The Limits of Inclusiveness

Gay people are categorically unwelcome here

With news that Queensland Islamic authorities are urging their followers to vote “No” to same sex marriage, the levels of cognitive dissonance among many on the left are starting to become painful. It’s now undeniable that a grand coalition of everyone who isn’t a rich, straight white male is an untenable concept. This essay examines why.

For the past couple of decades, leftist groups across the world have looked for solidarity on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This logic has inspired the “tolerant left” to make a show of solidarity towards any and all groups that had a grudge against the people running the world – commonly agreed to be rich, straight, white men.

This has led to the left adopting the idea of inclusiveness as a moral virtue. Any and all alliances with people who hated the Establishment had to be entertained. It didn’t matter if they were women, gay, black, Muslim or anything else, just as long as they wanted to overturn the status quo.

However, this grand political dream to remake the world in one’s image fell apart, as such schemes inevitably do, because it ran into inexorable silver laws of psychology.

It can be stated as a psychological rule that, the larger and more diverse any given group, the weaker the bonds of solidarity that hold it together will be, and the smaller and more pure any given group, the stronger those bonds of solidarity will be.

This is obviously true if we look at the extremes. At one far extreme we could consider the nuclear family to be the smallest group with the strongest solidarity. Parents are often ready to kill if that is necessary to protect their offspring, and “brother” is used as a gesture of common bonds in all kinds of ideological movements, so it’s easy to see how this small, extremely exclusive group has the highest solidarity.

The reason why you can’t just let a random person into your family and have them considered one of you is because this would increase the degree of diversity of the group to the point where such extremely strong bonds of solidarity are no longer tenable because the necessary level of trust isn’t there.

The obvious reason for this is because the already existing members of the family have next to nothing in common with a random person, so there’s no special reason to trust them.

At the the other far extreme we could consider the human species to be the largest group with the weakest solidarity. Indeed, we can see here that people generally don’t care at all if they hear that someone on the other side of the world died, unless that person had something in common with them, such as a native language or racial origin.

Further evidence for this can be observed if we place the nation states along a line with a familial level of solidarity (highly discriminating and strong) at one end and a universal level of solidarity (undiscriminating and weak) at the other.

Here it can be seen that the nations that cast the net of citizenship over an extremely broad set of different people (USA, Brazil, South Africa, Russia) have the lowest levels of solidarity, measured by the unwillingness of the wealthy to contribute to the communal welfare in the form of taxes, and by the willingness with which the poor use lethal violence on other citizens.

It can also be seen that the nations that cast this net more exclusively, such as only over a small, homogenous ethnic group (Scandinavia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Canada), have the highest levels of solidarity, measured by an egalitarian culture and low levels of interpersonal violence.

Fitting this trend, countries with moderate levels of diversity (Argentina, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Chile) are in the middle.

There’s no escaping this silver law: the more inclusive the group, the weaker the bonds of solidarity, and the less inclusive the group, the stronger the bonds of solidarity.

The idea of trying to include as many people in the wider group as possible is essentially a feminine idea, and this is why it is generally associated with the left. It’s a form of horizontalisation that seeks to remove all distinctions from people in order to homogenise us into an easily malleable ball of putty.

However, we can now see the limitations of it. The motivation behind this idea is ostensibly to avoid making people feel bad on account of being excluded, but the flipside of it is that no-one ever feels good on account of being included.

This has led to a situation where Muslim immigrants, considered by the trend-setters among the left to be allies on account of a mutual Christian enemy, will vote against the rights of other leftist allies if those allies are homosexuals. It is a tremendous irony that these religious fundamentalists, allowed into the country because of a desire to display the virtue of tolerance, do not share the belief in the value of that tolerance, and so are now acting to maintain intolerance towards groups they consider outsiders.

With the recent wave of immigration having made our societies much more diverse, we have correspondingly lost much of the solidarity that used to provide us with a sense of society and community. The net has been cast so wide, thanks to a fanatical ideology that believes it can erase all human uniqueness, that it cannot keep hold of what it covers.

In other words, the inevitable consequence of trying to treat everyone like your brother is that your brother can no longer count on a brotherly level of exclusive solidarity from you, and will have to settle for much less. People who believe that inclusiveness is necessarily a virtue might therefore want to be careful what they wish for.

Stockholm Syndrome and Modern Society

Victims of Stockholm Syndrome might be a lot more common than is usually appreciated

44 years ago, two Swedish bank robbers took four hostages during a failed robbery attempt at the Kreditbanken in Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm. Although the robbers kept the hostages for six days and forced them to endure psychological torture, the hostages declined to testify against the robbers when freed and even went as far as raising money for their defence. This phenomenon gave rise to the term “Stockholm Syndrome“.

The psychological literature defines Stockholm Syndrome as “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.” It appears to have similarities to battered wife syndrome and to learned helplessness, and is otherwise known as “capture bonding”.

This phenomenon appears strange to neutral onlookers because the expected emotional consequence of subjecting someone to the trauma of being taken hostage is hatred. Because one loses one’s ability to move and talk freely on pain of being shot dead, it could reasonably be expected that a hostage would feel, at first, fear and anger, and then hatred.

Stockholm Syndrome doesn’t only occur in cases of botched robberies. The specific phenomenon is probably related to behaviour that naturally occurs in dominance hierarchies – in other words, Stockholm Syndrome is a manifestation of a specific submissive strategy that probably had frequent application in the brutal biological past of the human species.

For the vast majority of the history of the human species there have been no laws, and nothing even approaching a justice system. The first ever code of laws is thought to have been introduced by the Babylonian King Hammurabi almost 4,000 years ago, which means that for 96%+ of our existence the only thing that passed for justice was what you were physically capable of beating out of other people with your fists.

Because humans are a social species, this environment of easy violence meant that a large range of behaviours relating to how to show aggression and how to show submission evolved over time. Of course, many of these behaviours would have evolved long before humans ever became a separate species, and many of them are so old that their expression is more subconscious and instinctual than a deliberate attempt to manipulate.

Stockholm Syndrome is similar to the phenomenon of learned helplessness, in which a creature that has been brutalised without hope of escape for long enough comes to “learn” that no escape is possible, and can consequently fail to take an opportunity to escape when one does arise. In this sense it could also be considered similar to clinical depression.

What most people don’t realise is that we, the people of modern Western societies, have also been brutalised into submission by our own ruling classes, and so badly that our relations to them are akin to a hostage with Stockholm Syndrome towards their captor. In the middle of an election campaign – as we can see all around us – it’s possible to observe the abject state of emotional submission to which the populace has been reduced.

This is partially achieved by the kind of sadism that is common in primary school students. Like Winston Smith in 1984, who had a form of Stockholm Syndrome deliberately inculcated in him by the sadistic O’Brien, we have been meticulously brutalised by a control system that has had 5,000 years to perfect its tactics for manipulating the peasantry.

From childhood we are forced to get up early in the morning so that we can be most efficiently conditioned into a life of factory work. Anyone who has not received enough sleep by this time, for whatever reason, is severely punished. Absolute submission to authority is rewarded, on a daily basis, for over a decade, and all instances of failure to submit are punished mercilessly.

After a decade, it’s generally assumed that the brains of the victims have been tenderised enough for the teachers to hand us over to the employers, with whom we remain until it’s time to throw us on the scrapheap.

If at any time during this period of servitude we get the idea that we would like to smoke a medicinal flower to take some pain away, or to take some magic mushrooms in order to bring us closer to God, then members of a group of enforcers specially chosen for their willingness to follow orders will come and put us in a cage with rapists and murderers.

It will not be possible to reason with this enforcer class. One cannot argue, for example, that this enforcer class has no right to put you in a cage for simply trying to heal yourself physically, emotionally or spiritually. If you resist you will be attacked, and if you continue to resist you will be killed.

Neither can one count on the support of your fellows to resist such laws. The vast majority of the people has been conditioned to bow their heads and shrug their shoulders when they hear stories about the crimes that the enforcer class have committed against them. Ideologies of freedom, like anarcho-homicidalism, are mocked and rejected.

Such arbitrary laws, against medicines and sacraments that have been used by humans since before the Code of Hammurabi, can only have the effect of demoralising the people who fall under their whip.

Most of the people who don’t find the current state of affairs appalling are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, where they are the hostages and the ruling class are the captors. Essentially they are those who have been brutalised so hard that they have lost all will to resist and can be directed by the ruling class as easily as sheep can be led to slaughter.

We can see them being led to the voting booths right now in order to show their consent to the whole ghastly procedure. Here we can see that the emotionally mutilated citizenry will not only cast a vote in favour of the Establishment that mutilated them, they will also cast a vote to give that Establishment permission to emotionally mutilate their children too.

That a random person suffers from Stockholm Syndrome is not the exception but the iron-fast rule in our modern societies.

A General Election is to Our Culture What Saturnalia Was to The Romans

The Saturnalia was celebrated with role reversals and an atmosphere of free speech as slaves chastised their masters

New Zealand has lost touch with the natural origins of most of our traditions – we celebrate Christmas in summer, Easter in autumn and Halloween in spring. However, in much the same way that Anzac Day has become the autumn festival that naturally serves to remember the dead as the leaves fall, so has our General Election become what Saturnalia was to the Romans.

The Saturnalia was a festival of lights that took place in Ancient Rome in the weeks leading up to the winter solstice. Like most Northern cultures, the Romans made a point of celebrating their major festival leading up to the winter solstice, for the reason that this occasion marked the lowest levels of light at any point of the year (i.e. it marks the point at which the days start to become brighter and longer).

Characteristic of the Saturnalia was an atmosphere of behavioural licence and role reversal. It was generally accepted during these weeks that a range of behaviours that were normally unconscionable were accepted as part of the general revelry. During the Saturnalia it was understood that slaves could censure their masters without fear of retribution.

Being a Southern Hemisphere country with a weak, derivative culture, New Zealanders have long since forgotten why we have the festival schedule we do. Instead of celebrating the return of the invincible sun, we celebrate a meaningless Christmas ritual in the middle of summer. In other words, we hold our celebrations at the same time that the days start to become darker and shorter, which makes no sense at all.

But just like Halloween, which has spiritually been replaced with Anzac Day on account of that it doesn’t make sense to remember the dead at the end of October in the Southern Hemisphere, so too has Saturnalia/Christmas been spiritually replaced – by the General Election circus.

In ancient Rome, slaves were given licence to criticise the conduct of their masters once a year during the Saturnalia. The festival was known as a time for free speech, without the usual social reprisals. In our culture, the slaves are given licence to criticise the conduct of their masters once every three years during the General Election campaign.

The usual state of affairs is that, like any other time in history, the ruling class taxes the shit out of us while also putting us in cages for arbitrary “crimes” such as using medicinal cannabis without permission. In other words, they leave us in no doubt whatsoever who is in charge and who isn’t.

The degree of sadism necessary to withhold an effective medicine from a dying person is the equal of anything meted out in ancient Rome, and indeed it was less than two years ago that Peter Dunne dismissed as “emotional nonsense” the application of a terminally ill woman, Helen Kelly, to use medicinal cannabis to alleviate the suffering of dying from lung cancer.

During the General Election campaign, however, the slaves are allowed to tell their masters what they think of their leadership. The masters appear before the slaves on television and radio and face questioning, with the slaves even being allowed to go as far as suggesting that a different faction of the ruling class be given the reins.

In the Roman Saturnalia, it was understood by all that there were limits to how far the slaves could push things – after all, everyone knew that the festival was going to end and that the normal social hierarchy would therefore reassert itself. This is how we know that men like Peter Dunne will never be held to account for the deaths he has caused, as this column has previously suggested. The Saturnalia didn’t mean justice, merely respite from injustice.

Australian banks will keep sucking billions out of the economy every year, you still won’t be able to afford to live where you grew up and you still won’t be allowed to grow medicinal cannabis at home. Nothing ever really changes as a result of a General Election – it’s all just a show to allow the plebs to vent some of their resentment before it boils over.

Although it might be possible to suggest such a thing and have it taken seriously during the General Election circus, we all know that normal order will soon reassert itself and the New Zealand populace will return to being submissive sheep who can be led to slaughter without the slightest protest.

Fellas – It’s (Almost Entirely) A Question Of Demonstrating A Capacity For Resource Acquisition

If you have the health, the strength, the brains or the will to do this, then you can get laid

Countless reams have been written about the question of what women really want. This question has bedevilled great minds going all the way back to antiquity, and not even Sigmund Freud had a clue. Recent advances in evolutionary psychology have given us an answer from a biological perspective – but only for those who dare to read on!

In the animal world from which we have climbed, survival is primarily a matter of meeting metabolic needs. Every creature that lives has a need to eat, because only by eating are most animals capable of acquiring the necessary nutrients to keep breathing, to stay warm, and to have the energy to keep moving and find a breeding partner.

This is why the animal world has been described as “red in tooth and claw”, but there’s more to it than that. Whether a creature eats or dies, and therefore whether its genes are selected for in the next generation, is primarily a question of its capacity for resource acquisition.

Getting laid is all about demonstrating a capacity for resource acquisition. Why? Because this is by far the most accurate way for a female onlooker to determine if your genes are likely to produce offspring that are themselves capable of acquiring resources – in other words, if your genes are likely to produce offspring that can survive.

Whether an individual woman realises it or not, the females of every sexually reproducing species don’t care about anything else – and why would they? Compared to the need to gather resources to meet your metabolic needs, there’s little else that really matters for a sexually reproducing creature.

If one thinks about it, almost all of the qualities that women find attractive in men relate directly to his capacity for resource acquisition, and, by extension, the capacity for resource acquisition of any potential offspring.

There are four major ways that women determine a man’s capacity for resource acquisition, and all four of them correspond directly to major evolutionary challenges in the biological past of the human species (they also correspond to the four alchemical stages of clay, iron, silver and gold).

The first is to be healthy. After all, ill health in animals is often a consequence of not getting enough food, because without enough food it’s difficult to maintain an immune system that can keep the body free of diseases.

Having diseased skin or a rancid body odour will turn a woman off faster than anything, which is why men spend so much time washing and showering before they go into town. Both of those things suggest strongly that the man in question has failed to acquire the necessary resources for maintaining healthy bodily function. In other words, they appear to be dying, and nothing is less sexy than that!

The second major quality is to be tall and strong. Everyone knows that women are attracted to this, but fewer have thought it through to the next stage. Being tall and strong is extremely advantageous to the degree that resource acquisition has historically been dependent on the physical strength of the male in question.

This is apparent when one considers that males spent most of their time in the biological past hunting, which sometimes required hitting animals with sticks and bones or throwing rocks at them, and then carrying the prey back to the rest of the tribe on his shoulders, which are all matters of physical strength.

Arguably even more important is that fact that height and strength correlate very strongly with a male’s position on the social dominance hierarchy, which is the prime determinant of future mating opportunities. The stronger a man is the easier he will be able to defuse threats to himself, to his breeding partner or to their offspring.

The third major quality is to be intelligent. Not everyone appreciates the intense degree to which women are attracted to intelligence in breeding partners, which is probably because most people don’t really understand what intelligence is.

In the biological past, humans were able to acquire resources far more effectively if they were intelligent enough to notice and memorise certain patterns of nature. For instance, the first humans to figure out that large herbivores frequented watering holes were able to ambush those large herbivores, club them to death and thereby feed the entire tribe.

Ancient bushlore contains thousands of little patterns like this, unique to each locale in which they developed, but all with one thing in common – whoever possessed this bushlore was more effectively able to predict when and where the food was going to be.

The fact that intelligence has historically been an extremely important indicator of a man’s capacity to acquire resources can be seen from the manyfold increase in brain capacity in hominids over the past few million years, which is evidence of an extremely strong selective pressure in favour of it.

The fourth major quality is to be brave. This quality relates alchemically to the level of gold. Like the gold it is more subtle than the other qualities, and because of its rarity not quite as obvious.

Bravery relates to resource acquisition in ways like not letting another man take away the food that you have successfully hunted, or not letting the size of an animal scare you away from trying to club it to death. Essentially it’s the quality that allows a man to reduce the fear that makes him weaker and less intelligent.

In the modern world, resource acquisition has basically been reduced to having a job. If you have a job, chances are excellent that you have the capacity to acquire the necessary resources to feed a wife and children until those children are themselves capable of acquiring resources.

This is why being unemployed is extremely unattractive to women. Most women will naturally assume that a man without a job is either too lazy, too weak, too stupid or too cowardly to work or to hold down a job, and all of those four things correlate very poorly with the capacity to acquire resources.

Chris Rock joked about this in a stand-up comedy special, when he said “Fellas! If you lose your job you will lose your woman.” The reason why he had observed this pattern play out in his social circles is because a man losing his job has also lost his capacity for resource acquisition.

The other major quality that a man can possess to demonstrate his capacity for resource acquisition is to own a house. Females of all territorial species intuitively understand that the creature that dominates any given territory naturally controls all the resources within that territory, and so a man that controls a house appeals to very deep and powerful instincts.

Essentially, if a man is unable to get laid he needs to either become better looking, stronger, smarter or braver, because those are the qualities that correlate with a capacity for resource acquisition and are therefore the qualities that woman have evolved to select for in their breeding partners.

The Two Strains of Neo-Christianity

Pope Francis lectures the world about the need for open borders from behind these gigantic stone walls, a hypocrisy typical of Exoteric neo-Christianity

21st century neo-Christians are very diverse people, but they fall into two major groups, as Christians have done throughout history – Exoteric and Esoteric Christians. Exoteric Jesus and Esoteric Jesus are remembrances of the same man, but their overlap is nevertheless small. This essay looks at the difference between the two, and what it means for us.

Exoteric Christianity bears so little relation to the original apotheosis of Jesus that it can no longer honestly be considered the same creature. The apotheosis of Jesus was an experience so far from the shameless virtue signalling of Pope Francis that the remaining connection is entirely cosmetic. The exoteric form of neo-Christianity that the Church promulgates is little more than a mockery of the lessons that Jesus – an advanced spiritual master – felt impelled to teach.

Exoteric Jesus is the Jesus figure that is known to the masses from what their ruling classes tell them. He is otherwise known as Masochist Jesus. Believers in Exoteric Jesus can tell you all about turning the other cheek, and all about giving up your worldly possessions, and all about how the meek will inherit the Earth.

This is the Jesus, and the Christianity, that Nietzsche criticised when he called the religion a “slave morality” founded on resentment. This figure is also known as Beta Jesus, because ethologically the behaviours considered morally correct by those that follow him are the same submissive behaviours demonstrated by beta males in chimpanzee packs.

This Exoteric Jesus has been used as a weapon by the ruling classes against the plebs for centuries. The ruling classes have used this weakling Jesus to convince the masses to give up their claims to a fair deal, or to fair representation in government. This Jesus is a totem of passive acceptance, who just meekly accepts what is being done to him.

It can be observed today that only the nations with pretensions to being Christian also have an obsession with letting in large numbers of Muslims under the guise that they are refugees who need shelter, and despite the massive suffering this causes to their own poor. This obsession is fundamentally grounded in the virtue signalling of Exoteric neo-Christianity, in which one appears virtuous to the degree that one is submissive.

Angela Merkel is, unbeknownst to many, the leader of the Christian Democrat Party, and it’s clear that the moral corruption of Exoteric neo-Christianity has inspired her stance.

The logic appears to be that keeping invaders out of your territory is an act of aggression, and is therefore masculine, and is therefore morally wrong. The right way to go by Exoteric Jesus is to open yourself up for plundering – this is essentially a feminising philosophy, and it’s easy to see why the ruling class calculated 1,700 years ago that if they spread it to the plebs it would dampen down rebellious instincts.

Esoteric Jesus is the kind of man who is hard to visualise if you are not yourself an esotericist. What’s obvious to any esotericist is that this Jesus is very different to the Beta Jesus worshipped by the Exoteric neo-Christian. This is clear from examples such as when Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple.

The real truth, hidden from the plebs ever since the time of Constantine, is that Esoteric Jesus behaves not submissively but correctly, and in being correct he is sometimes masculine, sometimes feminine – depending on what is right for the situation. He is therefore a figure of balance, and in this regard is entirely different to his Exoteric counterpart.

Esoteric Jesus was likely inspired, at least in part, by the Buddhist philosophy that was brought back to the Middle East by scribes and philosophers who travelled East with the conquests of Alexander, as well as by the mystery schools of Ancient Greece and Egypt.

This tells us that what motivated him was likely to be the cessation of suffering of all sentient beings – as it is for the Eastern religions – and not the grovelling before a masculine authority figure that characterises Exoteric Christianity.

Knowledge about this forms the esoteric part of neo-Christianity – a 21st century revival of the original apotheosis of Jesus Christ himself. This is, obviously, a kind of Christianity that will appeal to far fewer people than the lazy masochism of Exoteric Christianity. In fact, in our degraded age, it could be argued that it was Luciferian.

Why The Concept Of White Genocide Doesn’t Make Sense

The concept of white genocide, as popular as it currently is in some quarters, doesn’t make sense if seen from a biological perspective

The discourse in some quarters of the Internet appears to be obsessed with race rhetoric. Some hysterical people are talking about “white genocide” and “white replacement” – the idea that nefarious forces have conspired to completely rid the world of white people forever. As this essay will demonstrate, there are three major reasons why the entire concept of getting rid of white people doesn’t even make biological sense.

The first reason is natural selection. Because race is such a taboo subject in our societies, relatively few people are aware of the basic biological reality that the different races are merely different adaptations to different environmental conditions.

For example, everyone knows that black people tend to live near the equator and white people tend to live further away from the equator. The reason for this is that people whose ancestors lived in Africa evolved to have black skin on account of that black skin is much less likely to get damaged by the intense heat and light that characterises that continent.

The exact opposite is true of people whose ancestors lived in Northern Europe. In Scandinavia there is very little heat and very little sunlight. This has led to people whose ancestors lived there evolving to have white skin because white skin is much more sensitive to the light and therefore absorbs more of it.

The highest rates of skin cancer in the world are in Australia, New Zealand and the Southern USA. The reason for this is because these countries are mostly populated by descendants of Northern European immigrants, whose skin has evolved for much lower levels of sunlight. As a consequence, becoming sunburned is a very common experience for white people in these countries, and sunburn leads to skin cancer.

Black people who live in Northern Europe run a much higher risk of developing rickets, for the reason that the human body needs Vitamin D to stave off rickets and Vitamin D is mostly gained from absorbing sunlight. Because black skin has evolved to be insensitive to sunlight on account of there being so much of it in Africa, the low levels of sunlight in Northern Europe can mean that the bodies of black people don’t create enough Vitamin D to be healthy.

What all this means, from the perspective of natural selection, is that if you took millions of black people and moved them all into Europe, their descendants would evolve to be white, because black skin will always provide a relative selective disadvantage in latitudes with low levels of sunlight.

A “great replacement” is therefore impossible on account of that it goes against the will of Nature. People with black skin in Northern Europe will get sick relatively more often, which means they will die before reproducing relatively more often, and so over time the gene pool will whiten. This is, of course, very similar to what will happen to white people in Australia and New Zealand.

There is absolutely nothing that puny humans can possibly do to stop this from happening. The Will of Nature will out.

The second reason is sexual selection. Even people who know about natural selection often don’t understand sexual selection very well. The short of it is that any phenotype that is more sexually attractive to the people around them will have an evolutionary advantage as long as that perception of sexiness exists.

Let’s say that the white nationalist’s nightmare scenario came to pass, and Europe opened its borders entirely to the third world, which led to hordes of Muslims and Africans males flowing into Europe to inseminate white women. Not only would this fail to wipe out the white race, but it could actually backfire completely, thanks to something called genetic drift.

If the borders between Europe and Africa were erased overnight, and black people and white people started intermixing, the result after two generations would be a population of strongly varying phenotypes. There would be people with light skin and light eyes, people with dark skin and dark eyes, people with light skin and dark eyes and people with dark skin and light eyes.

Sexual selection would mean that the most attractive of the resulting offspring would come to reproduce at a higher level, on account of having a wider range of mating opportunities.

It is believed that all of the blue-eyed people in the world are descended from a single common ancestor, who lived between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

It’s possible that blue eyes have a selective advantage over brown eyes for reasons of sexual attraction. When a person becomes sexually aroused by another person, their pupils usually dilate. This dilation is one way that humans signal a readiness for mating. This means that the more noticeable the dilation, the more likely it is that any such dilation will be picked up by a potential mating partner and lead to copulation.

Because the contrast between the dark iris and the pupil is greater for blue eyes than for brown, sexual arousal is more apparent in a blue-eyed person than in a brown-eyed one. As detailed above, this increased ability to communicate sexual arousal leads to a greater number of instances of copulation, which – all other things being equal – leads to more offspring and therefore genetic drift that will increase the proportion of blue-eyed people in the population.

Essentially what this means is that increased instances of interracial reproduction will simply lead to increased opportunity for any phenotype with a meaningful selective advantage to drive out the other phenotypes.

This process doesn’t necessarily favour white people, even if it did favour blue eyes. For example, it could be that white skin has a selective disadvantage compared to black skin because it makes it easier for an onlooker to notice the presence of disease, so that diseased lighter-skinned people would come to reproduce less than diseased dark-skinned people, leading to genetic drift that favoured the dark-skinned phenotype.

It’s even possible that these two processes are both occurring simultaneously. This might mean that increased racial mixing will simply create a new race of dark-skinned, blue-eyed people.

Ultimately, much like the case of natural selection, the will of Nature will out. There’s nothing that the will of malicious anti-white racists could do about this because the sexual response to physical signs of fertility occurs almost entirely at a subconscious level.

Genetic engineering is the third reason why the idea of a race war doesn’t make sense. Technology is already at the point where designer babies are starting to become possible. Although genetic engineering has so far been mostly limited to aborting fetuses that have genetic diseases, there’s every chance that future technology will allow parents to make more specific decisions about how their children look.

When this technology becomes advanced enough, it will become possible for parents to essentially choose the race of their offspring, even if this meant that the child was a different race to either of its parents.

What would likely happen in a scenario like this is an increase in people choosing the phenotype of their offspring for reasons of fashion.

It’s already common among South Korean and Eastern Chinese women to have a procedure called a blepharoplasty, which is surgery to change the shape of the eye fold to look more Western. This suggests it isn’t long until parents get the procedure done for their children before birth by genetic engineering.

Once such things start happening then the entire concept of race will start breaking down. After all, when a phenotype can simply be chosen out of a number of faces in a catalogue, then it no longer represents any kind of link to one’s genetic ancestors. Indeed, the idea of genetic ancestors stops making sense after a certain degree of genetic engineering.

This could even mean that as-of-yet unknown races will show their faces in the human phenotype in the future. It could be that future environmental conditions mean that human skin becomes engineered to be capable of photosynthesis, as this would mean much less pressure on the environment for agricultural land, and so all skin colours are replaced with green.

We could easily end up with a world where the majority of us have blue eyes, green skin and a wide range of different hair styles depending on what was fashionable to who that month, and it would be an entirely logical and natural progression from where we currently are.

In summary, thinking in terms of white genocide is not meaningful for reasons of biology. Nature will select those who she favours, and any human schemes to the contrary are destined to fail.

Masculine and Feminine Expressions of Political Aggression

Aggression is a universal phenomenon within the human species. Both genders and all races are capable of it. Not only are we capable of aggression when it comes to sex, property and dominance but we are also capable of it when it comes to politics. This essay looks at the masculine and feminine expressions of political aggression.

The nature of the masculine is to discriminate. This is represented metaphysically by the straight line, the angle and the number one, and is represented biologically by the sperm. A straight line is, after all, the shape of a sword, and the purpose of a sword is to separate and keep apart those things that the wielder believes should be separated and kept apart.

The nature of the feminine is to bring together. This is represented metaphysically by the circle, the curve and the number zero, and is represented biologically by the egg. The circle is the optimal way to achieve the largest possible surface area for the smallest possible perimeter, and is therefore the most inclusive shape that can be drawn.

The characteristic masculine political sensibility is disgust when confronted with disorder. This means that the masculine is that which desires to keep the peace and to keep things under control. This is partially achieved by means of the sword – to be more precise, the masculine keeps order by inspiring fear with its use of violence.

The ultimate feminine emotion is fear, and so the masculine right wing fights an eternal “War on Terror.” This it carries out by attacking places of excessive chaos. And so, it can be observed in the modern West that masculine aggression finds a political expression in conservatism, which seeks to impose order on as much of the world as possible.

The Republican Administration of George W. Bush is an excellent example of this. Under George W. Bush the masculine sentiments of Americans found a home in the War on Terror – which is essentially a war on the excess of feminine emotion. This led them to attack the Middle East in the belief that it was a chaotic place that produced terrorists, and which therefore needed order imposed upon it.

The characteristic feminine political sensibility is horror when confronted with oppression (this probably developed as a consequence of being confronted with the possibility of rape). This means that the feminine seeks to include as much as it can (in other words, to discriminate as little as possible).

This can be observed by looking at the nature of a circle, which is the appropriate shape for including as many people as possible on even terms. Inclusiveness, and a belief in the value of inclusiveness, was probably how prehistoric matriarchal societies prevented any frustrated reproductive instincts among its malefolk from spilling over into jealous violence.

The ultimate masculine emotion is hate, and so the feminine left wing fights an eternal “War on Hate.” This it carries out by attacking places of excessive order. And so, it can be observed in our societies that feminine aggression finds a political expression in liberalism.

There are any number of examples of this, perhaps the best one being the neo-Communist street gang Antifa, who are known for indiscriminate violence in the name of fighting discrimination.

Feminine political aggression is usually expressed as a will to tear down all borders, walls and hierarchies that separate people. Feminine political aggression thus occurs when the masses get together to get rid of a monarchy, for example, or through voting Marxist policies into law in democratic elections.

In many ways, these two sentiments work together. Most Westerners consider slavery, for example, to be both disorderly and oppressive, and consequently the vast majority of Westerners abhor the practice and it is illegal in all Western countries. Likewise, public health epidemics create both disorder in making people sick and oppression in making people suffer from the disease, and so society is capable of working together harmoniously to fight such things.

In other ways these sentiments work directly against each other. The most obvious example of this is immigration, especially immigration from refugees. The masculine sentiments are generally against refugees turning up because of a belief that they create disorder and disharmony, and many masculine thinkers are duly disgusted by politicians who argue in favour of this.

The feminine sentiments, on the other hand, are generally in favour of refugees because they do not want to exclude them from the perceived benefits of society. To exclude, after all, is to discriminate, and that is a masculine political expression.

Another common example is that of the drug war. Because using drugs causes original thoughts and original behaviours to arise, the natural masculine reaction is to punish their use in the belief that they cause chaos. The natural feminine reaction, on the other hand, is to reject punishment for taking drugs in the belief that this is oppression.

These two differing forms of aggression share what is common to all aggression, namely a will to remake the world in the image of the aggressor. They only differ in terms of what is targeted for destruction – chaos in the case of masculine aggression, and order in the case of feminine aggression.

VJMP Reads: Anders Breivik’s Manifesto IX

This reading carries on from here.

In this section (c. pages 659-775), Breivik talks about strategies for strengthening the European right in the face of what he sees as the Islamo-Marxist enemy. Here the emphasis is on the cultural and propaganda wars.

Perhaps the biggest irony of this entire document, considering what happened afterwards and considering the public’s perception of Breivik, is when he correctly points out that if modern, mainstream conservatives are too cowardly to discuss the important issues “then extreme conservatives will, and we eventually risk ending up with another nasty/racist form of fascism”.

Again in this section, Breivik demolishes the hypothesis that he is a neo-Nazi with his repeated support for Israel. He also emphasises the point that an intelligent and strong European conservatism is necessary to make sure that European youths are not attracted to Nazi or white nationalist movements.

Indeed, he frequently uses the epithet “Nazi” as a derogative, such as when he suggests that the rhetoric about mass Muslim immigration being good for the economy is akin to the Nazi “Big Lie” tactic. And it’s simply impossible for any genuine Nazi to write that “Europe’s first line of defence starts in Jerusalem.”

In many ways, this document was prophetic, especially when it makes predictions about the nature of future Internet rhetoric. Breivik points out that, according to the mainstream media, “everyone who is not considered ‘politically correct’ must by default be racists or Nazis…” Indeed, some have called us at VJM Publishing neo-Nazis merely for daring to read this document.

Breivik points out one contradiction at the heart of Western Christians, in that they see Muslims as fellow followers of Abraham and therefore as comrades to a large extent. Despite this, he contends that Christianity is an essential part of European culture, although he feels that Christians need to realise that they have more in common with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists.

Ultimately, however, the rhetoric of this document is that of war: “Christians need to understand that there can be no peace or understanding with the Islamic world. They want to subdue us, pure and simple.”

Breivik makes a very interesting argument towards the non-religious. It is that Christian and Jewish cultures produce societies that have a high standard of living, in sharp contrast to Muslim cultures. Therefore, non-religious Westerners might see themselves drawn to defending or even supporting Judeo-Christian culture for no other reason than the promotion of a strong society.

Many of Breivik’s criticisms about the nature of our modern culture and its direction are devastating. Attacking the consequences of Western egalitarianism, he writes that “The cost of equality is that we throw out all truthfulness in order to seem like nice people to each other.” This is a powerful critique because a culture that drifts from the truth, for whatever reason, is doomed, even if it drifts from the truth out of a desire to make the world a nicer place.

Perhaps the most devastating lies in the idea that the West has abandoned its foundational belief in the value of reason and replaced it with raw emotions. What matters now, he writes, on issues such as mass Muslim immigration is not whether the consequences of that immigration are good or bad but that the person supporting the mass immigration feels themself to be good and righteous.

Should We Lower Women’s Pensions to Bridge The “Gender Death Gap”?

The average Kiwi female enjoys 26% more life post-retirement than the average Kiwi male – this is dubbed the “gender death gap”

The national consciousness is currently in a state of hysteria over an Auckland electrician’s decision to offer a 12% discount to female customers on account of New Zealand’s “gender wage gap”. For those of you not in the matrix, the gender wage gap refers to the fact that the average weekly income of a woman is lower than the average weekly income of a man.

Although Dan McGlashan proved in Understanding New Zealand that the wage gap is entirely due to the fact that men work full-time jobs more often and the women work part-time jobs more often, and that there is no difference in wages for those men and women who are part of the professional class, the perception persists that women are deliberately ripped off in remuneration for their labour by some nefarious conspiracy of people with Y chromosomes.

Some, like the Auckland electrician mentioned above, seem to believe that this perception of a malevolent bias against women justifies giving women discounts when it comes to trade, in an effort to redress the imbalance in wages.

The real injustice when it comes to differential treatment of the genders is that women live much longer than men do. Females born today are expected to live 3.7 years longer than men do, an injustice many times more cruel than a piddling difference in wages.

The average female can expect to live 83.2 years from birth, whereas the average male can not even count on getting to 80. His average life expectancy is only 79.5.

Another way of looking at it is that the average female gets another 18.2 years of life after hitting retirement age at 65, compared to the paltry 14.5 years of the average male.

Measured in percentages, this means that the average female gets to enjoy 26% more life in their golden years than the average male. This is a disparity that weighs much heavier than that of mere money. Here we are talking about life itself.

We can call this disparity the “gender death gap”. Knowing about this gap in life expectancy, and knowing that there are tireless calls for restitution from working age men on account of the gender wage gap, one question immediately arises: should we call for restitution from pension age women?

It could be argued that, if tradesmen like the electrician mentioned earlier give discounts to working age women on account of the gender wage gap, they also should give discounts to pension age men. After all, the clock is ticking for those men in a way that does not compare to the experience of the female.

Perhaps the fairest solution would be to immediately cut female pensions by 26%, which would equalise the amount of post-retirement money that the different genders got out of the Government.

Why A Canterbury Government Is The Natural Successor To The Fifth National

The Helen Clark-Winston Peters alliance of 2005-2008 was the last time the New Zealand Government didn’t suck

The National Party is clearly and evidently falling out of favour with the New Zealand electorate. An opinion poll publicised last night showed that the Labour Party now has more public support than National, for the first time since John Key became Prime Minister in 2008. The various coalition possibilities after September 23 are numerous, but this essay argues that a Canterbury Government would be the best for New Zealand.

This means Canterbury as in red and black, not the province. In other words, a coalition of Labour and New Zealand First would be the most likely to improve the standard of living of New Zealanders.

We can’t take it for granted that Labour will win just yet, but the signs are ominous for Bill English. Usually the incumbent Prime Minister dominates the Preferred Prime Minister poll against all comers. This has been the case ever since Jim Bolger was in charge. However, Jacinda Ardern is now ahead of English in the latest poll, despite being in opposition.

Moreover, the Labour Party has leaped almost 20% in the polls since Ardern became leader. This is partly because the electorate did not think highly of the stuffy Andrew Little, but mostly because of the growing perception that the National Party has completely lost control of immigration, of housing and of mental healthcare. The long-term effects of slashing funding to rape crisis centres and suicide hotlines for the sake of tax cuts are now starting to be felt, and the feeling is bitter.

The heartfelt desire in many quarters is for a Watermelon Government after the 23rd, namely Labour in coalition with the Greens. Indeed, this seemed like the most likely outcome for a long time – the Greens were, until recently, polling at close to 15%, and that meant that Labour only had to get up to 32-33% for the two parties to rule without any outside help.

Unfortunately for Meteria Turei and her Greens, the chaos of recent weeks has eaten away at that support. The party effectively committed seppuku in the wake of Turei’s confession about cheating WINZ and the electorate no longer seems to consider them to be a competent and reliable party.

This is where a Canterbury Government could be the most effective. The black of New Zealand First could help moderate the excesses of the reds in Labour, and prevent the lunatics in the Greens from having any excess influence.

Perhaps the most dangerous, if not outright suicidal, of the Greens’ policies relates to their desire to raise the “refugee” quota to several thousand. Letting in hordes of fighting age men who are possessed by criminal religious attitudes has been a catastrophe for Europe, yet the Greens, mad with ideology, would happily make the same error here.

As we have seen in Europe, the problem with letting in even a thousand “refugees” is that they soon become eligible to bring their families here, and then those family members become eligible to bring other family members here, and eventually the floodgates cannot be closed.

Peters and New Zealand First would provide a much-needed nationalist bulwark to this fashionable Marxist insanity. Peters is not afraid to have crowds of hysterical teenagers and twentysomethings shrieking “Racist!” at him – he’s endured much worse in his time in politics.

If he does become the kingmaker after the 23rd, he is therefore in a good position to reject the demands of the Greens to throw open the borders. This will make it possible for the Sixth Labour Government to focus on the issues that matter to all Kiwis, in particular housing, wages, mental health and drug law reform.

Considering that Peters has already shown himself entirely capable of working successfully with a younger, intellectual, female Prime Minister, as he did with Helen Clark between 2005 and 2008, there is good reason to think that a Canterbury Government is the best option for maintaining and raising the Kiwi standard of living for the next electoral cycle.