pen will win in 2022, leading to change across Europe.

There is ample space for a similar nationalist movement in New Zealand, and the lure of power will pull someone into that space. Already it has become apparent that National and Labour are two wings of the Establishment Party, and ten years from now someone will have taken advantage of the sentiments this evokes. By 2030 they will be polling at 25% and the Establishment parties will refuse to work with them.

In the realm of religion, the 2020s will be marked by the further collapse of the Abrahamic cults. Islamic apostasy in particular will be extremely strong, driven by Internet exposure to other cultures and by a reaction to the horrific scriptures. By 2030, organised ex-Muslims will be powerful forces in many countries, including Western ones. This process will lead many Westerners to Satanism.

Nearing the end of the 2020s we will start to see the rise of an esoteric form of Luciferianism. In the same way that Buddha acted to reform Hinduism and Jesus acted to reform Judaism, so too will the common Western religion of Satanism get reformed into an advanced form of Luciferianism. This movement may or may not have a great leader, but an original literature will be composed.

Related to this is an end to the suppression of psychedelic spiritual sacraments. Both cannabis and the major psychedelics will be fully legal everywhere by the end of the 2020s. The War on Drugs will be widely seen as an embarrassment akin to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The suppression of psychedelic science has done 1,600 years worth of damage, but much of this will be repaired by 2030.

Popular intellectual culture will continue to decline in the West as the public discourse drifts ever-closer to its lowest common denominator. This will be exacerbated by Western leftists moving even further away from common sense. By the end of the 2020s, Western leftists will be openly agitating in favour of pedophila, and people who claim that pedophilia harms children will be branded as bigots.

Despite this, small pockets of extremely high intellectual culture will come into existence, guided by the Internet. Because the Internet makes it possible to overcome the tyranny of geography, it can bring together people who are interested in a particular topic from all over the world.

This will lead to extremely immersive online communities relating to all kinds of topics rising up. On the topic of politics, communities like /pol/ on the various chans will grow ever stronger as authoritarian crackdowns on free speech intensify. The Establishment will be aware that it is losing control of the narrative and will therefore crack down hard on alternative sources of propaganda.

The 2020s will see a pronounced rise in the number of hikikomoris and incels. Already the trend towards dropping out of society is worrisome, partially thanks to economic conditions that make it all but impossible to own a home while earning the average wage. In the 2020s it will become extreme. By 2030, many people will have come to see sex as a crude instinct best suppressed.

Interest rates will remain low, bordering on subterranean, until they don’t. The point at which they don’t will mark the point when the shit hits the fan for real. Once they start to rise, many enterprises will fall into bankruptcy. This will lead to panic, and the measures that Governments take to prop up the banking system will be ruthlessly authoritarian.

It’s uncertain what the climate will do over the next 10 years. What we can predict, however, is that climate hysteria will continue to increase. It’s never admitted, but one of the reasons why climate hysteria is pushed so hard is that it induces people to think globally, and to ignore local issues. Hence, climate hysteria is an integral part of manufacturing consent for United Nations dictates, and this will intensify.

The impact of technology on the organisation of human life will become ever stronger. Ted Kaczynski will continue to be vindicated. Some countries will ban personal ownership of motor vehicles as the entire fleet moves to self-driving cars and trucks. Others will force Internet users to declare their identity every time they use the Internet. Mass surveillance will become normalised, and anyone who objects to it will be dismissed as paranoid.

Another phenomenon that will reach fever pitch is spree killings and random murders, whether carried out by firearm or by blade. Mass shootings are already becoming common on account of the general social malaise, and mass stabbings/machete attacks aren’t far behind. In some places, stretches of the 2020s will be like the film Battle Royale. This will cause some very strange alliances and feuds.

By the end of the 2020s, the majority of the population will be on some kind of psychiatric medicine. The idea that people need it because we evolved to live in a different world will become normalised. Social pressures will become so intense that it will be hard to function without sedatives. Related to this, cannabis will replace alcohol as the first choice recreational drug among Western youth.

Culturally speaking, we agree with Rick Giles that the 2020s ought to see a return of physical Honour Culture. The increasing paranoia and worsening economic conditions will cause many to realise that a social collapse is eminently possible. Many have already taken measures to prepare for this by hoarding firearms and precious metals, but there will be a surge in those who prepare by getting fit.

In summary, the 2020s will be worse in most ways, and better in a small number of other ways. It will get worse in terms of society, which will become ever shittier and more soulless and authoritarian. It will get better in the sense that it become possible to reject the system and to carve one’s own niche in cyberspace or in the counterculture that will dominate this decade.

*

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.

Has Firearms Confiscation Failed Like Cannabis Prohibition?

The amnesty period for the recent firearms confiscation in New Zealand has just ended. Early estimates suggest that fewer than half of the recently-banned firearms have been handed in, which means that some 100,000 Kiwis are now criminals. This essay asks: if the New Zealand people aren’t going to obey the new firearms law because they don’t consider it legitimate, is enforcing it even feasible?

No people are obliged to obey immoral laws.

Intuitive recognition of this natural law of morality is why cannabis prohibition has failed in New Zealand. The people of New Zealand feel that they have the inherent right to use cannabis, and therefore they don’t care about the manmade laws prohibiting it. The people who follow and enforce these laws, not the ones that break them, are the ones who shall incur the karmic debt.

This widespread refusal to submit to cannabis prohibition has made the law unenforceable. Not only do Kiwis continue to use cannabis, but they regularly collaborate to help each other evade law enforcement. Although people getting ratted out for cannabis offences is still very common, it’s not routine like it is for offences that actually harm people. So for every cannabis user arrested, a hundred more people become cannabis users.

In a system such as ours, our politicians are supposed to be representatives of the public will. Therefore, the New Zealand people feel that politicians who do not follow the public will are acting in bad faith, and that these politicians do not need to be respected. Overseas, such sentiments regularly lead to violence and civil unrest. Consequently, our politicians try to make sure that they’re seen respecting the public will.

This is part of the unwritten contract that prevents we, the people, from killing them. We have the right to kill anyone trying to enslave us, as per the Iron Tenet of anarcho-homicidalism, and anyone refusing to accept our legitimate will is trying to enslave us. The ruling class understand this, which is why they are now giving way on the question of cannabis prohibition.

The problem is that it’s starting to look as if the public will is against the new firearms prohibitions. The New Zealand Council of Licenced Firearms Owners estimates that, although some 56,000 weapons have been surrendered, there are still 100,000 that have not been. There are also suggestions that, of the 56,000 rifles surrendered, many were effectively useless anyway.

The question raised by the refusal to hand in the now-prohibited firearms is this: if the New Zealand people refuse to submit to the new firearms prohibitions, are these laws any more enforceable than the cannabis laws? In other words, is it possible that widespread defiance of the new firearms prohibitions could lead to their withdrawal in the future?

There are already counter-movements to the firearms crackdowns.

The New Conservatives have promised to repeal the recent changes to the firearms laws. VJM Publishing has declared the ownership of weapons to be an inherent human right granted by God, as part of the Sevenfold Conception of Human Rights. Predictably, a large proportion of rural dwellers are against tightening firearms prohibition, with many having stashed weapons away.

There is one major difference between the cannabis laws and the firearms laws. It’s much harder to prohibit something that grows in the ground from a seed than it is to prohibit precision instruments that have to be manufactured overseas in a dedicated factory and then imported.

The New Zealand Police might calculate, therefore, that if they smash a few Kiwis in high-profile firearms raids, and co-ordinate this with a mainstream media propaganda campaign calling the targets “white supremacists,” the remainder will submit.

After all, it took ninety years of utter futility, wasting billions of dollars and many millions of manhours, before it was admitted that cannabis prohibition was a failure. So there’s no reason to think that the New Zealand ruling class will lightly give up their ambitions to render the population harmless through firearms prohibition. Even if it has failed, they will not readily admit it.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what laws are forced on us by our ruling classes. The Police will attack any Kiwi that the ruling class tells them to attack, but if repeated attacks don’t change the people’s behaviour, then there’s good reason to think that it won’t ever change. This has already been proven true with the failed attempts to prohibit homosexuality, prostitution and cannabis use.

The next few years will see a battle between the will of the ruling class, expressed through the actions of the New Zealand Police, and the will of the Kiwi nation who will be targeted by those actions. If the New Zealand people utterly refuse to co-operate with the new firearms prohibitions, then the ruling class might be forced to concede that those prohibitions are unenforceable.

*

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.

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘The Muttening’?

The eschatology of Clown World encompasses a number of endgame scenarios. One is “The Great Awakening,” where the entire world rises into a higher spiritual dimension. Another is “The Boogaloo,” an orgy of violence that redefines the world order. Another, as this chapter will examine, is called “The Muttening.”

Everyone is aware that ethnic diversity is increasing in all Western nations. This is primarily because our ruling classes, beholden to international banking and finance interests, keep the immigration taps open to pump up house prices and to press down wages. They do this with the full support of those they have brainwashed into thinking that opposing immigration is racism.

But this diversity has both benefits and drawbacks.

Among the benefits are an increased richness of life, primarily manifested in an increased variety of food, music and other cultural expressions. It has become possible to meet people from a large variety of different cultures and to hear about their different perspectives on life, politics, religion and philosophy. It’s also been possible to shag some of them.

The drawbacks are harder to talk about. This is partly because they are less obvious, but also because they are taboo. As mentioned above, the population at large has been conditioned to believe that opposing the mass immigration of cheap labour is racism. Many have even come to believe that pointing out any difference at all between two human groups is racism.

This has led to a number of probably unforeseen outcomes.

The reason why this rapid increase in ethnic diversity is called “The Muttening” and not something positive is for the same reason that a mongrel dog is called a mutt and not something positive. The depressing reality is that diversity destroys nations, a consequence of the fact that it makes it harder for the average citizen to relate to others. This is proven by science.

Scientific research shows a negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. The greater the ethnic diversity of an area, the less people trust their neighbours. This has serious consequences for the viability of a country, because the less trust in a society the harder it is to govern. Less trusting people are less accepting of things that go against them and tend to fight and argue more.

This is why there is an association between increased diversity and lowered economic performance. Commerce is dependent on trust – for a modern economy to function, customers have to be confident that they’re buying quality goods and services, and not rubbish designed to rip them off. When trust dries up, the wheels of commerce have trouble turning.

Ultimately, as was argued in this paper, “…when diversity is low in a society and people feel close to their fellow citizens, they can identify with one another and are hence more likely to trust one another.” In other words, diversity makes every society shittier and generally less pleasant to live in. Diversity brings poverty and rage in its wake.

Another consequence of this sudden increase in diversity has been challenges of personal identity. As mentioned above, one of the results of diversity has been an increase in interracial marriage. Naturally, this leads to an increase in the number of mixed-race people.

Many of these mixed-race people find it difficult to assume a coherent identity. Often they are accepted by neither of their parent’s groups. Men like Barack Obama are simultaneously too white to be accepted by other blacks and too black to be accepted by other whites. Obama managed to find a place in the world as an American, but many others live as ghosts, between two worlds.

Some earnest do-gooders have concluded that, if all of the different races in the world would mix together, there would no longer be any ethnic conflict. These people have never seen the state of Brazil. Consequently, these people agitate on the side of the international bankers and finance interests to destroy borders, ostensibly in the belief that to do so would help the “global working class”.

This process of extreme race-mixing at both the individual and group level is known as The Muttening. The reduction of all the vibrant cultures of the world into one homogenised mass of consumer whores. A Starbucks, a McDonalds and an Apple store on every corner, and their patrons interchangeable with the patrons of any other large city. No-one knowing their neighbours, but everyone knowing the latest consumer fashion.

It’s not clear how far The Muttening will go. The entire Western World may end up like Brazil and South Africa, or we may end up with a pan-Western Hitler figure who puts a stop to it all. It may trigger the Boogaloo, or it may trigger the aliens coming to Earth and accepting us into the Galactic Confederation. In any case – the longer it continues, the more fragile Clown World becomes.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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

Young People Voting For Left-Wing Parties Is Not Evidence Of Marxist Brainwashing Camps

A popular meme going around at the moment shows an electoral map of Britain if only 18-24 year olds had voted in the General Election earlier this month. The map is almost completely red, leading many to conclude that these young people have all been brainwashed into voting Labour, but this conclusion does not follow evidentially. Demographer Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, explains.

Most adults are intelligent enough to know that people don’t cast their votes depending on which set of policies best serve the nation, or even depending on which set of politicians appears to be the most competent. The reality is that politics is pure, naked self-interest, and people cast their vote based on that.

One of the basic rules of democratic elections is that the less resources a person controls, the more they will want resources to be redistributed. This isn’t merely a law of politics, or even a law of psychology, but a law of ethology, brought about by evolution.

It can be observed in primate troops that the primates with the weakest capacity for gathering resources from nature are the same ones that are the most strongly in favour of sharing. This is not surprising, because the weaker one’s capacity for gathering resources, the more reliant one becomes on the gathering capacity of others.

When a person is aged between 18 and 24, it’s almost inevitable that they are poor, at least as an individual. At the absolute most they will have earned a postgraduate degree, and even if they managed to avoid a student loan they will not have had enough time to earn any real money. Assuming they haven’t inherited a fortune already, the best of them will be working an entry-level position and renting, with little real savings.

People in this age bracket find that it’s older people who own everything already. In New Zealand, the correlation between living in a freehold house and being aged between 20 and 29 was -0.60. If one considers that many people in this age bracket will be living in a freehold house owned by a family member, it suggests that very few of them will own their own homes.

Not owning your own home means that you will get extorted out of rent money in order to not die of exposure. Because it’s the old who own most of the homes, society is therefore structured in a way that funnels wealth away from the young workers and into the pockets of the old owners. Because society is set up this way, young people are always likely to vote for the party that promises to give workers a bigger share.

This is no more surprising or immoral than the old voting to not redistribute wealth owing to the fact that they already own everything. Voting for a Conservative party is the same as voting to uphold the Police and their enforcement of property claims, and this is almost always done when a person charges rent. In other words, it’s also voting purely in one’s self-interest.

Further evidence for the statement that young people don’t vote for left-wing parties because of Marxist indoctrination comes from observing young university students. Young people who go to university are more likely to vote for a right-wing party than those who did not go to university. If young people voted for left-wing parties because of Marxist brainwashing camps, then those not exposed to the camps would vote for right-wing parties more often.

The opposite is the case. This is because young people who go to university are more likely to come from the middle class than those who do not, and are therefore wealthier than the average of their age cohort, despite that their age cohort is relatively poor. Consequently, they are more likely to vote Conservative out of self-interest.

On the other hand, it is true that our university system has been reduced to a network of Marxist indoctrination camps. Evidence for this doesn’t come from the voting patterns of young people, though – it comes from the movements against free speech, the promulgation of anti-white philosophies and the distorted views of history and of human nature that are promoted for political reasons and not because of a love of truth.

The voting pattern of young people voting for left-wing parties that promise to redistribute wealth is not because these young people have been brainwashed – it’s because they’re poor. The kind of low-IQ person susceptible to Marxist brainwashing would usually vote left anyway on account of that they were poor.

*

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).

*

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

Clown World Chronicles: What is ‘Pozzed’?

Of the variety of insults and jibes in the vocabulary of Clown World, many of them relate to sexual conduct. This is true of all times and places in human history, but Clown World slang has moved past calling people ‘fags’ and ‘wankers’. In Clown World culture there’s an entirely new vocabulary to describe the environmental phenomena around us – and one of those words is ‘pozzed’.

A common Clown World insult is to say that someone or something has AIDS. People with AIDS are typically sickly and weak on account of immune system failure. So if a disfavoured person looks less than healthy, someone else might say that they have AIDS.

AIDS is what you get if you have the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). If you do contract HIV, and then undergo a test for it, you will be found positive. It’s from this use of ‘positive’ that the word ‘pozzed’ is derived.

In practice, there’s little difference between a place that has been pozzed and a place that has been heavily influenced by globohomo. Globohomo makes cities and nations sickly and weak, much like AIDS does. A city or nation that has been heavily influenced by globohomo can be said to be pozzed.

‘Pozzed’ is another way of saying ‘takes it up the arse’. The assumption is that a place that is pozzed will have, among other things, a large amount of homosexual activity, some of it non-consensual. The statement “San Francisco is completely pozzed” suggests that a large number of people contract AIDS there. It implies that a large number of people in San Francisco get fucked in the arse by strangers with no contraceptives.

There’s more to it than that, of course – somewhere pozzed will also suffer from physical deterioration and social decay. It will probably have large numbers of homeless people and refugees wandering the streets during the day. It will be common to see open drug use, open urination and even open defecation. A place that is pozzed enough might even have open fornication.

When it is said that “The West is pozzed,” it’s meant that the West is sickly and weak. Like an AIDS victim, the West is just shuffling along towards its deathbed, nothing left to hope for except that death will be as painless as possible. The West has taken it up the arse so hard and for so long, that’s it’s now a testing bed for weapons-grade AIDS.

People who say that the West is pozzed will point to various signs of social decay. The fact that it’s all but impossible to own a house and to raise a family on one worker’s wage. The destruction of social cohesion brought about by mass immigration and cultural atomisation. The rise of transfaggotry and the decline of two-parent households. The reduction of our media and cultural institutions to the lowest common denominator.

The broader implication is that a pozzed place is one that is godless. Much like the men in San Francisco bathhouses, the average citizen of Clown World lives only for the next animal pleasure. Clown World has fallen so far from righteousness that people don’t even care if they contract AIDS and die. Phenomena such as bugchasing underline the fact that we have turned our backs on God.

Much like AIDS, there is no cure for being pozzed. The only course of treatment is to let the pozzed body die and then to replace it with a healthy one. Unfortunately, this is the path that every pozzed workplace, city or nation will have to undergo. The West will undergo it in a decade or so.

If one places Clown World in the Five Regimes model described by Plato in The Republic, we have just moved past democracy and are just starting to move into tyranny. This means that there is now a moral obligation on us to overthrow this corrupt and rotten system, and to replace it with one that works to minimise human suffering, instead of one that works to aggravate it.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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

British Labour Lost The White Working Class – And New Zealand Labour Is Making The Same Mistake

The British General Election this week produced a crushing defeat for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, their worst since World War II. Analysis of voting patterns showed that the genesis of the Labour loss came in their low polling among the British working class. This result has ominous overtones for New Zealand Labour, Dan McGlashan will argue, because they are repeating the same mistakes that their British counterparts did.

Modern Britain was built by the white working class.

The white working class ploughed most of the fields, dug most of the ditches, cleared most of the scrub, laid most of the drains, paved most of the roads – and took most of the artillery fire. For every endeavour carried out by the British Empire and its descendants for hundreds of years, the white working class was the spearhead, the tool with which British will worked the Earth.

Today, the white working class man is excoriated for being a racist. He is expected to crawl into his hovel and die as he is replaced by cheap labour from foreign nations. He voted for Brexit, mostly because he understands that globalism only serves those with the ability to operate globally, i.e. the rich. For this he was called racist, backwards, bigoted, stupid, short-sighted and incapable of acting in his own best interests.

The same Establishment that oppressed him for centuries abandoned him the moment they could find someone more profitable to oppress. Since then, the white working class has rapidly lost ground. Predictably, there are many bad sentiments held by the white working class towards the Establishment and towards the people who give it power.

Jeremy Corbyn came to represent that Establishment. Not only did Corbyn oppose Brexit, which had become emblematic as a rare and long-awaited win for British workers, but he also favoured other things the Establishment favoured. One of these things was woke politics.

Every working-class person hates woke politics.

The working class is about honesty. It has to be, because if you’re working with your hands and getting dirty you can’t also wear a costume. Therefore, you can’t pretend to be anything other than what you are. The working class doesn’t care about your illustrious ancestor that was the Baron of somewhere, only what you’re capable of right here and now. What you see is what you get – dishonesty is for criminals (both poor and rich ones).

Therefore, there is little that is less working-class than woke politics. The whole idea of puffing one’s chest out and pretending to care deeply about great swathes of people, when in reality you don’t give two shits about them, is anathema. The whole idea of continually posturing to demonstrate one’s moral superiority seems ridiculously fake. It’s a preoccupation for middle-class dandies.

When the Labour Party comes out and announces that it has secured more mental health funding for Maori and Pacific Island people, the white working class in New Zealand can only interpret that as a slap in the face. Betrayal is the only word to describe the Labour Party lifting up one group of people, whose ancestors have been here at most 60 years, and leaving another group of people, whose ancestors have been here for 160 years, in the shit.

As this magazine has argued previously, the New Zealand working class is destined to turn to fascism in the long term. This is because they are being, and will continue to be, abandoned by the social democrats in favour of virtue signalling, globalist obligations to the Third World and woke politics.

Much like Britain, there is no fascist option in New Zealand at the moment (New Zealand First does not realistically fulfill that role). In other European countries, some sort of neo-Nazi movement exists to absorb the dissenting working-class voters. But these countries all run on a Mixed Member Proportional electoral system – the British First-Past-The-Post system prevents any such movement from gaining traction.

In Britain, these dissenting working-class voters switched to the Conservatives. This was deduced from calculating the correlation between the size of the swing towards the Conservatives in an electorate and other variables. The strongest correlations with the size of the swing towards the Conservatives were in white, working-class areas.

Few want to admit it, but the fact that the white proportion of Anglo countries is inexorably shrinking means that white voters are all but guaranteed to end up circling the wagons. They will do this under the auspices of the conservative movements, whether liberal or authoritarian. Many white people who identify strongly with being white see men like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson as avatars of their interests.

The New Zealand Labour Party is making all the same mistakes the British Labour Party did. They don’t have a centrepiece betrayal such as Brexit, but they have a number of smaller ones, such as raising the refugee quota, signing the TPPA, tightening the gun law, cracking down on free speech and the Operation Whakahumanu Police harassment campaign of social media free thinkers.

If the New Zealand Labour Party likewise gets abandoned by the white working class, those voters may follow the now established trend in other Anglo countries of switching loyalties to the conservatives. This will likely see an ever higher proportion of white people vote for National, and an ever lower proportion of white people vote for Labour.

Because white people are forecast to remain a majority in New Zealand until at least 2083, this process will work to shift the balance of Parliamentary power in National’s favour. The Sixth Labour Government already has a very weak grip on power, and even a small shift in loyalties among the white working class could see them lose power in 2020.

The British Labour Party made a fatal strategic error by abandoning the white working class in favour of woke politics of all kinds. The natural resistance of the working class to such pretentious dishonesty cost them this week’s General Election. The New Zealand Labour Party follows closely in the footsteps of their British counterparts, and they look all but certain to make the same strategic error. Will it cost them next year?

*

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).

*

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

Clown World Chronicles: What is the ‘Boogaloo’?

In the darker recesses of the Internet, people like to talk about something called the ‘Boogaloo’. People make references to some future event that goes by this name, and talk about what they would do if and when it happens. As this essay will explain, the Boogaloo is an essential part of the Clown World eschatology.

Most people can sense that something’s fucky about the way the world is. It’s not for nothing we call it Clown World. One study showed that young people today have less than 40% of the housebuying power that their parents had – and things are getting worse. We know that things that are so fucked that they can’t remain that way. Nothing so badly screwed up can also be durable.

It’s obvious to most of these people that the current order of the world is destined to collapse – and soon. There are too many inexorable forces that are pushing towards this. The rot has set in so deeply that it has already reached right into the heart of what holds our society together. The foundations are already giving way.

When the current order of the world does collapse, it’s likely to be ugly. Our economies already operate on the principle of “just in time” delivery, and that means when the shit does hit the fan, supermarkets and petrol stations will start going empty in short order. When they do, people will start to panic. This will result in a sharp increase in desperate, opportunistic behaviours.

This means violence. When basic necessities start becoming scarce, some people will start fighting over what little remains. Normal loyalties to nation, race, neighbourhood and even family will start to break down, and treachery will become commonplace. This state of all-on-all warfare is what people mean by the Boogaloo.

The Boogaloo is the chimpout at the end of this age of the world. It is Ragnarok. It is Armageddon. It is the great reconciliation of grudges and grievances. The Boogaloo is when all law and order collapses, and life becomes reduced to its fundamental principle of kill or be killed.

In the theology of Clown World, the Boogaloo is the great day of judgment. All the tribulations we currently face are merely preparations for this great climax. In much the same way that other religions claim that the order of the world is so inherently evil that it cannot maintain, so too does the Clown World pantheon tell a story of an inescapable final cataclysm of violence.

A common accompaniment to talk about the Boogaloo is weapons talk. A lot of people have been preparing specifically for the end of the world, by stocking food, water, medicine – and firearms. It’s assumed that the Boogaloo will involve a lot of violence, especially in the early days before the population thins out. Having the right weaponry for the Boogaloo is a preoccupation for many in Clown World.

Also related is discussion about social unrest. People like to talk about what might kick the Boogaloo off. Popular theories include an intensification of racial conflict, a spectacular terrorist attack such as the detonation of a nuke, or a sudden change in Government like a coup or impeachment trial. A sudden outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, leading to a nuclear exchange, is another favourite theory.

The classic Boogaloo discussion involves whether the U.S. Army would follow orders to fire on American citizens, should it come down to that. At some point, the reasoning goes, civil unrest would lead to the Army being sent in, and if disorder continued the soldiers might be given an order to fire upon the rioters.

Because Clown World is so shit, many people (especially young men) yearn for the Boogaloo. Many people feel that the structure of Clown World is preventing them from reaching their full potential, or is so egregiously corrupt that it would be a righteous thing to see it fall. They believe that the Boogaloo would release them from the bonds of this false order.

In The Republic, Plato wrote about how political systems inevitably degrade from an aristocracy down through oligarchy to democracy and tyranny (right now we are somewhere between democracy and tyranny). This degradation cannot be reversed – the only way to counteract it is to overthrow the system entirely and to institute a new aristocracy of philosopher-kings.

It may be that the West is fated to endure a Boogaloo as a punishment. This punishment would be for our failure to overthrow the system that we knew was corrupt. The Boogaloo would then serve as a cleansing fire. Alternatively, it could be that the Boogaloo is a necessary step in the process of overthrowing the old, corrupt order and replacing it with a new aristocracy.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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



Who Are The Forces Of Evil In The Cannabis Referendum Debate?

Now that the cannabis referendum question has been announced, the real battlelines have finally been drawn. Every decent person understands that the forces of evil are lined up against the Cannabis Legalisation And Control Bill, but the question remains: who are they? Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, describes the opponents to cannabis law reform in New Zealand.

The easy way to tell who is for and who is against cannabis is by looking at the correlations between various demographics and their support for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the 2017 General Election.

This can be done by importing the demographic data from the Electoral Profiles on the Parliamentary website into a statistics program such as Statistica, and then calculating a correlation matrix. Such an approach was the basis of my analysis in Understanding New Zealand, in which I calculated the correlations between all demographics and voting preferences and every other.

The strongest correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and being in any demographic is the one between voting ALCP in 2017 and being Maori. This was a gigantic 0.91, which suggests that the vast bulk of Maori people are in favour of cannabis law reform. The strength of this relationship can be seen from looking at the ALCP vote in the Maori electorates, which is around twice as high as the ALCP vote in general electorates.

Maoris are strong supporters of cannabis law reform for several reasons. The primary reason is because cannabis suits them better than alcohol, to which they have little genetic resistance. The fact that white people have thousands of years of genetic resistance to alcohol, and Maoris don’t, mean that the normalisation of alcohol culture is grossly unfair.

The other super-powerful correlation with voting ALCP in 2017 was with regular tobacco smokers. This was 0.89, suggesting that if a person is a regular tobacco smoker they are all but certain to be a supporter of cannabis law reform.

The reason for this correlation is that it’s mostly only people with mental problems who smoke tobacco, and these same people smoke cannabis for its medicinal effects. If a person has PTSD or anxiety, it’s often the case that tobacco and cannabis both have a similar medicinal effect.

One less strong, but still powerful, correlation was between supporting the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and being New Zealand born – this was 0.73. It will come as a surprise to many, but cannabis use is an implicit part of the New Zealand identity. It’s as much a part of who we are as rugby, beaches, barbeques and ethnic confusion. Therefore, people who are born and raised in New Zealand are much more likely to support cannabis law reform than those born elsewhere.

These correlations suggest that the average cannabis user is the salt-of-the-earth working-class Kiwi. This is proven by the correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and being employed in working-class professions, such as community or personal service worker (0.77), labourer (0.71), machinery operators and drivers (0.70) or technicians and trades workers (0.43).

The pro-cannabis forces, then, are basically the people who are at the coal face of the tough jobs in New Zealand. People who work repetitive jobs or jobs with heavy social contact are the ones who tend to have the strongest need to destress at the end of the day, and it’s for them that cannabis law reform would be the most beneficial.

This gives us a good idea of who the forces of evil are.

Many of the opponents to cannabis law reform are old people. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and median age was -0.57. It’s necessary to note, however, that the correlation between voting ALCP and being on the pension was only -0.18, i.e. not statistically significant. This means that the relation to age and support for cannabis law reform is not linear – it rebounds among pensioners.

This replicates a pattern seen overseas. People tend to be anti-cannabis the older they are, up until the point where they are so old that their life starts to revolve around medicines and doctors. At this point it’s common for people to get exposed to cannabis and to come to appreciate its medicinal effects. So the brainwashing only lasts until there’s an element of personal interest in it, at which point it’s discarded.

Christians make up another strong anti-cannabis bloc. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and being Christian was -0.37. Christians have always hated cannabis users, in particular because cannabis is the natural spiritual sacrament of the Eurasian people. This is why Bob McCoskrie, funded by Church money, is taking the leading role in the anti-cannabis campaign.

Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are all significantly opposed to cannabis law reform as well. The correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and belonging to any of these religious groups was at least -0.30. As mentioned above, this is because cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, and therefore its use is directly against the interests of organised religion.

Predictably, then, there is a strong negative correlation between voting National and voting ALCP. Interestingly, the correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and voting National in 2017 (-0.70) is more strongly negative than the correlation between voting ALCP in 2017 and voting Conservative in 2017 (-0.40). This underlines the degree to which National voters are not motivated by conservatism so much as actual malice.

The forces of evil, then, in the cannabis law reform debate are the same old, religious bigots who have opposed every other attempt at making society better. They’re essentially the same people who opposed homosexual, smacking and prostitution law reform, and they’ll oppose everything in the future too, because any change makes them piss their pants.

*

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.

VJMP Reads: Edward Bernays’s Propaganda XI

This reading continues from here.

Chapter Eleven in Edward Bernays’s Propaganda is called ‘The Mechanics of Propaganda.’ Here Bernays talks about how propaganda gets transmitted to the public.

Bernays defined propaganda here as “the establishing of reciprocal understanding between a person and a group.” Therefore, there is no practical limit to the number and type of media that may be employed to transmit propaganda (one wonders what Bernays would have made of the Internet).

He writes about how the public meeting was the best means of propaganda 50 years ago (i.e. in the 1870s), but people have become “sick of the ballyhoo of the rally,” and prefer to get information from the radio and newspapers. The propagandist must keep up with the shifting patterns of the popularity of various media, as well as anticipate future changes.

Bernays notes here that there is almost no item of news that, if published, would not benefit the interests of some people and harm the interests of others. He notes also that the newspaper does not care about the propaganda value of a piece of information, but only about its news value. Thus, propaganda that is also news is more likely to get propagated.

It’s important to tailor the message to the audience. The propagandist must create propaganda items with specific audiences in mind. To this end, magazines are different to newspapers because they’re not obliged to print news. This also means that magazines are kind of naturally like propaganda organs.

The propagandist might like to consider supplying a propaganda organ with a series of articles that puts the case to a particular audience. This is especially likely to succeed if that organ feels like they can derive prestige from the association with the company the propagandist works for.

Hilariously (with hindsight), Bernays is able to speak about the radio when it was a new invention and its development uncertain. He notes that many newspaper enterprises have moved into radio, correctly in his estimation. Anticipating the Internet, he predicts that various groups will have an ev ever-increasing interest in buying media space for the sake of propagandising.

Incredibly, Bernays was able to write 90 years ago that Hollywood films were major propaganda devices. He also predicts the rise of the cult of personality by noting that “the public instinctively demands a personality to typify a conspicuous corporation or enterprise.” This is acutely true in New Zealand, where our Prime Ministers have little to go on apart from the personality cults.

Bernays notes that the public has already become cynical to attempts at manipulating them through the media, but some interests are universal. People will always have a need for food, for amusement, for beauty and for leadership. For this reason, they will always seek out sources of propaganda.

He leaves us with the statement: “Intelligent men must realise that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help bring order out of chaos.” This statement must be read in the light of World War I, which was itself the result of the old methods of fighting. In this sense, Bernays and this book herald a shift from an Age of Iron to an Age of Silver.

*

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 Cannabis Legalisation And Control Bill: A Weak But Realistic Compromise

The Government released news this week about the exact form of the cannabis referendum question at next year’s General Election. The Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, currently in draft form, will serve as the basis for next year’s referendum question. Long-time cannabis law reform campaigner Vince McLeod, author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, gives his thoughts on the proposal.

The proposed law is weak, but it’s a realistic compromise with the forces of evil.

Most importantly, it makes the possession of up to 14 grams of cannabis, a small homegrow and licensed retail cannabis sales all legal. As far as the cannabis-using community is concerned, this achieves most of the long-stated goals of cannabis legalisation. It’s broadly in line with what other states and territories in North America have introduced.

Section 18 of the Cannabis Control Bill will allow up to 14 grams of cannabis to be possessed in a public place, and for cannabis to be smoked at home. People are allowed to possess more than this if they are transporting it from one person’s home to another. There appears to be no limit on how much cannabis one is allowed to possess at home.

This will mean that it will no longer matter if a Police officer smells cannabis on you in public or while during a visit to your house. Evidence of cannabis will no longer, by itself, be a sufficient cause for the Police to attack you. Even if the case of smoking cannabis in public, which will still be illegal, the punishment is only a $200 infringement fee.

Section 15 of the Bill will allow for two plants to be grown at home per person, and up to four plants to be grown per household.

Two plants is not a lot. However, if you grew four plants in a small grow tent under a 600W light you could get ten or twelve ounces per grow. Assuming that you’re able to get hold of clones, this would mean ten or twelve ounces every eight to ten weeks. In other words, a household could meet its demands for recreational cannabis easily enough by growing it themselves.

Moreover, there is no proposed restriction on the size of the two plants, as has been the case in some North American jurisdictions. This suggests that people will be allowed to put down a couple of honking sativas in an outdoors greenhouse and get them both up to ten feet tall. Such an arrangement would make it legal to grow a year’s worth of cannabis in one season, sparing the need for the environmentally-unfriendly grow tents.

Section 19 of the Bill allows for recreational cannabis sales. Purchases will be limited to 14 grams per day, but this is at least two weeks’ worth by any reasonable measure. Aside from this, it appears the proposed model will be fairly similar to the cannabis cafe model that has existed in the Netherlands since the 1970s.

In other words, it appears that the proposed model is intended to allow for recreational cannabis sales in cafes in a similar fashion to how alcohol is already sold in pubs. Section 49 of the Bill makes reference to “consumption licences” which will allow certain premises to allow people to consume cannabis in public. Such premises will not be allowed to also sell alcohol, and will therefore follow closely to the Daktory model that Dakta Green has already established in New Zealand.

Despite these major wins, the Bill has a number of flaws from the perspective of the average member of the cannabis-using community.

Nowhere in the Bill has provision been made for running a mother plant that clones can be taken from. If one household can only have four plants, it makes having a mother plant that one can take clones off difficult. Against this criticism, however, is that it appears the Bill will allow for retail sale of feminised seeds.

It’s also a mistake to set the legal limit at 20. For one thing, it implies that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol, which is entirely false. For another, it means two years where young Kiwis will be legally allowed to drink booze but not smoke weed, which will mean two years of exposure to the more destructive of the two drugs. Legal cannabis has been shown to lower rates of alcohol use overseas, and the sooner an alternative to alcohol was available the better.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Bill doesn’t address our right to use cannabis for spiritual purposes. Absolutely zero acknowledgement is made of the fact that cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, but this is not unexpected if one considers that New Zealand has been ruled by completely godless people since the turn of the century, and that for their sort spirituality is mental illness.

Also predictably, there is no provision for an official Government apology for conducting a war against them without their consent. The War on Drugs has been the worst human rights violation to occur in the West since World War II. The Government’s role in this war has involved decades of lying to the public about the effects of cannabis and putting people who defy them in cages. Their conduct has been obscene, and an apology should be part of legalisation – but it won’t be.

Perhaps worst of all, the Government is still committed to minimising cannabis use from the standpoint of cannabis use being inherently harmful. It’s possible that they have calculated that legalising cannabis would make it possible to strangle cannabis culture through ever-increasing taxes and red tape, as they have almost successfully done for tobacco. More likely, however, is that they have shifted thinking so that cannabis is now (rightly) grouped with alcohol and tobacco and not heroin and methamphetamine.

There are many possible criticisms of the Bill, but ultimately it is definitely worth supporting. All of the legitimate criticisms relate to aspects of cannabis law that could best be fine-tuned after the referendum has been passed.

Realistically, what the proposed Cannabis Leglisation And Control Bill means is an end to the fear. It would be taking away that dark, nauseating feeling that comes with being marked as a criminal. People smoking or growing cannabis at home will no longer have to fear saying the wrong thing or inviting the wrong person to their house, and the net result will be a reduction in the suffering of the New Zealand people.

*

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.

Clown World Chronicles: What Is A ‘Behavioural Sink’?

The story of Clown World is a story of collapse. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that all of the signs and symptoms of social collapse in other mammalian species can also be observed in our societies today. The concept of the ‘behavioural sink‘ is an ethological observation that applies just as well to human society.

In the 1950s and 1960s, ethologist John Calhoun ran a series of experiments with Norwegian rats. This involved creating a controlled environment where the rats could thrive – food and quality shelter were limitless. These are sometimes called the Mouse Utopia Experiments on account of that the environment was so conducive to life.

In one of these experiments, known as “Universe 25”, the easy nature of life led to a population explosion, as the natural birth rates of the r-selected rodents (mice in this instance) were not kept in check by the natural death rate that would have existed had they lived in the wild. The overpopulation eventually reached such an extreme degree that the inhabitants of Universe 25 began to exhibit some strange behaviours.

Beyond a certain degree of overpopulation, asocial and then antisocial behaviour became much more common.

First the rodents would start to become asocial. The typical expression of this was a passive form of withdrawal. Some rodents would avoid the others during the daytime, only becoming active at night when the others had settled down. Other rodents, dubbed the “beautiful ones”, came to devote all of their time to grooming, withdrawing from social interaction completely.

If overcrowding became worse than this, the rodents would become aggressive. They would start to randomly attack each other, sometimes fatally. The slightest irritation could trigger a murderous assault. At its worst, infant mortality came close to 100%, as the rodents came to completely neglect their parental duties. Eventually the population would collapse on account of all this homicidal and suicidal behaviour.

Calhoun coined the term ‘behavioural sink’ to describe this societal collapse. He described it as a kind of “spiritual death” that preceded physical death. Observing the disintegration of rodent society on account of this overpopulation gives us great insight into the nature of Clown World. The terrifying truth is that the human animal in Clown World is not so different from the rat and the mouse in the Mouse Utopia Experiments.

The human animal did not evolve in a state of overcrowding. For the vast majority of the 100,000 or so years that humans have existed on this planet, we did so in small bands like the other primates. These bands rarely exceeded 150 or so – if the population of one band would swell beyond this, part of it would split off and form a colony elsewhere.

Because living conditions were so harsh during this time, there was never a time when the birth rate was significantly higher than the death rate. Hunger, disease, natural disaster, tribal warfare and predation from larger animals all worked to keep the human population in check.

This all changed when sanitation and then modern medicine were invented. These two advances meant that the death rate dropped sharply. Because the birth rate initially stayed the same, the human population ballooned. The human population has quintupled since 1900, and most of that growth has been concentrated in urban areas close to the major international trading hubs.

By 2019, the human animal is presented with a set of living conditions very similar to the rats in Calhoun’s study. Perhaps inevitably, we have responded in a similar fashion. The essence of Clown World is the collapse in social behaviour that has come about from the massive overpopulation on our planet. We are exhibiting the same behaviours as the rodents of Universe 25.

In Clown World, many people have withdrawn from social contact completely. This phenomenon is one that we share with the Mouse Utopia. The overpopulation of Clown World has led to a sense that all possible social niches are filled, therefore striving for social success is futile. Many of these people have turned to cyberspace, which offers social contact without being forced into close physical proximity with extremely unpleasant people.

The phenomenon of the beautiful ones is replicated with the rise of the hipster. The 21st century hipster, with his grooming obsession, is simply the result of heavy overcrowding. This is why he is only seen in urban areas. As with the rodents, the modern hipster does not pursue females for reproduction and he does not fight for dominance with the alpha males. He simply withdraws.

Parental incompetence is another feature of overpopulation that the Mouse Utopia shares with Clown World. In the Calhoun experiments, rats in heavily overcrowded pens failed to look after their offspring properly. It was as if the rats became even more r-selected, and adopted attitudes to their offspring normally held by reptiles and amphibians.

This shift towards r-selected patterns of child rearing is also replicated in humans. There have never been a higher proportion of deadbeat dads than there is today. Never before have there been so many single mothers on welfare. Despite the protestations of many conservatives, this isn’t because the welfare system is too generous. It’s because people no longer give a shit.

Consequently, a number of children are growing up feral in Clown World. Their parents have all but given up on life, and so the children wander the streets of their neighbourhoods looking for entertainment. Many of these children end up joining the recluses on the Internet. Others, as in A Clockwork Orange, turn to mindless crime. This breakdown of social order is at the core of Clown World.

A third feature that the Mouse Utopias share with Clown World is this mindlessly random violence. Just this week there was a diversity incident in London where two passers-by were killed by a knife-wielding Muslim. These incidents are becoming so common that they are hardly news anymore. It’s just taken for granted that people are under so much stress nowadays that some will randomly flip out and start killing others.

It’s impossible to understand Clown World without understanding the concept of the behavioural sink. Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia Experiments gave us the chance to observe the behaviour of social mammals in a state of extreme overcrowding. Now, with 8,000,000,000 people on the planet, we can see those same behaviour patterns arising in humans.

We’re going down the plughole of the behavioural sink.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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

Hard Eugenics And Soft Eugenics

In the aftermath of World War II, certain ideas came to be blamed for the war, and so became extremely unfashionable. Anti-Semitism, supremacist nationalism and eugenics were among the foremost of these ideas. However, much like slavery after the American Civil War, some of these ideas just changed form rather than disappear.

When the Industrial Revolution swept over the Western World, it brought with it a godless kind of materialism. It taught us that the way to wealth and power was mastery of the material world and its laws, and that spirituality was merely a distraction. In the wake of this came an entirely new set of moral values that had not previously existed.

One of these new moral values was the idea of productivity. This meant that the people who did more work for their masters were prized higher than those who did less. This idea of productivity meant that the world became divided into the deserving productive and the undeserving unproductive. The idea of getting rid of people who weren’t productive enough followed in short order.

Within a few hundred years, this latter idea had evolved into what was called eugenics. This is the deliberate effort to improve the genetic stock of the nation by encouraging the breeding of those considered to have good genes, and discouraging the breeding of those considered to have bad genes. The idea is that the lazy, dumb, infirm etc. will become fewer in number if those likely to produce them are coerced into breeding less.

The breeding restrictions that come with eugenics are motivated by a variety of reasons, but what those reasons boil down to is an appeal to the greater good. Usually this means that the continued existence of the person killed would have been a detriment to the greater good because of the waste of the resources necessary to keep them alive. Sometimes it is suggested that it’s cruel to keep people alive when they appear to be suffering.

Although the idea of eugenics is most typically associated with the Rassenhygiene of Germany before and during World War II, the idea was first popularised in America just after World War I. Adolf Hitler even referenced the work of Americans such as Margaret Sanger as an example of how Germany ought to carry out eugenics programs against their own population.

In Germany, the Aktion T4 program saw the sterilisation, and then the extermination, of several hundred thousand people who were deemed to be either physically or mentally defective. This occurred in a variety of ways, from lethal injection to gas chambers (the idea of exterminating people in gas chambers was first thought up for use on schizophrenics).

This approach can be described as hard eugenics. This is when the Government kills you outright.

As mentioned above, hard eugenics became extremely unfashionable thanks to the German loss in World War II. But the desire of the ruling classes to commit eugenics on their populations did not go away. The fundamental desire to be in charge of a productive population, rather than an unproductive one, didn’t change.

It was observed, after hard eugenics became unfashionable, that the people who had been slated for extermination all had one quality in common: they were poor. Being mentally or physically infirm makes it all but impossible for one to trade one’s labour for a decent wage. In all but the most exceptional cases, it guarantees a life of impoverishment on society’s fringes.

Therefore, it was possible to institute measures that didn’t directly kill people, but which made their lives so miserable that they killed themselves. All that was necessary was to institute measures that made it hard to be poor. The modern way to do this is by applying constant stress over housing, healthcare and job security.

Soft eugenics, then, is when the Government makes your life so shit that you either kill yourself or withdraw from attempting to reproduce.

Like hard eugenics, this is also achieved in a variety of ways, although the fundamental element to it is the weaponisation of despair. Life is made to appear so hopeless, so meaningless and so pointless, that withdrawal from it seems like the only reasonable option. Despair is used as a weapon, to drive people whose survival is already marginal to suicide.

This has the same eugenic effect as hard eugenics without all the drama.

Soft eugenics has become so fashionable today that average life expectancy is now starting to decrease in America. This decrease is because of the sharp increase in what are called “deaths of despair”. Many of these deaths are suicides by gunshot, and many are quasi-suicides in the form of opiate overdoses. Their common factor is a person who gave up on life.

Making people give up on life is how soft eugenics works. This is primarily achieved by paying shitty wages, so that workers are always in a state of financial precarity. It’s also achieved by destroying communities through mass immigration, so that no-one knows their neighbours. A further tactic is a democratic political system that transparently doesn’t give a fuck about anything other than lobbyist dollars.

The tendency to give up on life is accelerated by a popular culture that only permits discussion of the lowest common denominator of thought. In our current society, anyone who thinks for themselves will be ostracised to such a degree that proper human function becomes very difficult. It’s only permissible to march in lockstep with the hordes of morons – the alternative is to get bullied towards suicide.

Political correctness plays its part in soft eugenics, especially nowadays. The more politically correct a society becomes, the greater the cognitive resources that each individual member of it must devote to self-policing. This means fewer cognitive resources left over for actually living. Therefore, the more politically correct a society is, the more heavily it practises soft eugenics.

Cannabis prohibition has been a central plank in governmental efforts to get the more vulnerable elements of their populations to kill themselves. Many people on the margins have found that cannabis is an essential tool for dealing with the depression that comes with a tough life. Making it harder to get hold of this medicine only serves to push vulnerable people towards suicide. This is the plan.

In the case of New Zealand, we do not practice hard eugenics but the practice of soft eugenics is very strong. New Zealand is a paradise for the wealthy, but a hell for the poor. Our practice of soft eugenics is taken to an extreme degree here, which is why we have the highest youth mortality rate in the entire OECD, even ahead of places like Mexico and Turkey.

We no longer kill the mentally and physically infirm – now we just make their lives so shit that they kill themselves. Because we’re not directly responsible for the suicides, we can claim that it isn’t a form of eugenics. But it is – it’s just a softer form of what the Nazis did.

*

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 Equalitarian Dogma – The World’s Most Damaging Lie

The most strenuously defended falsehood in the world today is not a religion (at least not a recognised one), but a pseudo-scientific dogma. It is the dogma of Equalitarianism. This is the assertion that there are no inherent differences between different human groups, or at least no psychological ones. This dogma, as this essay will show, is the world’s most harmful lie.

There is no doubt that there is large variation among and between almost all human groups in almost all measures. Over a hundred years of scientific literature establishes that this is the case. Not only is there great variation in physical traits such as height, body build and skin colour, but there is also great variation in psychological traits such as IQ and proclivities towards certain behaviours.

The question that does get debated is whether or not this variation is natural or whether it is a function of the environment. This is the great debate in psychology, and is known as the nature versus nurture debate. It’s an extremely important question, because a person’s answer to it is strongly related to their political beliefs. As has been discussed here before, people’s beliefs about human nature are closely tied to their political beliefs. One often predicts the other.

One could argue that the elementary political question is: should the differences between people be made smaller?

The response to that question is usually “It depends.” More specifically, most people usually feel that the answer depends on whether those differences between people are natural or not. Responses to the elementary political question tend to vary based along these lines.

Those who think that the differences between people are natural tend to think that it’s pointless to try and make them smaller. These people would point to the clear differences in height between different races, even when you control for environmental factors such as wealth – just compare the Japanese and Koreans with the Russians and Mongolians. Nature throws up a great amount of variation, and it’s more efficient for us to just let it be.

Those who think that the differences between people are unnatural tend to think that it’s immoral to let them continue to exist. If differences are unnatural, then they must be the result of prejudices inherent to the structure of society. Therefore, we’re morally obliged to restructure society such that those prejudices no longer exist. The favoured strategy for achieving this is mass brainwashing campaigns.

The trouble is that an elementary grounding in science is enough to know that different races will be different in all kinds of ways, it’s just a question of by what measure, in which direction, how much and how meaningfully.

By the time most people are eight years old, they have learned that no two snowflakes are the same. The reason for this is that there are no two identical things anywhere in Nature. There are no two identical people, or mountains, or even worms. All are different by virtue of the fact that there are no two identical things anywhere in the material world.

A more advanced understanding of Nature, in particular evolution, teaches us that no two subgroups of the human species will have gone through precisely the same selective pressures over the course of their biological past, and therefore no two subgroups of the human species will be the same either. This is true no matter which measure one uses. In order words, all subgroups of the human species are different, despite the presence of underlying similarities.

Therefore, we can conclude that the Equalitarian Dogma doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scientific scrutiny. It’s not just that the evidence doesn’t support it – elementary scientific principles rule it out from the beginning. However, the Equalitarian Dogma and its supporting dogmas such as the Blank Slate Theory still hold immense sway among the vast majority of people unqualified to understand the science.

The Blank Slate Theory holds that genetics have no influence on a person’s behaviour or personality – all of their behaviours can be best explained by reference to the environment in which they were raised. Humans are born into the world as if a tabula rasa – or blank slate – upon which practically anything can be inscribed.

This is the basis of the Equalitarian Dogma. If we are all the same, then the only way to explain our transparent differences is by appeal to the different environmental influences that have been present during the lives of each person.

A corollary to the Blank Slate Theory is that, as people are simply the products of their environment and nothing else, it’s possible to shape them into anything at all, simply by controlling the schedule of rewards and punishments under which they are raised. Any child could become a university professor or a gang member – it all depends on what shapes their minds when they are growing up.

It’s true that human infants are born into a state of extreme juvenility, and that they learn very quickly by mimicking their elders. It’s also true that the human brain at birth is the most plastic organ of any invertebrate creature. This means that human personalities are supremely malleable – but only up to a point.

The reality is that human behaviour can be shaped by the environment, but only with the bounds of possibility determined by genetics.

For example, the precise height of a man may be influenced by the quality of the nutrition that he received as a child, but this influence only applies to a particular range of height. A lack of nutrition might mean a man grows up stunted, skinny or even sickly, but it won’t make him a dwarf. Likewise, it’s not possible to reliably produce seven-foot tall giants simply by feeding them great quantities of food as children.

The reason why this is so important is because incorrectly understanding the reality about the human condition causes us to make terrible decisions.

The popularity of the Blank Slate Theory among political leaders in Europe caused them to open their borders to millions of Muslim and African immigrants this century, in the belief that those people could simply be conditioned into becoming the same as the native Europeans. Everyone knew they were different, but because of the Blank Slate Theory it was assumed that their children would grow up just the same as any European.

The idea was that, owing to the immense gratitude they would have from being so generously raised from the filth of their home countries, the Muslims and Africans would throw off their old cultural values like so many iron shackles, and embrace the cultural values of Europe. Having done so, they would then be identical to other Europeans.

The reality, of course, was that these Muslims and Africans behave differently to the natives for genetic reasons, and cannot simply be conditioned to suppress their sexual and violent urges the same way a European can. Consequently, all the education didn’t do much. Europe has learned this the hard way, through suffering hundreds of millions of sex crimes and crimes of violence, but they did not need to suffer in this manner.

They only suffered because they made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the human animal.

The Equalitarian Dogma has caused, and continues to cause, tremendous suffering to the people of the West by exposing them to the presence of people who aren’t the same as Westerners when it comes to civility or natural empathy. The assumption that all people are exactly the same implies the assumption that all people commit sex and violence crimes at the same rate as Westerners. It leads to a failure to correctly discriminate between relatively harmful and relatively harmless influences.

The Equalitarian Dogma is the greatest evil in the world because it causes more suffering than any other dogma.

The most evil thing about it is that, like all dogmas, it makes violence between those who submit to it and those who don’t all but inevitable. Those who submit to it truly believe that they are morally superior to those who don’t, and that their opponents are Nazis who only believe in human biodiversity out of pure hatred. This sneering superiority makes dialogue with them all but impossible, and therefore makes violence all but inevitable.

The Equalitarian Dogma has led to a situation where there are now forty million Muslims and Africans in Europe who cannot realistically be integrated, and their continued and growing presence in Europe means continued and growing misery. Eventually one of two things will happen – this population will be expelled violently, or the ruling classes will be destroyed in the native people’s desire to punish someone for what’s been done to them.

Inaccurate, dogmatic conceptions of reality must be opposed at every turn. No matter how virtuous a person may feel for holding them, they cause nothing but misery.

*

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.

How Long Until White People Become A Minority in New Zealand?

The recent release of the final statistics from the 2018 New Zealand Census has kept stats nerds across the country busy. One of the busiest has been VJM Publishing numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, who is compiling the data for a third edition of his demographic masterpiece. In this analysis he asks: how long until white people become a minority in New Zealand?

The New Zealand Stats website is a treasure trove of demographic data. There are thousands of tables of information on this page, many of which are customisable. This makes it easy to compare data between groups or between time frames. Often, the data is extrapolated into the future.

The white proportion of the New Zealand population has been falling for some time, as is true of all Western countries.

At the time of the 1991 Census (around when the average VJMP reader was born), there were 2,783,028 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 3,373,929. This means that New Zealand was 82.5% white at this time. Neo-liberalism had all but completed its stranglehold over the New Zealand mindset by 1991, and it was at that point that the mass importation of cheap labour began in earnest.

The New Zealand ruling class had figured out, by this time, that labour costs were their primary expense. The mass importation of foreign cheap labour not only lowered labour costs directly, by introducing what was effectively scab labour into the workplace, but it also lowered labour costs indirectly by destroying the solidarity of the native working class and thereby making it harder for them to organise to negotiate fair wages.

Although the New Zealand people were never asked for their consent to it, the advent of the mass importation of cheap labour would set in motion a course of events that would lead to the Brazilianisation of New Zealand.

At the time of the 2013 Census, there were 3,312,100 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 4,442,100. This means that New Zealand was 74.6% white at that time.

At the time of the 2018 Census, there were 3,357,744 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 4,793,358. This means that New Zealand was 71.7% white at the time of the most recent Census, a fall of 10.9% over the 27 years since the 1991 Census.

According to the NZ Stats national ethnic population projections, there should be 3,781,500 white people in New Zealand at the time of the 2038 Census, out of a total population of 5,769,800. This will mean that it will be 65.5% white one generation from now.

Over the 25 years from 2013-38, we are expected to see a decline in the white proportion of the New Zealand population, from 74.6% to 65.5%. This is a total decline of 9.1% over 25 years, or 0.36% per year.

So, over the 47 years from 1991-2038, we are expected to see a decline in the white proportion of the New Zealand population from 81.5% to 65.5%. This would be a total decline of 16%, or 0.34% per year.

Thus, the white proportion of the New Zealand population has fallen by about 0.35% per year since the advent of neoliberalism. So extrapolating forwards from 2038, when the white proportion of the population is expected to be 65.5%, the white population would need to fall a further 15.6% before white people become a minority in New Zealand.

At the current rate of falling 0.35% a year, this suggests a further 45 years from the end of 2038.

In other words, white people ought to become a minority in New Zealand sometime in the early 2080s. That means that the bulk of people reading this article should be dead. This prediction is line with when other Western countries are predicted to end up with white minorities, which exposes the fact that the imposition of neoliberalism was a globalist endeavour.

Of course, all of these projections assume that the current rulers of New Zealand – the international banking and finance class – see fit to keep importing cheap labour at roughly the same rate they are currently doing. This importation of cheap labour will likely continue to be profitable because it drives up house prices and causes demand for mortgages. Therefore, the bankers and financiers will keep pushing it on us until they are stopped.

Although it seems unlikely today, a future nativist movement could come to power in New Zealand and turn the cheap labour taps off. In Sweden we have seen the rise of the Sweden Democrats from 3% 12 years ago to 25% today, where they are now the largest polling party. This is despite the fact that some Sweden Democrats are openly neo-Nazi.

This reasoning also ignores the fact that many Pacific Islanders and Asians, and in principle all of the Maoris, will be at least part white, with some of them being more white than anything else. The average Maori is only 80% as Maori as they were the generation previously, owing to heavy interbreeding with other Kiwis. By the 2080s there may no longer be a distinct Maori race.

At the moment though, with current trends the way they are, the idea of a Great Replacement of white people in New Zealand isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s apparent from the statistics on the New Zealand Government’s own statistics page that white people ought to become a minority in New Zealand some time around 2083.

However, Brenton Tarrant was wrong when he said it was all about the birthrates (at least in New Zealand’s case).

The NZ.Stat website also tells us the projected fertility rates of the various ethnic groups in New Zealand. The Asian fertility rate was 1.61 in 2018, compared to the white fertility rate of 1.82. The Maori fertility rate was 2.36 and the Pacific Island fertility rate 2.4. This Asian fertility rate is well below replacement level, and the Maori and Pacific Islander rates are barely above it.

The Asian fertility rate is expected to fall further, to 1.55, by 2038, whereas the white fertility rate is expected to remain at around 1.8 by this time. By this time the Maori and Pacific Island fertility rates will have fallen to sub-replacement level, at 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. Considering the higher death rate among the Maori and Pacific Island populations, this is hardly a demographic threat.

It’s not about the birthrates – it’s about border control.

There probably isn’t a plan among New Zealand’s ruling elites to commit white genocide, but there doesn’t need to be. White New Zealanders are capable of selling the country out from under their grandchildrens’ feet for the sake of a fat pension. The bankers and finance interests that control the mainstream media, for their part, are more than happy to encourage this short-sighted greed for the sake of the mortgage profits it brings.

*

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).

*

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

Yes, The New Zealand Establishment Is Rotten With Pedophiles Too

For many years, David Icke spoke about the large number of pedophiles in high places in the British Establishment. With a particular focus on Jimmy Savile, Icke said that the British Establishment contained networks of pedophiles who were abusing children and getting away with it. He was pilloried, called a lunatic and a nutjob, and his name became a byword for unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Some 20 years after first naming Savile, Icke was proven correct.

For many years, Alex Jones spoke about the large number of pedophiles in high places in the American Establishment. With a particular focus on Jeffrey Epstein, Jones said that the American Establishment contained networks of pedophiles who were abusing children and getting away with it. He was pilloried, called a lunatic and a nutjob, and his name became a byword for unhinged conspiracy theorist.

Some 15 years after first naming Epstein, Jones was proven correct.

What does it mean that these two men told these lurid stories about pedophiles in high places, were roundly rubbished by every mainstream media figure, and then were proven to be mostly correct?

The answer is that the Anglo-American Establishment is rotten with pedophiles. There are pedophiles at almost every level of the Establishment, and there are pedophiles in almost every division of the Establishment. This is true of Britain, and it’s true of America… and it’s true of New Zealand.

There are pedophiles in the New Zealand Parliament, there are pedophiles at the top of the New Zealand Church, there are pedophiles who are right at the top of the New Zealand entertainment industry and there are pedophiles at the top of the Justice System. These pedophiles cover for each other at every opportunity, making it all but impossible to uproot them from the power structure.

There are pedophile rings operating in most New Zealand cities and towns. Anihere Black, widow of community leader Te Awanui Black, claimed that her husband had been involved in a ring of pedophiles operating in Tauranga that reached “to the highest levels.” Naturally, Police failed to find any wrongdoing, just as they failed to find any wrongdoing in the cases of Jimmy Savile or Jeffrey Epstein.

The Police would never have found any wrongdoing, for the simple reason that they take orders from the same Establishment that is rotten with pedophiles. This is why no-one investigating Prince Andrew will find any wrongdoing – even though Prince Andrew maintained contacts with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008.

Why are there so many pedophiles at the top of our society?

A previous article here discussed the three different dominance hierarchies. There is a hierarchy of iron (or physical dominance), a hierarchy of silver (or social dominance) and a hierarchy of gold (or spiritual dominance). The hierarchies of iron and silver combine to create a hierarchy that operates by intimidating people into submission, a hierarchy of cruelty.

This hierarchy of cruelty exists among all of the evil people in the world. Among evil people, the more cruel one is, the higher one is in the dominance hierarchy. The crueler one is, the more intimidating one will appear to people afraid of suffering. This capacity to intimidate causes one to rise up the hierarchy of cruelty as people becoming increasing unwilling to challenge a person with it.

When you have a society as corrupt as the Western World of 2019, people do not rise to the top because they are good people or even because they are competent. They rise to the top because they are more cruel than the people underneath them. More ambitious, more narcissistic, more psychopathic. In a corrupt system, people respond to cruelty not by destroying it but by submitting to it.

An unrepentant pedophile is one of the cruelest human beings that can exist. Childhood sexual abuse does a tremendous amount of psychiatric damage to its victims, which is why it is correlated with much higher rates of suicide in later life. Thus, much like how murderers and armed robbers are at the top of the prison hierarchy, so are pedophiles at the top of the political hierarchy.

And so here we are.

The terrifying truth is that the New Zealand Establishment is just as rotten with pedophiles as the British and American Establishments, and for the same reasons.

New Zealand has its own Jimmy Savile, and it has its own Jeffrey Epstein. VJM Publishing has spoken with one individual who claims to have been raped as a child by a current Member of Parliament. This individual claims that there are networks of people who work to procure children for the elites in New Zealand in a manner similar to how Epstein procured his.

If anyone would report about these pedophilic networks, the Establishment would turn the entire apparatus of propaganda on them, and they would get the David Icke/Alex Jones treatment. It would be wall-to-wall mainstream media accusations of every mental illness under the Sun, Police harassment visits and court cases under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

You know that pedophile networks exist in New Zealand though, because our country has been built, and is operated, by the same people who built and operate Britain and America. Jimmy Savile’s friend Prince Charles is next in line to be the monarch of New Zealand, and when he does become King, he’ll bring with him a whole Establishment that knew about Savile’s predations but chose to look the other way.

Sweet dreams.

*

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.

Next Year’s Referendums Will Pit The Church Against The People Of New Zealand

At the time of next year’s General Election, there will be at least two referendums. One will relate to cannabis law reform, the other to euthanasia. Both of them are likely to be fairly divisive, pitting large sections of the New Zealand population against each other. One of these conflicts, as this essay will examine, will be the Church against the people of New Zealand.

The Church is commonly perceived to be conservative. This is a mistake. People make this mistake because the Church opposes all kinds of social reform. But they don’t oppose all social reform – the Church is happy to open the borders to masses of illiterate Third Worlders who cannot be integrated. They only oppose some social reform, and there is a pattern to it.

The common thread to all the Church’s actions is that they all increase the power of the Church by increasing the suffering of the New Zealand people.

Christianity has always preyed on desperation. The more desperate a person is, the more willing they will be to subject themselves to the predation of the local vicar or priest. The more pitiful and wretched the man, the more likely they are to find salvation in a book of fairy tales about a magical Jewish carpenter. And when they do, they tend to write the Church into their wills.

It has always been a maxim of Abrahamism that misery will cause people to turn to the God of Abraham out of desperation. Happy people don’t need the God of Abraham – ample evidence comes from the declining rates of Christianity among the wealthy nations of Europe over the past hundred years.

If you’re the Church, happiness is bad for business. Therefore, the more misery they can create, the more powerful they grow.

In the same way the Church opposed the anti-smacking law (because they know child abuse leads to suffering) and they opposed homosexual law reform (because they know persecution of homosexuals leads to suffering), so too will they oppose cannabis law reform and euthanasia law reform. Their desire is to force New Zealanders to suffer, in the hope that our suffering causes us to give up on the material world and turn to Jesus.

The Church has never liked cannabis, for multiple reasons. This is strange if one considers that the Christian Bible states that God put cannabis here for our benefit (see Genesis 1:29). It’s not strange, however, if one understands that the Church is really a political entity and not really a spiritual one. Their primary objective is to grow in Earthly power, not to alleviate the spiritual suffering of New Zealanders.

One reason the Church has always supported the persecution of cannabis users is because cannabis is a spiritual sacrament that connects people to God, and the Church can’t earn money if people are connected to God by their own actions. The Church can only earn money by acting as an intermediary, and to that end they foster the need for an intermediary. This is why they have made such an effort, historically, to destroy all genuine spiritual and magical traditions.

Another reason is because cannabis is a medicine. As mentioned above, the Church gains power from people’s suffering and misery. Opposing cannabis law reform is the same thing as promoting anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress. All of those things create the kind of desperation that drives people into the arms of the Church or a particular congregation.

It’s for these reasons that cannabis is opposed by the Church and by Christians such as Bob McCoskrie.

The Church has never liked euthanasia either, as evidenced by the upset shown by Christian fundamentalist Alfred Ngaro at New Zealand First’s unwillingness to block the referendum on the issue. They have always known that the immense suffering that usually precedes death makes the dying person vulnerable to all kinds of trickery – in particular, a person is most likely to change their will to bequeath something to the Church when dying.

From the Church’s perspective, then, it’s best for the suffering of dying people to be drawn out as long as possible.

Fundamentally, what the Church wants is control. They don’t want us to have control over our lives – they want themselves to have control over our lives. They want to decide what we’re allowed to call a spiritual sacrament and when we’re allowed to die, much like they used to decide who we were allowed to love and when we were allowed to drink alcohol.

To this end, they will oppose both referendums because both offer to return control back to the people of New Zealand.

It’s clear to every thinking New Zealander that there would be less suffering if we had legal cannabis and euthanasia. Therefore, the Church is promoting the misery of the New Zealand people. They’re not doing it out of conservatism, or backwardness – they’re doing it because the Abrahamic cults are predatory ideologies of hate that gorge themselves on human misery.

Make no mistake – the Church is the enemy of the New Zealand people. They consider our suffering to be to their benefit, knowing that it will turn some of us, in desperation, to their arms. Anyone who opposes the evil that is Abrahamic religion and the political interference that the Abrahamic cults make in our lives is all but obliged to stick it to them next year.

*

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.

Clown World Chronicles: What Is A ‘MGTOW’?

In Clown World, relations between the genders are not as they should be. As everything in Clown World is a twisted, tragicomic imitation of how things would be in a normal world, so too is dating and romance. One of the phenomena that this has created is that of the MGTOW. This essay explains who these people are and what motivates them.

‘MGTOW’ stands for Men Going Their Own Way. The idea is that MGTOW is a rebellion against the expectations levied upon the average man by society. These expectations, MGTOWs contend, are that a man shall slave away for the vast majority of his life for the sake of providing for a wife and family, without any assurance that any of his work will pay itself off. It’s a raw deal, and so they reject it.

The average MGTOW has an extremely cynical attitude towards women. Their idea of the feminine is deceitful, manipulative, dishonest – women attract men like spiders attract flies. The attitude that women are evil underpins much of the MGTOW movement. After all, if it were true that women were evil, then it would make sense to avoid them.

MGTOWs speak of a time when the average man was afforded a lot more respect. During this time, marriages were stable and women were loyal. Men were not subject to “divorce rape” – in which a formerly happy wife betrays a man and then enlists a lawyer to take everything that man has in divorce proceedings. Cases like Jeff Bezos’s wife, who became a multi-billionaire through a divorce settlement, are emblematic.

The problem with today’s society, MGTOWs contend, is that women are no longer as they once were.

Women are no longer loyal – a combination of decreased social pressure towards loyalty, a legal environment unfavourable to males, and their own inner malice. Therefore, the old social contract, under which a man would labour throughout his productive years in exchange for a pleasant wife who would provide him a family, is no longer valid. Absent this, men are not obliged to be part of society. They can go their own way.

It’s true that the average Western man today has a much shittier situation facing them than the average Western man in the 1950s or 60s. Unlike his grandfathers, he has almost no chance of owning a home and raising a family on his wage alone. The average young New Zealander today has less than 40% of the house-buying power that his parents’ generation enjoyed. Being the breadwinner of a family is many times harder than it used to be.

It’s also true that the balance of power has shifted towards women in recent generations. Our grandfathers were able to literally beat their women into submission, knowing that both their neighbours and the Police would look the other way. Marital rape was legal in New Zealand until 1984. In the 21st century, however, women make up two-thirds of Bachelor’s degree recipients in New Zealand. It’s a woman’s world now.

Moreover, men today have to deal with the reality of hypergamy (all MGTOWs are familiar with this term). Hypergamy is the tendency of the female in sexually reproducing species to try to marry up by attracting the sexual partner with the highest possible social status. MGTOWs contend that the advent of online dating has exacerbated this tendency to such an extreme degree that, today, most women have no interest in the bottom 80% of men.

To many men, this makes the prospect of a fulfilling long-term relationship seem unlikely. MGTOWs will say “women are only as loyal as their options,” and because Tinder gives them effectively infinite options, women no longer have any reason to be loyal. Even worse, they don’t even need a man to raise children because the State will pay for it with welfare (there is great overlap between MGTOWs and the libertarian right when it comes to resenting welfare).

Because there is little reason to work hard and to hold down a job if one does not (or can not) have a family, a number of men have just said “fuck it” and dropped out of society in response to all this. They fill their time mostly with video games, Netflix and television. Others fill their time with pornography (see the Coomer meme). None of this is productive, but there’s no reason for a man who has abandoned (or been abandoned by) society to be productive.

There is a great overlap between those who identify with being MGTOW and incels. Both of them share a deep frustration about their failed attempts to get what they want out of women. The difference, in theory, is that MGTOWs are no longer trying to find ways to co-exist with women, whereas incels are still trying but are getting rejected. The incel to MGTOW pathway is obvious.

Curiously, there isn’t much overlap between those who identify with being MGTOW and volcels. In theory, there ought to be, because a man who is going his own way is a fitting description for a man who is voluntarily celibate. But a man who is voluntarily celibate is probably doing so for spiritual or mental health reasons – a MGTOW, by contrast, goes his own way out of bitterness and resentment.

One of the main drawbacks of the MGTOW strategy is that most men can’t achieve anything by themselves. Like it or not, individual humans are interdependent with other humans and cannot exist in isolation. Even the greatest of men can’t achieve much without a network of people who make that man’s greatness known to the wider world.

Inevitably, such a network will include women. Therefore, a man who hates or who wants to avoid women is unlikely to also to be supported by a large social network.

If the MGTOWs themselves are correct, then the phenomenon ought to become more prevalent as the economic and social balance of power shifts further in favour of women. This could have social repercussions. If a large proportion of the men in a society are unwilling to act to preserve it then it may well collapse. The prospect of this is something that many MGTOWs look forwards to with joy.

Being a sick and insane circus, Clown World is inherently unstable, and the MGTOW phenomenon may be one that heralds its demise.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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

The Three Dominance Hierarchies

The hierarchy of iron is characterised by big muscles; the hierarchy of silver is characterised by flash suits

A lot of discussion in social psychology revolves around the idea of the dominance hierarchy. This refers to the fact that humans, as a form of primate, have social dominance hierarchies like other primates (and other mammals). There are actually three separate forms of dominance hierarchy, depending on the nature of the situation, as this essay will examine.

The elementary dominance hierarchy corresponds to the realm of iron. This is the same as the dominance hierarchy that exists in a state of Nature.

In principle, there’s little more to the elementary dominance hierarchy than who can beat up who. The dominance hierarchy relating to iron is similar to the dominance hierarchy that exists in prison. Authority is determined by a capacity and a will to use violence. The top of this hierarchy is held by mighty warriors, warlords and kings.

All the posturing one sees about who could beat up who is establishing a dominance hierarchy in the realm of iron. There is a whole art to posturing in this manner, and males will start learning it while they are still boys. The point of it is to establish who is better at fighting, but without actually fighting. The man who is believed to be the best fighter is at the top of this hierarchy and, if you disagree, he will bash you.

The dominance hierarchy that corresponds to the realm of silver is the same as the social hierarchy.

This hierarchy doesn’t reflect fighting ability but rather social status. In a civilised setting, where peace reigns, the person who generally makes the most intelligent long-term decisions will be at the top of the dominance hierarchy. Fighting in terms of social status means that the loser gets ostracised (or incarcerated) instead of killed.

The dominance hierarchy of silver is the same as the hierarchy of all the people who have agreed to play by civilised rules. The uncivilised can contest the dominance hierarchy of iron by bashing and stabbing each other, but in doing so they will fall down the hierarchy of silver, because civilised men will not respect them.

In practice, the hierarchy of silver often represents the hierarchy of wealth. When it comes down to it, this hierarchy is an extension of the hierarchy of iron because silver gives you the opportunity to hire men of iron to do your bidding. Wealth can buy loyalty, even if only temporarily. It can also buy land, weapons and propaganda.

However, social status can be afforded to people on the basis of their knowledge alone, which is why the hierarchy of silver can, on occasion, promote a knowledgeable man above a wealthy one. This is most obviously the case in the university system, where extremely knowledgeable people are afforded a high status.

The third form of dominance hierarchy is much more subtle, and consequently it corresponds to the realm of gold.

The spiritual hierarchy reflects those who are most closely attuned to the Will of God. Because every person has their own idea of what the Will of God is, it’s rare that people openly agree as to who is at the top of the spiritual hierarchy. Therefore, this hierarchy is subtle, sometimes even occluded.

At the top of the spiritual hierarchy is the person with the greatest knowledge of God. In most cases, this will not only be a person who believes in God, but will also be a person who maintains a practice that keeps them in connection with God. This means that they have explicitly repudiated the other two dominance hierarchies and no longer contest them.

These three hierarchies interplay with each other in many ways.

The hierarchies of iron and silver clash all the time in civilised society. The hierarchy of iron is almost always topped by a male aged between 20 and 40, because it’s in these years that men possess maximum physical strength. The person at the top of the hierarchy of silver, by contrast, will have achieved their position after decades of building social and financial capital, and so will be much older.

This means that the person at the top of the hierarchy of iron is almost never the same as the person at the top of the hierarchy of silver. This is all but inevitable if the population is larger than 50 or so. With two different people at the top of two different dominance hierarchies, conflict between them is possible. This is why some ancient tribes used to split leadership into a war chief (man of iron) and a peace chief (man of silver).

Likewise, the person at the top of the hierarchy of gold will not be the decision-maker all the time. This person will only be in charge as long as others put their egos down and seek wise counsel instead of trying to force their will on others. As long as people choose to fight, then they will fall behind the leadership of either the best physical fighter or the best social fighter, and neither will follow the man of gold.

Because of the Conceit of Silver, people of silver will regularly fancy themselves to be people of gold. This leads many people of silver to adopt the trappings of the people of gold and to start mimicking them. Therefore, one can never be sure that anyone claiming to be a believer in God really is one. This means that the hierarchy of gold cannot be measured.

The hierarchies of silver and gold naturally clash with each other, as those driven by egoic desires for self-aggrandisement clash with those driven to minimise the suffering of all sentient beings. The men of silver are generally happy to cause suffering to other sentient beings if it grants them more power, but in doing so they inevitably provoke the ire of the men of gold.

These three dominance hierarchies can be observed in virtually all human groups. The interplay between physical strength, social strength and moral strength all but ensures that ultimate decision-making power is never held in the same hands for long.

*

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.

If The Nazis Had Won World War II

Trade is a human universal and, as such, is more fundamental than trivialities like who exterminated who

The common perception of World War II is that, had the Nazis won it, the world would now be a wasteland of rubble and burning wreckage. It’s true that the world would certainly be different in some major ways to the timeline we currently live in, but there are many things that would be recognisable. This essay asks the question: what would our societies look like today if the Nazis had won World War II?

If the Nazis had won World War II, and united all of Europe under one Reich, our political leaders would have found an accommodation with it. If the Nazis had knocked out the Soviet Union and made peace with Britain, our political leaders would have shrugged, said “fair enough” and started to do business with the new bosses.

Some might doubt this, but an examination of history and human nature make it very clear. If the Nazis had won World War II, our political class would be lining up to whore themselves out to them.

If the Nazis had won World War II, and established a Lebensborn project to populate Poland with German settlers, and if this had led to an excess population such that many of these Germans sought to emigrate to other countries, our political system would tell us that this was a good thing. We would be told that we had to accept it otherwise we were evil.

Politicians all around the world would be clamouring to curry favour with the Nazi Empire by forming trade and diplomatic links with Nazi territories, or by agitating in favour of further immigration from Nazi territories or by attacking those who criticise Nazi actions. These politicians would dismiss anyone who accused them of siding with evil as conspiracy theorists, bigots and haters.

Politicians of German ancestry would be climbing onto social media saying that it’s hate speech to mention the Hungerplan, or that the Hungerplan didn’t really happen, or that the Poles deserved it because of genocidal attacks on Germans in Polish territory in the lead up to World War II. As with the Armenian genocide, a sufficiently strenuous denial would cause people to either doubt or to not care.

Many outside Europe would have ended up marrying Germans once the war tensions cooled off (as they have done in this timeline). They would say “Yes, the Nazis are evil, but Ulrike/Heike/Beate is against all that stuff.” Some of the fathers of these brides and grooms would be Nazi Party functionaries, and would have done some horrific things, but their sons and daughters-in-law would operate on a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” basis.

If the Nazis had won World War II, it would be an accepted fact that the Nazi Empire was too big to not trade with. People would say “Yeah I know that they starved a hundred million people to death but you can’t just not trade with an entity that comprises X% of the world’s GDP.” Even if they still had millions in concentration camps this would not matter.

No doubt the Nazi Empire would have established a competitive advantage in some economic manner, such as vehicle manufacture. It might be possible that the whole world would be driving German-made cars, or flying in German-made aircraft. In such a case, most people wouldn’t think anything of using such goods. Some might make jokes about the tens of millions who were exterminated to make it possible, but this wouldn’t prevent trade any more than the North American genocides prevent trade.

Had the Nazis won World War II, there would be politicians and pundits trying to curry favour with them by talking about Naziphobia. An excessive dislike of Nazis would be likened to a mental illness by politicians and by media enterprises chasing the Nazi advertising dollar. There would be mutterings that hate speech legislation ought to be introduced to prevent people from being too open about their dislike of Nazism.

If the Nazis still had people in camps, their plight would be ignored, save for the propagandising of a small number of social justice activists. These activists would widely be seen as obsessed or unhinged. In much the same way that the imprisonment of many Uighur people is dismissed as an outcome of the Uighurs’ religious fanaticism, so too would the imprisonment of the Jews be dismissed as an outcome of their predations.

If the Nazis had won World War II, our entire education system would be different. Naturally, we wouldn’t be taught that Germany started World War II by invading Poland. We would instead be taught about the German Revolution of 1918-19, and who was behind that revolution. We would be taught about the Holodomor, and how the Holodomor influenced anti-Communist attitudes in central Europe in the 1920s.

Nazism more general would be seen as an anti-Communist movement that arose in response to the horrors of Soviet rule. The role of the British and the French in forcing the Versailles Treaty on the Germans after World War I would be emphasised. The psychological effect of hyperinflation would be explained at length to all schoolchildren.

Perhaps it may even have been necessary, had the Nazis won World War II, to accept that many of the actions of the British and French Empires in colonising the world were effectively criminal. Perhaps conquering 40 million square kilometres of territory and then declaring war on Germany was a bit hypocritical. Winning the war meant we never had to face up to this charge, but losing it would have meant that we were forced to.

None of this is to say that the world would have been any better if the Nazis had won World War II. The fact is, however, that a Nazi victory in Europe would not have changed human nature in any way. Humans would still be opportunistic, acquisitive and dishonest. The winners would still write the history books, and they would still do so in a way that absolved them of all guilt.

*

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 Implications Of Having Two Referendums At The Same Time As The General Election

At time of writing, there are two referendums scheduled to take place on the same day as the 2020 General Election. The referendum about cannabis law reform was scheduled long ago, but this week saw the news that there would also be a referendum about euthanasia at the same time. What will this mean for the election? Numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, looks at the statistics.

What these two referendums mean, in short, is that a number of people who wouldn’t otherwise have gone to the polling booths on Election Day will do so. While there, they are very likely to cast a vote for a party in the General Election. Those parties, therefore, will get boosted by the extra turnout caused by the referendums. This article looks at which parties are likely to be the beneficiaries of the fact there are two referendums at the same time as the Election.

Let’s deal with the cannabis referendum first.

The cannabis referendum will predictably bring out the sort of voter who votes for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Some people will make the lazy assumption that, because the Green Party has been the one most visibly championing the cannabis law reform issue, many of the people brought to the polls on Election Day will vote for the Greens. This assumption is likely false for at least one major reason.

The foremost reason is that the people who vote Green already vote in large numbers. There are strong correlations between both having a university degree and earning six figures and being a Green voter. There are also strong correlations between all of these things and turnout rate. Therefore, the sort of person who was likely to vote Green probably already did so in the previous election as well, and so a cannabis referendum won’t change much for them.

I refer to this principle as the General Disenfranchisement Rule. This states that the more a person is disenfranchised (by major measures of social status), the less likely they are to vote. Therefore, moves that enfranchise previously disenfranchised people (such as referendums) tend to bring out people from the lower social echelons. They don’t tend to bring out new National, ACT and Greens voters.

These people from lower social echelons are the sort of person who, as mentioned above, tend to support the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. In Understanding New Zealand I showed who these people are. As a general rule, ALCP voters are heavily Maori and are much more likely to be on the invalid’s benefit. They are doing it worse than supporters of any other party.

In other words, they are from categories that are hitherto heavily disenfranchised. For many of these people, deep resentment has built up regarding the cannabis issue, and if the referendum brings them to the polls they will not vote for Establishment movements. It follows, then, that there will be a considerable boost to the sort of party who already champions the underdog.

The ALCP, Labour, New Zealand First, TOP and the Greens will all split this vote (with the foremost named taking the most).

Regarding the euthanasia referendum, overseas research has shown that supporters of euthanasia tend to be young, left-wing and atheist. This means that this referendum will bring fewer otherwise disenfranchised people to the polling booths than the cannabis one.

The euthanasia idea deeply upsets elderly Christians, who, for whatever reason, feel that the terminally ill ought be forced to suffer as long as possible. However, the vast majority of these people would have come out to vote National or Conservative anyway. Therefore, holding a euthanasia referendum will not bring many extra voters to the ballot boxes on the conservative side.

On the other hand, many of the people who support a euthanasia referendum will be the sort of person who is appalled by Christian morality. These people tend to be young and educated, which means that they are on the margins of voting or not voting. They are less likely to vote Labour and ALCP, but will be more likely to vote Greens and for The Opportunities Party.

Many of these young people will be educated and, therefore, not as severely disenfranchised as the less educated voters who will come out for the cannabis referendum. This suggests that the overall electoral effect of the euthanasia referendum ought to be smaller than for the cannabis referendum.

The combined effect of these two referendums will be to bring a number of young, atheistic people in particular to the ballot boxes.

If the cannabis referendum induces young Maoris to vote and the euthanasia referendum induces young white people to vote, we can predict that this combined youth effect will see increased support for the Labour Party and the ALCP, with minor boosts to the Greens, The Opportunities Party and New Zealand First (who are falsely characterised as an old person’s party).

How large will this number be?

The correlation between turnout rate in the 2017 General Election and voting ALCP in 2017 was -0.63, which speaks to heavy disenfranchisement among cannabis users. Many of these people would not vote under ordinary circumstances. Because the cannabis referendum appeals directly to these heavily disenfranchised people, it could have a noticeable effect on turnout.

This suggests that the combined effect of the two referendums on otherwise disenfranchised voters will be enough to shift the electoral balance towards the centre-left by one to two percent, perhaps accounting for a couple of extra seats for the centre-left bloc. It’s not likely to be enough to decide the balance of power, but if the margins were otherwise thin enough it could be.

*

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).

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

Is Being A Worker in 2019 Preferable To Chattel Slavery?

The school system and the mainstream media put a lot of effort into convincing us to be grateful for our lot. An entire apparatus of propaganda is devoted to pre-emptively quell rebellious impulses, so that our ruling classes can go about their business unaffected. As this essay will discuss, the overall quality of the lives of many of us today may be lower than that of chattel slaves in times past.

Although it is not acknowledged today, there are many advantages to being a chattel slave that are not enjoyed by modern workers.

The physical body of the slave is an expensive asset. The joke is that slaves are antique farm equipment, but there’s truth to it. In relative terms, spending on maintenance to keep the bodies of the slaves healthy is one of the largest expenses borne by a plantation owner.

One thing about the modern system of employment is that responsibility for the maintenance of the body of the worker is placed back on the worker. The worker is paid when the slave is not, and this single fact alone is supposed to entail perfect freedom. But this means that the worker themselves have to bear the cost of maintaining their body so that they can continue to work.

In today’s economy, there are many workers who are also homeless. This doesn’t happen under a system of chattel slavery, because under such a system the slaveowner is obliged to provide shelter to his valuable assets, lest they become sick and unproductive. This incentivises the slaveowner to build and provide adequate housing.

The modern employer has no such concerns. The worker themselves is responsible for their housing, and if they have to go homeless then tough shit. The employer doesn’t need to care because, if the homeless worker becomes sick or dies, they can just import some more cheap labour from overseas.

The modern worker is also responsible for their own food and medicine. One might argue that the range of food choices available to the modern worker greatly exceed that available to the slave. Against this, it has to be pointed out that the slave ended up eating more nutritious food on average – as evidenced by lower rates of obesity and diabetes. The slave may not have had a banquet every night, but their owner did have an interest in maintaining their body.

This interest in maintaining the body of the slave, on account of that it was a valuable asset, is why slaves were not beaten and whipped as much as is often supposed. The degree to which this happened would seldom have exceeded the point at which it cost the slaveowner money. A slaveowner isn’t going to beat a slave to death any more than a farmer is to set his own combine harvester on fire. It would just cost too much.

This disinclination to abuse underlings does not apply to the modern working environment. Although corporal punishment is illegal, in practice any amount of psychological abuse is legal. Bullying and threats are considered normal and acceptable ways to establish compliance.

So those who say that a slaveowner wasn’t punished for working a slave to death have to balance that with the fact that a modern employer isn’t punished for working an employee to suicide.

Some might make the argument that the modern worker is free to choose another workplace if they don’t like their arrangement at the current one. At least the modern worker is not bound to one physical area like the slave is.

The reality, however, is that all employers within a country collude to make sure that labour costs never rise above a certain point. This they primarily achieve by lobbying the government to allow, and by propagandising the population to accept, the mass importation of cheap labour. This has the effect of driving labour costs to the floor. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where the worker goes – he can only earn a pittance.

If the worker wants more than a pittance, then fuck him out the door and replace him with an immigrant who lives thirty to a house and who is (ironically) supporting a family in their homeland with their remittances. They will be happy to be earning minimum wage because they’re not trying to raise a family here.

Others might make the argument that the modern worker is free to upskill if they don’t want to take a position where they are treated poorly.

For one thing, this ignores the fact that many people are not capable of upskilling to the middle class on account of that middle-class jobs almost invariably require an IQ of 100 or higher – and only 50% of the population has that.

For another, it ignores the fact that mass immigration has been so intense in recent decades that even wages for skilled labour have been driven to the floor. Realistically, in our modern society, there are owners and the owned – and the owners feel they have the right to staff their properties with whoever they see fit.

A further advantage to being a chattel slave on a plantation is that it was possible for your work to get done. A cotton plantation only has a certain acreage, and the harvest only occurs at certain times. Outside of these times, if there’s no work to do then no work gets done. When it was time to work the days would have been long and arduous, but the shifts wouldn’t have been longer than those worked by oilmen or hospital staff today.

This contrasts with the modern workplace. In the modern workplace, the employer has their systems optimised to squeeze every last second of productivity out of their worker, who works to an industrial schedule. The average workplace is no longer supporting a local industry, but is now part of a globalised network of industries that pillages the local area for the profit of someone who lives on another continent.

Perhaps the foremost advantage to being a chattel slave, however, is that it was possible to have someone to hate. The slaveowner might expect that you will work a certain number of hours for no pay, but at least you could hate him and talk to the other slaves about how terrible and evil he was, and you could expect them to agree.

The modern workplace offers no such simple pleasure. Hating your employer will see you fired nine times out of ten, and even confessing such a hatred to a workmate is liable to see you sacked. You’re expected to absorb psychological abuse and remain grateful for the fact that you’r able to eat.

All in all, the modern industrial worker might have many reasons to feel envious of a chattel slave from bygone times. That kind of life would not have been easy, but at least the suffering inherent to it would be limited by what was technologically possible for the time. The advanced and sophisticated psychological cruelty of the industrial system would not have been a factor.

*

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.

Could The Government Fund Itself With A Georgist Tax?

One of the great political problems is how to fund a government. Governments cannot realistically be funded by donations, so they have to levy taxes. No matter how you slice it, levying taxes on the people will always create discontentment, and not levying them is often no better. This essay discusses whether Georgism might work for New Zealand.

Georgism is a political philosophy named after American theorist Henry George. The essence of it is the belief that, while people should own the value they produce themselves, economic value derived from land (often including natural resources and natural opportunities) should belong equally to all members of society. Income provided by things that are part of the natural world, and which do not depend on human activity to have value, should be the common property of the citizenry.

Georgist ideas were very popular a century ago, before the rentiers used their ownership of the apparatus of propaganda to persuade the population that government should be funded by taxes on labour and consumption. Since then, the mainstream media has normalised the idea of taxing labour and consumption, mostly by not allowing any discussion of Georgism, and by restricting discussion to a narrow range of pro-capitalist models.

Alt-centrism finds much in common with Georgist ideas. Georgism is a very alt-centrist approach to funding a Government, because it rejects the Establishment, and their focus on taxing labour. Georgism stands directly opposed to the Establishment because it is precisely the Establishment who profits the most heavily from charging rent. In taxing the Establishment the most heavily, Georgism accords with alt-centrism the most closely.

An Australian study suggested that heavy taxation of rents could provide up to 87% of the funding necessary to run the Australian Government. The remaining money could be raised according to a similar philosophy – i.e. it could tax other properties whose value did not depend on human labour inputs (such as oil and mineral royalties), or it could charge fees to use common property such as the electromagnetic spectrum and fishery stocks.

Georgism rejects the idea of levying taxes on economic activity that is the result of a direct human labour input. The idea is that tax on ground rents ought to be enough to fund the Government, and therefore that taxes on income would no longer be necessary. For a modern state like New Zealand, the numbers don’t quite add up, but a Georgist tax could be enough to slash income taxes.

According to the New Zealand Household Expenditure Statistics for 2016, rent costs comprised 31.8% of New Zealand’s total weekly housing costs, which were themselves 25.6% of the total weekly household expenditure of $1,300.

31.8% of 25.6% of $1,300 is $105, the average weekly household rent expenditure. Multiplying this by 52 weeks equals $5,460 every year per household on rent. Multiply this by the 1,500,000 households in New Zealand, and we arrive at a figure of $8,190,000,000 charged in rent money every year. This is just from household rents – it does not include commercial rent, rural rent, mineral royalties, banking license fees or fishing licenses.

The Australian study linked above found that the total resource rents of Australia were over two times the size of just the household rents – in fact, household rents are only about 40% of the total resource rents charged in Australia. $8.2 billion divided by 40% gives us a figure in the ballpark of $20 billion dollars every year.

The total operating costs of the New Zealand Government run at about $76 billion per year, so a Georgist tax of 90% on resource rents wouldn’t cover more than a quarter of this.

However, it’s notable that individual income taxes bring in about $37 billion every year to the New Zealand Treasury. A Georgist tax of 90% on all resource rents would therefore provide the leeway to slash individual income taxes by a half.

Another way to look at it is that New Zealanders pay tax of around $7,400 on income up to $48,000. So if there are 2,500,000 taxpayers in New Zealand, this suggests that a Georgist tax on resource rents in New Zealand could replace all income taxes up to $48,000 per annum.

Eco-Georgism is a variant of Georgism that gives special consideration to the environmental challenges facing humanity this century. This involves heavy emphasis on making polluters pay for the externalities that they introduce to the environment. This would combine the heavy tax on resource rents discussed above with e.g. carbon taxes.

21st century Georgism for New Zealand, then, would be the political philosophy of funding government activity through two primary means: heavy taxes on resource rents, and heavy taxes on all activities that cause environmental destruction.

In particular, ground rents on urban locations, such as city-centre shops and rental apartments, would be taxed the hardest. This is because such economic activity amounts to little more than parasitism. Shifting the burden of taxation to this kind of extortionate activity, and shifting it away from labour, will also make the economy not only more fair, but also more efficient.

*

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 Cult Logic Behind Modern SJW Culture

A 1981 entry in the Harvard Mental Health Letter describes the basics of cult psychology. Describing cults as “ideological fundamentalism”, the letter by Dr. Robert J Lifton lays out the characteristic qualities of cult psychology and cult formation. As this essay will examine, there are many parallels between cult psychology and the psychology of modern Social Justice Warrior culture.

According to the Lifton paper, “milieu control, mystical manipulation, the demand for purity, a cult of confession, sacred science, loading the language, doctrine over person, and dispensing of existence” are the typical ways that cults seek to control the thoughts of their acolytes. An investigation into the nature of the SJW culture shows that it tries to achieve exactly the same thing.

The desire for milieu control involves “the control of all communication within a given environment”. This is commonly referred to as ‘brainwashing’ because it features the targets being soaked in cult propaganda. Cult members must be exposed to lectures, seminars, news reports, websites and Internet forums that all say the same thing. This milieu control makes it possible to normalise any idea, no matter how crazy.

Modern SJW culture achieves this through Internet echo chambers. Websites such as Reddit commonly ban anyone who thinks differently, which creates communities of people who continually reinforce each other’s prejudices by parroting back to them everything they say – an echo chamber.

This is also achieved through the common cult tactic of excommunication. People who deviate too far from the SJW orthodoxy are shunned, their reputations smeared and their social support networks deliberately destroyed. This creates a fear of wrongthink among cult members. This fear of wrongthink prevents them from disrupting the milieu with novel thoughts.

Many SJWs are astonished to meet a person who believes, for example, in the genetic basis of intelligence. Despite the fact that the science clearly demonstrates that intelligence is mostly hereditary (i.e. genetic), the milieu control of SJW culture means that few of them have ever been exposed to the actual science. Consequently, they respond to people who talk about the science with mockery and abuse.

The demands for purity can be seen in the never-ending escalation of virtue signalling. Inside SJW culture is a constant struggle for social status, where the most pure of heart is thought to rise to the top of the hierarchy. Indeed, the great conceit is that the top of the SJW hierarchy is also the most virtuous, and not the one who most successfully lowered the social status of their competitors by shaming them into submission for wrongthink.

Because the Nazis were nationalists, purity of thought requires that SJWs be globalists. Consequently, any kind of national loyalty must be completely rejected. Open borders must be embraced, because any nationalist sentiment is impure. The strongest bonds of loyalty, in SJW culture, are with those as different to you as possible. This is as true of race and religion as it is of nation.

SJW culture has gone so far in its demands for ideological purity that they even attack people who say it’s okay to be white. Even expressing a will for the continued existence of white people is equated with supremacism and a desire to exterminate other races. This bizarre logic inevitably leads to a purity spiral, and this inevitably leads to cult members becoming unhinged from reality entirely.

Part of this drive for purity is emphasis on confession. This is the origin of the commonly expressed sentiment that “we’re all a little bit racist.” The purpose of saying this is to instigate a moral self-flagellation session. One confesses to harbouring lingering racist sentiments (or other wrongthink) as a kind of public ritual humiliation. These ritual humiliations serve to strengthen the bonds of solidarity among people who have been through them.

The irony, of course, is that the only other people who think like this are other people in the SJW cult. The demands for purity are so stringent that only those with plentiful leisure time to devote to understanding the ins and outs of the etiquette can ever meet the standard. This has led to the absurd outcome of SJWs who virtue signal all day hanging out only with other white and middle-class people.

SJW culture also has its own sacred science. This sacred science has a number of cherished truths that cannot be questioned (lest one get shamed into silence). These cherished truths often run entirely contrary to the established science, because they are determined by expedience, not by truth (here it is meant expedience to globohomo values).

Actual science, which states clearly that intelligence is mostly hereditary and therefore genetic, is rejected. The sacred science of SJW culture dictates that evolution stops as the neck. The great variety of physical environments, although they have clearly led to a great variety of physical expressions, have not led to a commensurate variety of psychological expressions. All human subgroups are precisely identical in every behavioural measure.

Likewise, the sacred science of SJW culture dictates that the mass importation of cheap labour has no impact on the wages of the native working class. Despite the fact that a high schooler could tell you that increasing the supply of cheap labour will reduce the price of said labour – in other words, it will destroy working-class wages and the ability of working-class people to have families – SJWs are happy to support it.

This suicidal masochism is perhaps the defining feature of the cult mentality that possesses the average Social Justice Warrior. In any case, it’s clear from looking at the logic that underlies religious cults that the entirety of SJW culture follows it. Not only do they practice milieu control and possess an obsession with purity, but they also have their own sacred science distinct from mainstream science.

*

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 Second Tenet of Anarcho-Homicidalism

The Second Tenet of Anarcho-Homicidalism is known as the Iron Tenet. It’s called this because, like the Clay Tenet, it lays down a cold law of human moral reality: you’re allowed to kill anyone trying to enslave you. This essay takes a closer look.

The Iron Tenet is the step after the Clay Tenet. Once it’s established that violence is the basis of self-defence, the next step is to determine when it’s permissible to use such violence. The Iron Tenet lays down the iron-hard law that it’s always morally permissible to kill anyone trying to enslave you – but the flipside is that you’re never allowed to kill anyone not trying to enslave you.

Enslavement is the same thing as death, because to be enslaved is for one’s life to be dependent on the whims of another. Therefore, everyone has the inherent right to take any measures necessary to avoid enslavement – up to, and including, killing the enslaver.

This means that if someone tries to assert a position of authority over you, and you have not consented to it, they are trying to make you their slave, which means that you have the right to kill them.

The beauty of anarcho-homicidalism is that, if everyone agreed to the four tenets of it, abuses of power would be minimised. Tyrants and dictators, knowing themselves to be subject to the Iron Tenet, would be extremely cautious before trying to subjugate a population of anarcho-homicidalists. They would rightly live in fear of the people they tried to rule over.

This flipside to the Iron Tenet, as mentioned above, means that you can’t kill anyone who isn’t in a position of power over you, or who is not trying to assert a position of authority over you. This means that certain actions taken by individuals in the past, although they might bear similarities with legitimate acts of anarcho-homicidalism, are not legitimate themselves.

For instance, killing immigrants simply because they are immigrants cannot be an act of anarcho-homicidalism. The Christchurch mosque shootings did not target people who were trying to assert special authority over anyone. An attempted synagogue shooting this week was also not an act of anarcho-homicidalism.

Anarcho means “without rulers”. Therefore, you cannot homicidalise a person who has not set themselves up as ruler over you. An everyday person at a mosque or synagogue, although they adhere to an evil ideology that seeks domination, is not an enslaver. Following an ideology of hate is not enough, because the correct first course of action in such an instance is to persuade a person to give that ideology up, not to attack them.

There is no doubt, however, that people who follow ideologies of hate are led by enslavers. These leaders might be legitimate targets – politicians who push ideologies of hate are legitimate targets, if anyone is. The typical pleb at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy, however, is not a legitimate target for anarcho-homicidalist action, on account of that they don’t rule anything.

The assassination of a politician like Walter Luebcke, on the other hand, may have been a legitimate act.

Luebcke was an outspokenly open-borders politician, and this led to him being killed in protest earlier this year by a German man named Stephen Ernst. The killing of Luebcke was not categorically different to the assassination of British politician Jo Cox, who was also outspoken in favour of open borders. Like Luebcke, Cox was assassinated by a working-class man who stood to lose heavily from further mass immigration.

Both of these politicians died because of their support for open borders.

Supporting open borders is to support genocide. The reason why the subject evokes so much rage is because it’s the same thing as supporting the destruction of the nation, and the identity of the people of that nation. This is a crime under UN law, which defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

Supporting open borders is to support genocide because, without a border, no national, ethnic, racial or religious group can maintain the necessary integrity to continue existing. It’s patently obvious that if a nation such as New Zealand would let ten million immigrants in it would no longer be New Zealand. Therefore, the support of open borders is an act committed with intent to destroy a national group.

Luebcke was trying to enslave the German people by shackling their nation to the designs of the globalist elite, who see Germany as little more than one great car factory to be populated by the cheapest labour possible. Cox was trying to enslave the British people to those same globalist elite, who also have designs for Britain, and who don’t care at all if the British people object to them.

If Brenton Tarrant and Stephan B. had targeted people trying to enslave them, as Stephan Ernst and Thomas Mair did, there would be little cause to criticise their actions. As it is, there is no reason to consider either man different to a common murderer.

The Iron Tenet has so much power because, if its adoption were widespread, it would make any putative enslaver think twice before going through with their evil actions. If politicians understood that certain actions were considered enslavement attempts by their subjects, and that those subjects believed themselves to have the right to kill in order to avoid enslavement, the abuses committed by those politicians would be minimal.

This is why it can be fairly said that anarcho-homicidalism is an ideology of peace.

*

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 Truth May Incite Racial Hatred

Otago University professor James Flynn has had a book about free speech, In Defence of Free Speech, scheduled for and then pulled from publication by British publisher Emerald Press. A representative for Emerald Press wrote to Flynn and said the book “could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law.” This essay examines whether or not the truth itself incites racial hatred, and if so what we can do about it.

Professor Flynn is by no means a racist. There are many former students of his willing to attest to his sparkling intelligence and deeply thoughtful nature. He has never been accused of treating another person with disrespect on account of their race, and has never even been accused of making a racist remark. Measured in terms of hate for other races, Flynn is an entirely decent person.

Professor Flynn is, however, a scientist. This means that he is passionately committed to discovering the truth, and to helping the truth shine through from among all the misconceptions and lies. Being good at science means being able to tease out strands of truth from the tapestry of confusion that forms the background of our lives. A really good scientist will be able to do this even in the face of social pressure pushing them to lie.

Something known to all scientists is that there are no two identical things in Nature. There are no two identical mountains, no identical trees, no identical snowflakes. No two identical dogs, no identical cats, no identical people. This is true at all levels of nature, from stars down to ants, and is even true across the dimensions of space and time.

The fact that there are no two identical things in Nature is so deeply understood by real scientists that they even understand the laws that explain how this has come to pass. Gause’s Law, or the competitive exclusion principle, describes how no two identical things can exist in ecology because they would compete for the same niche and thereby destroy one another.

All of this means that the idea that all races must have the same IQ can be dismissed right off the bat. There is no reason to think that all races must have the same IQ any more than there is to think that all families or professions must have the same IQ. The way that intelligence is measured doesn’t matter in this regard.

This logic deeply upsets the many who passionately believe in racial equality. Those who cling tightly to the belief that all races are precisely equal in all non-physical characteristics tend to become enraged at the assertion of scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. Their position is known as equalitarianism, and the assertion that all races are the same in all intellectual and behavioural measures is known as the equalitarian dogma.

Social justice warriors have pushed for decades the idea that questioning the equalitarian dogma is the same thing as spreading racial hatred. This lazy, self-righteous line of thinking claims that the only reason a person would want to talk about racial differences is if they were a racist trying to sow discord between peoples, or to exclude or exterminate some disfavoured races. This tactic is, in reality, an example of the broader authoritarian strategy of silencing all opposition by whatever means necessary.

A 1994 article in the journal Intelligence by IQ researcher Philippe Rushton describes the same thing that happened to Flynn last month happening to Rushton 25 years ago – and to Hans Eysenck 20 years before that. Already in 1994 it was possible to state, of the documented difference in average racial IQ, that “Today the evidence has increased so much that it is almost certain that only evolutionary (and thereby genetic) theories can explain it.” But evidence does not appease the mob.

The abuse that Rushton documents in the linked article is eerily reminiscent of that facing scientists today. Eysenck was physically attacked in 1973 by activists marching under the slogan “Fascists Have No Right To Speak.” In 2019, Jordan Peterson comes in for similar treatment for similar reasons (a phenomenon this newspaper has previously described as Peterson Derangement Syndrome).

The Emerald Press decision might be ideosyncratic, but it also reflects the prevailing attitude among those who control the apparatus of propaganda. The world’s ruling class is implacably committed to the doctrine of globalism, for a variety of reasons. Globalism is a lot easier to accept if a person already assumes equalitarianism, because such an assumption implies that borders are arbitrary and people interchangeable. Therefore, assertions of other doctrines are suppressed.

The difficulty is that the science itself demolishes equalitarianism.

Books like IQ and Global Inequality, published in 2006, conclusively demonstrate that the average IQ of a population is the primary factor that determines that population’s standard of living. The fact that IQ predicts future wealth and earnings is one of the best documented phenomena in all of psychology, both at the individual and the group level. The higher the IQ, the wealthier is all but a law.

This suggests that allowing people from low-IQ countries to immigrate to the West is a recipe for lowering the standard of living that the West currently enjoys. Because intelligence is mostly hereditary, low-IQ immigrants will have low-IQ children, who will then grow up to make low-IQ decisions, thus impoverishing and lowering the living standards of those around them.

Unfortunately, this entirely reasonable position is equated, by the globalists who control the apparatus of propaganda, with the position that all races need to be segregated from one another, or worse. This deliberate conflation means that it’s all but impossible to discuss the science of race and intelligence without being accused of being a Nazi, supporting Nazis, furthering Nazism, or dogwhistling to Nazis.

All of this means that we are presented with a dilemma. We either speak honestly about the science of race and intelligence, which means that we expose ourselves to being attacked by hysterical mobs of virtue-signallers shrieking about Nazis, or we don’t speak honestly about the science of race and intelligence, which means that the superstitious fools who think with emotions and their authoritarian puppetmasters win the day.

Perhaps the best move, as has been discussed here previously, is to pull back to the secret societies who meet behind closed doors for the purposes of being able to discuss taboo subjects, safely away from hysterical moralisers. This is supposed to be what the universities are for, but now that the university culture has been corrupted by the mass entry of plebs it may be necessary to reform it under new conditions.

It’s either that or hope that the sands of public opinion shift to supporting free speech and free inquiry.

*

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.

New Zealand First Supporters Preferred National in 2017, But Not in 2014

A study reported in the mainstream media this week suggested that New Zealand First voters would have preferred that Winston Peters had gone with the National Party after the 2017 General Election. There has been much wailing and regret since the 2017 election, and the composition of the Sixth Labour Government is responsible for a great proportion of it. Numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, has the stats.

At the top level, the statistics do suggest that a slim majority of New Zealand First voters preferred National after the last General Election. The correlation between voting National in 2017 and voting New Zealand First in 2017 was 0.04, whereas the correlation between voting Labour in 2017 and voting New Zealand First in 2017 was -0.15.

These are very weak correlations – neither of them are considered statistically significant. The National one is positive and the Labour one negative, which does indeed tell us that the overlap between New Zealand First voters and National voters was larger in 2017 than the overlap between New Zealand First voters and Labour voters.

This does make Peters’s decision to go with Labour instead of National somewhat surprising. One explanation for it may be that Peters was judging his voters based on what they were in 2014.

In the 2014 election, the demographics of the New Zealand First voters were different. The correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2014 and voting National in 2014 was -0.34, and between voting New Zealand First in 2014 and voting Labour in 2014 it was 0.11. This correlation with National voters is statistically significant, which means the two groups are significantly different to each other.

So although it might be true that a majority of New Zealand First voters in 2017 would have preferred that Peters went with National, a majority of New Zealand First voters in 2014 would have preferred that Peters went with Labour, had he come to hold the balance of power then.

The reason for the change is the considerable number of Maori voters who switched from New Zealand First to Labour between 2014 and 2017. In 2014, the correlation between voting New Zealand First and being Maori was strong, at 0.66. New Zealand First lost the confidence of many of these voters during the next three years, and by 2017 the correlation between voting New Zealand First and being Maori had fallen to 0.38.

Because the correlation with being Maori and voting Labour is also strong (0.42 in 2014 and 0.58 in 2017), it can be seen that the shared Maori connection may have been enough to tilt New Zealand First’s loyalties towards the Labour Party.

A second point is that New Zealand First are nationalists, and concomitantly have a high proportion of people born in New Zealand among their voters. The correlation between being born in New Zealand and voting New Zealand First in 2014 was 0.69, and in 2017 0.54.

This high proportion of New Zealand-born voters makes New Zealand First very different to National. The low-tax, low-solidarity model of the National Party appeals strongly to those born overseas, and this is reflected in their voters.

The correlation between being born in New Zealand and voting National in 2017 was -0.41, which reveals the depth of globalist sentiments among National voters. The correlation between being born in New Zealand and voting Labour was 0.22 in 2017, on the border of statistical significance, but much closer to New Zealand First than to National.

New Zealand First, therefore, shares two very strong qualities with Labour that they do not share with National – a high proportion of Maori support and a high proportion of New Zealand-born support. These qualities may have been instrumental in making Peters’s decision.

So although it may be true that New Zealand First voters in 2017 would have preferred Bill English as Prime Minister, there are solid strategic reasons for Peters to have made the choice he did (whether he came to regret it afterwards must be the subject of a different analysis).

*

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).

Our Cruelty To Each Other Is What Keeps Them In Power

With another election fast approaching, many are taking the time to cry about the current New Zealand Government and how terrible it is. Few of these people are willing to take the time to consider that the alternative is at least as bad. As this essay will examine, they keep us like so many puppets on strings, and our cruelty to each other is what enables them to do so.

There’s no denying that Jacinda “The Unready” Ardern is a terrible Prime Minister. She looks and sounds every bit like an inexperienced young woman who would rather be at home suckling a child than trying to lead a modern nation. Making emotion-driven decisions with no apparent philosophical grounding whatsoever, she comes across as a horribly out-of-her-depth Marxist puppet.

Ardern rightly comes in for a lot of criticism, but what her critics neglect to acknowledge is that she only got in to begin with because the alternative was shit. This can’t be overemphasised. It was the utter shitness of the Fifth National Government – their hamfisted incompetence and psychopathic lack of empathy for the nation’s disadvantaged – that caused Winston Peters to finally say ‘Enough!’ and throw his lot in with Labour.

If the National Party hadn’t neglected the mentally ill by negligently underfunding the mental health system – something that was reflected in the nation’s suicide rate – they might have won enough votes to keep power. If they hadn’t proven themselves incompetent to deal with issues like medicinal cannabis law reform – something that saw African nations like Zimbabwe surpass us – they might have won enough votes to keep power.

Many on the right like to bitch about smacking, as if abusing a child was an inherent right that was granted with being a parent. These people have no respect for how appalling the rest of us find it. Society at large is also responsible for cleaning up the psychological damage caused by the trauma that smacking inflicts.

Again, it’s not reasonable to demand the right to abuse children and then complain when someone who opposes this gets voted into power. The right’s own cruelty, and their own stubborn, arrogant refusal to acknowledge that their cruelty is cruelty, gave the power to the left to put Ardern in charge.

By the same token, however, neither will the left have the right to complain when the National Party inevitably takes power again.

When the Labour Party decided to double the refugee quota to 1,500, they consigned tens of thousands of New Zealand women to the lifelong trauma of being a victim of sexual assault or rape. They did this in the name of wanting to appear “anti-racist” – in other words, to virtue signal.

Labour’s decision this week to lift restrictions on refugees coming from the Middle East and Africa was the sort of stupidity that will see many people turn away from them. The reason for those perfectly reasonable safeguards was the appalling rate of sex and violence crimes committed by men from the Middle East and Africa. The restrictions – in place since 2009 – will have had the effect of preventing hundreds, if not thousands of rapes.

What sort of evil would expose thousands of innocents to the depredations of people like Mohammad Farah, just for political capital?

Farah, who has sexually assaulted a string of women since coming to New Zealand as a refugee from Somalia in 2000, has repeatedly expressed the attitude that women owe him sexual favours – and he shows no sign of repenting. Why would he repent, when this attitude is common in his part of the world and is probably held by many of his male peers?

The Labour Party move will open the borders to more unrepentant sexual predators. More New Zealand women will get sexually assaulted or raped in the street, in local parks, at the swimming pool or in their homes. Grooming gangs will start up, preying on working-class Kiwi children of all races. Critics of the measures to open borders to the worst of the world will be pilloried, and threats to revoke their rights to free speech will be made.

Would it be any wonder, then, if vulnerable and marginalised Kiwi voters, demoralised by such insane moves, elected not to vote next year, and did so in sufficient numbers so that National came back to power? Simon Bridges (or Judith Collins) might well end up being another ignorant, cruel, out-of-touch autocrat, but they will only get away with it because of Labour’s own ignorant cruelty.

The only permanent solution is one based around genuine compassion for our own peers and neighbours. If we had the wit and will to take care of our own problems, rather than crying out to politicians like baby birds in a nest, there would be no reason to subject ourselves to the cruelties of the ruling class.

Labour can only get away with their bullshit because National neglected the mentally ill, the homeless and medicinal cannabis users. National will only get away with their bullshit because of Labour’s stupidity in opening the borders to cultures that believe women owe men sexual favours. If we Kiwis would govern ourselves correctly, with a long-term view informed by accurate science and genuine solidarity, we wouldn’t need either pack of scumbags.

*

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.

What The “Thug’s Veto” Means For New Zealand

Further confirmation that the New Zealand Justice System is comprised of arse-licking cowards was delivered by this week’s verdict in favour of the Auckland Council and Phil Goff, who had last year banned a couple of Canadian speakers from speaking at council-owned venues. Despite the fact that the ban was clearly a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the New Zealand High Court let them get away with it. This article discusses what this decision means for New Zealand.

It seems when the men and women of our Justice System aren’t locking up cannabis growers for years while letting repeat sexual marauders go free, they’re busy undermining our God-given and natural human rights.

New Zealanders have the right to free expression and the right to freely share opinions. This right is not only granted by the Will of God, but it’s also written into our Bill of Rights Act, Section 14 of which reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

We also have the right to freedom of assembly (viz. Section 16: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.”) and the right to association (viz. Section 17: “Everyone has the right to freedom of association.”) and the right “to adopt and to hold opinions without interference” (Section 13).

Therefore, New Zealanders had the right to attend the Molyneux-Southern talk, and the move to ban it was in violation of those rights.

The High Court decision clearing the Auckland Council and Goff from any wrongdoing sets a very worrying precedent. It’s now official in New Zealand that if you want to silence someone, all you have to do is threaten violence, and that person will be kept quiet out of safety concerns, and then the courts will take your side.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. In Nelson last year, author Bruce Moon had been due to give a talk at the Nelson Public Library, but it was cancelled on account of threats made to library staff.

Neither those whose threats cancelled the Molyneux-Southern event nor those whose threats cancelled the Moon talk were ever prosecuted. This is astonishing – and deeply worrying – because both acts were undeniably acts of terrorism. Using the threat of violence to deny New Zealanders the right to assemble peacefully and to peacefully share ideas is terrorism by any honest standard.

What these two cases have in common is that, in both cases, the alt-left were the terrorists and they were motivated by a desire to silence those they perceive as political enemies. Central to alt-left mentality is a persecution mania revolving around a supposed Nazi resurgence. This persecution mania leads to alt-leftists justifying all kinds of abuses in the name of the greater good (yes, history repeats).

The worry for many, especially those who understand how free speech is absolutely vital to the correct functioning of civilisation, is that the cowardly High Court decision will give the greenlight to further threats of violence. Now that it’s possible to silence your political enemies by threatening violence, more of society’s dregs will be motivated to do it.

This is of particular concern to us, being a media enterprise that champions free speech. VJM Publishing, despite a committed adherence to alt-centrism, is in no way exempt from being targeted by the alt-left, as our Fan Mail column proves (we have also been targeted by the Human Rights Commission). Therefore, a High Court ruling encouraging violence against those perceived to be enemies of the alt-left must be cause for concern.

All of this is part of a wider leftist rejection of free speech as a tool that upholds oppression. As those who identify with the left continue to sink into Slave Culture, they will become ever more resentful of those with the ability to freely discuss intellectual ideas about political issues that concern them. This resentment, coupled with the High Court’s approval for threats of violence, means that future attacks on free speech are likely.

Unfortunately, as this column has previously mentioned, the left doesn’t care about free speech, or much else to do with freedom. They have happily drifted into authoritarianism, and they now fight for that. This week’s victory for the authoritarian left is a loss for New Zealand. The rest of us can only hope that the judgment is overturned on appeal.

*

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.

Is The Greta Thunberg Show A Black Magic Ritual?

It’s impossible to go on the Internet right now without seeing the face of Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg. Although it seems like Thunberg is just getting her 15 minutes of fame, her synchronised appearance across all media may be more than a coincidence. Former black magician Viktor Hellman, who previously discussed the occult significance of the Christchurch mosque shootings, asks some questions of the Greta Thunberg circus.

The two basic schools of magic, as has been described at length elsewhere, are white and black. White magic means to effect change by controlling oneself, and black magic means to effect change by controlling others. As this page discusses extensively in many places, there is a panoply of different ways that other people can be controlled: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual chains are all possible.

Black magic is control by fear. Fear makes people timid, and this is the basis of the word intimidation. The purpose of intimidation is to bend another person’s will to your own, and this is achieved by invoking in them the emotion of fear, which saps their will to resist. Hence, black magic could be said to be the art of intimidation.

What does any of this have to do with Greta Thunberg?

Occasionally, the powers that be take it upon themselves to use their control of the mass media to perform black magic rituals that spread fear among the viewers for the sake of bringing them to heel. The mass media is a tremendous technology for spreading information through the population, and it can spread emotions just as effectively.

When the emotion being spread is fear, the mass media lowers the frequency of the entire population, making them depressed and putting them on edge. This combines to have the effect of making them submissive. The apparatus of propaganda, especially the television, are essential components of this.

9/11 is perhaps the greatest known example of a mass public black magic ritual. The 9/11 ritual was used to manufacture consent for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, on the grounds that both of these nations were harbouring terrorists responsible for the attacks. The emotional logic – never publicly stated – was that those nations were responsible for the fear that was felt by the American people on 9/11 and in ensuing days.

Anyone unwilling to support an attack on the countries were, according to the dark logic, standing on the same side as the perpetrators of 9/11. As George W Bush famously stated: “You’re either with us or against us.” Out of fear, the rest of the world stood aside and allowed America to deliver an arse-kicking upon both Afghanistan and Iraq.

But still, what does any of this have to do with Greta Thunberg?

It’s no secret that there exists a depopulation agenda in the minds of certain elites who view the masses as “useless eaters”. Many have calculated that the imperative to save the world from climate change will necessitate a sharp reduction in the human population, whether that population wants it or not.

The world elites, therefore, have a need to manufacture consent for the drastic measures they may be about to take to protect the world’s environment. Thunberg’s deeply emotive rhetoric of doom might be intended to manufacture consent for ecofascist moves, such as the depopulation of Africa, the phasing out of fossil fuels, banning pet ownership or the abolition of meat consumption.

It’s entirely plausible that the Greta Thunberg Show is a calculated, planned black magic ritual intended to strike fear into those who would be opposed to forthcoming ecofascist measures. Because there is belief, in some quarters, that climate change is an existential threat, some feel justified in taking almost any measure to prevent it.

Greta Thunberg might not be as spectacularly effective as 9/11 was, but neither is she the elite’s only card. There may be more like her, or other psyops intended to get people to be more afraid (something that could, ironically, make them consume more). We may see news of plague outbreaks, famines, wars or mass refugee movements. More fear, more control.

*

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.

How to Cope With Climate Hysteria

A recent article on NewsHub offered some advice for coping with climate anxiety and despair. What is needed, however, is advice for coping with something far more dangerous than climate change: the mass hysteria around climate change. This essay gives some advice to those trying to find a way to cope with the Climate Chimpout.

The Climate Chimpout is best personified by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who is jetting around the world to warn us of the consequences of excess consumption. In a voice quavering with rage, Thunberg admonishes us adults for our part in destroying the planet. Like Blade Runner‘s Roy Batty, Thunberg sees us as stealing her life potential.

Thunberg is far from unique. The human mind, having evolved over several hundred thousand years to solve short-term survival issues of finding food, water and shelter, is not at all suited to solving long-term global issues like climate change. The very thought of world-ending catastrophe just makes us chimp out. The more the media pushes the issue of climate change, the more hysteria our monkey brains will generate.

The first thing to keep in mind is that climate hysteria cannot be prevented.

Climate change itself may or may not be preventable, but the hysteria now has its own momentum. The people who own the mainstream media have an interest in keeping the consumer class in a state of anxiety, because anxiety keeps people consuming. The owners and manipulators of the apparatus of propaganda are skillful enough that they can produce virtually any result they desire – and they desire fear.

There are a limited number of things one can do about the hysteria, and they fall into two categories: things that are unhelpful and things that are helpful.

The most unhelpful thing that one can do is go along with the crowd and panic. Yes, it may well seem that scientific data is pointing towards major lifestyle changes being enforced upon us by resource scarcity. This is not a reason to panic and to add to the hysteria. Panicking will just lead to more shitty, short-term decisions being made.

These changes forced on us, no matter how major, will take place over many years and decades. Better to focus our energies on things like mindfulness and centering practices. A person could help things by calming their own frequency down to the point where they can think more clearly. This can inspire others around them to do the same.

Another unhelpful thing one can do is to fall into anarcho-nihilism. Global problems have the tendency to make individuals feel powerless. A paralysing condition known as learned helplessness can set in, making it impossible to motivate oneself to take any action. The result has been satirised with the Doomer meme, and described with the Black Pill meme, but is really just depression.

Much like panicking, falling into despair can also become contagious. The sight of another person in despair is sometimes enough to engender it in oneself, which is why the Greta Thunberg Show could be said to be a black magic ritual performed for the sake of seizing control. A moral imperative exists, therefore, to not despair, so that one might keep morale high.

Hedonism is a third option. This isn’t necessarily a failure, because there may be nothing more to life than the imperative to entertain the gods. Living to enjoy life as much as possible, while ultimately pointless, is at least meaningful in the immediate present. Acting to pursue pleasure, or at a minimum novel experiences, is at least a gameplan.

However, hedonism fails where the other two strategies fail: it does not significantly alleviate the suffering associated with human existence. The best it can do is distraction. As mentioned above, there may be no more to life than the patterns of behaviours we perform to distract ourselves from the suffering inherent to existence. But it is for those who feel there is more this essay is written.

At its most basic, the challenge brought about by climate change is an existential one.

One a deeper level, there is one brutal truth that can neither be escaped or denied. That is the fact that we were all going to die anyway, climate or otherwise, and therefore climate change doesn’t change the basic existential equation. In fact, most people today can expect to die before climate change causes them major survival challenges.

Most of us alive today will be dead within 60 years, as the natural metabolic processes of our bodies lead to them becoming worn out. Almost certainly, everyone currently alive will be dead within 120 years, and, even if we discovered some kind of process that allowed for extreme life extension, eventually the Sun will transform into a red giant and consume the Earth in cosmic hellfire.

Climate change, no matter how bad it gets, does not alter the essential truth that our great war is a spiritual war.

No matter how bad things appear to become in the material world, the fact remains that we are spiritual beings having a limited human experience. The solution, therefore, remains the same as it ever was. Make peace with God, then make peace with your neighbour. Enjoy the company of all the people you can, good and bad ones alike, for they are all cursed to die, just as you are.

It’s apparent that we cannot take any physical wealth with us into the next world, and it’s not clear that the social connections we have on this side will mean much either. It’s far from a sure thing that if we are intelligent, wise or strong-willed in this world we will be so in the next one. All of these qualities are merely contents of consciousness, and therefore as transitory and ephemeral as the others.

What is believable is that our frequency of consciousness continues beyond the death of the physical body. It is this that determines our fate when we stand, stripped of all illusion, before God. A high-frequency consciousness of kindness and understanding will reincarnate among like-minded. A low-frequency consciousness of narcissism and brutality will also reincarnate among like-minded.

Climate hysteria cannot affect a truly spiritual person, because they will understand that climate change doesn’t really change anything. The basic facts of life are still the same, and the most important thing is still coming to terms with them.

*

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 Apparatus of Propaganda

There are many different ways of gaining power in the modern world: military, technology, politics, religion, media, among others. Some of these reins of power are held by people with malicious or narcissistic intent, and some are held by those who wish to end the suffering of all sentient beings. VJM Publishing is an attempt to gain control of the apparatus of propaganda for the good guys.

There’s good reason why people say “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Big muscles and powerful weapons are all but useless without a mind to guide them. Control the mind, control the body, as the silver magicians have been saying for thousands of years.

The powerful men of our time are not great warriors who can split skulls with single axe blows. The powerful men of our time are the psychologists who use the apparatus of propaganda to massage public opinion into accepting or rejecting whatever it is the psychologists desire (or, in any case, the powerful men hire these psychologists).

Control of the apparatus of propaganda means control of the very thoughts that course through the minds of the citizenry.

With sufficient control, you can get people to believe that war is peace, or that slavery is freedom – or that diversity is strength. You can get them to desire any product or political solution, even if such desires directly harm them. To control the apparatus of propaganda is to get the entire populace marching to the beat of your drum.

This brings with it multiple problems.

The most obvious today is the fact that the mainstream media is almost entirely owned by foreign banking and finance interests. Many people operate under the assumption that the mainstream media is owned by entities within the nation, and are therefore beholden by common national interests to a certain level of solidarity. This is not so.

Our mainstream media is owned by people who are indifferent to the suffering of the New Zealand nation, who they see as little more than a five million-strong herd of livestock. These people are concerned only with the profit that can be wrought from advertising sales, and from the propaganda value that control of the media confers.

These foreign banking and finance interests direct their employees in the mainstream media to manipulate public opinion, often in ways that do not benefit the public. They do this by propagandising in favour of issues that have the potential to increase the profits of those banking and finance interests. In practice, this amounts to propagandising in favour of issues that increase mortgage borrowing, which means anything that increases demand for housing.

This propagandising seeks to normalise ideals like opening borders to mass immigration, or children leaving home permanently at age 18, or ticking up overseas holidays on the mortgage, or getting divorced on a whim, or the idea of having multiple guest rooms or carports because normalising any of those things will cause mortgage spending to increase and therefore bank profits to increase.

This is also why the mainstream media relentlessly runs stories that encourage people to mindlessly consume – because the more indebted people are, the more mortgage profits are made. If they can get everyone wanting a bigger house or a flasher car, then at least some of those people will get mortgages to finance these wants, and that means greater banking profits.

Very often, the will of those banking and finance interests goes against the will of the people who are on the receiving end of the media. In such cases, the mainstream media has to shape the opinion of the public without that public’s knowledge or consent. The psychologists who operate the apparatus of propaganda know how to do this – the major unknown variable is the will of their owners.

The amount of damage that the apparatus of propaganda can do, if in the wrong hands, can be seen by the example of the Bonnier Group in Sweden.

Through maintaining control of most of Sweden’s apparatus of propaganda over several decades, the Bonnier family was able to induce the Swedish people to support immigration policies that were suicidal for Sweden, but which supported the Bonnier family’s ideological desire for open borders and cultural Marxism.

The Bonnier family instructed the Swedish mainstream media to normalise the mass immigration of Muslims and Africans, and they duly did so. Despite that the idea was never supported by a majority of the population, control of the apparatus of propaganda was able to create the impression that it was, and other influential figures such as politicians followed along out of fear of becoming unfashionable.

Control of the apparatus of propaganda enables the ruling class to threaten other people with ostracisation if they don’t go along with the values being normalised by the propaganda. This is a great power, because it plays on very deep and primal human fears. This enables the propagandists to have a powerful influence on people’s behaviour and speech, whether those people are conscious of it or not.

If the Western World is to survive the challenges of the 21st century, the apparatus of propaganda has to be reclaimed from global finance and banking interests, and from their ideological fellow travellers. Once the apparatus of propaganda is back in the hands of the people, and being used for the benefit of the people exclusively, it will naturally return to being an instrument that informs rather than one that confuses and misleads.

We at VJM Publishing, the Asylum at the Top of the Mountain, are propagandists for alt-centrism, and this we are without shame, believing it to be the Will of God. Our allies such as Anarkiwi, while they may disagree with us on a great many things, share a fundamental desire to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, and a fundamental belief that this can best be achieved by correctly informing people with the truth.

Alchemically speaking, the apparatus of propaganda can be represented by gold. The silver represents the mind, and this may be what guides the muscles, but the mind is itself guided by the will, and hence that which controls the will is the highest of all. Control of the apparatus of propaganda confers some degree of control over the will of the populace, which is where it gets its awesome power.

*

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.