There’s a psychological heuristic about the effectiveness of logical arguments compared to emotional ones. In essence, rational arguments weigh more heavily in the long term, often producing permanent changes, but emotional arguments weigh more heavily in the short term, often producing immediate action. This simple rule explains why the quality of political discourse has degraded so sharply in recent weeks, and why it will degrade further in the next two.
This human tendency was demonstrated with a study that examined tooth brushing habits. Two groups listened to two different lectures from dental health professionals. The first lecture used calm, reasonable, logical arguments to explain why people should brush their teeth, the second used fire and brimstone and tried to scare the listeners into doing so.
Although people who heard the first lecture only made a small increase in how regularly they brushed their teeth, the change in behaviour lasted for a long time. This was in stark contrast to the emotional lecture. People who heard this one made a sharp increase in tooth-brushing behaviour immediately after the lecture but, over the long term, this then fell away to much lower levels than the people who had heard the logical arguments in the first lecture.
Our political class and their advisers, highly sophisticated in the art of psychological persuasion, know all of this and are using this knowledge against the plebs right now. The rule they are operating by is: the closer we get to the day of the election, the less effective logical arguments become, and the more effective emotional arguments become.
One year out from an election, there’s no real reason to get emotional. The voters themselves have not yet been whipped into hysteria by the mainstream media, and so any politician that noticeably becomes emotional will look unstable and lose support.
That far out, it’s much better to focus on calm, logical arguments that a potential voter can ruminate over at their leisure before making a solid commitment to a party on the basis of reason. This is because, as with the toothbrush study, this influence will be minor but permanent.
The day before an election, by contrast, is not the time for calm and logical arguments. It doesn’t make psychological sense to aim for a moderate but long-term gain when the election is the next day and the preferences of voters in one year’s time doesn’t count for shit. At this point, it only makes sense to appeal to the heart (and almost always to fear), in the hope that this wave of raw emotion will not have subsided by the next day.
Right now, two weeks out from Election Day, fewer logical arguments are being made. “Let’s Do This!” is not a logical argument, and that is why we have seen expressions of it much more often over the past week. Neither is whipping up fears about being taxed into the poorhouse.
Here the political discourse can already be seen to have degraded, but things will only get worse over the next two weeks as the miserable calculus of persuasion shifts the balance ever-further towards whipping up hysteria and fear.
In two weeks’ time, the discourse will have degraded so far that National supporters will simply be yelling “COMMUNISM!!!”, Labour supporters will be screaming “SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!”, New Zealand First supporters will be bellowing “NEOLIBERALISM!!!” and Greens supporters will be shrieking “POO IN THE WATER!!!”
And it will take us three years to get over the shame of how low we all stooped before we can do it again.
The psychopath, sociopath or person with Antisocial Personality Disorder has for centuries been one of the most interesting subjects for creative writers. Something about their nature reliably invokes a sense of horror in the reader – perhaps the ruthlessness, perhaps the callousness, perhaps the deep and smouldering hatred for life. This article looks at how you can believably portray a psychopathic character in your own creative fiction.
It’s important to note that ‘psychopath’ and ‘psychotic’ are two entirely different things. A psychopath is seldom a madman – there is usually a distinct logic and methodology to their actions, even if those actions are considered abhorrent by the majority of people around them.
Psychopaths are primarily characterised by a lack of shame or remorse. Essentially this means that they don’t feel bad about causing suffering to other sentient beings. If they do cause suffering to another person or animal they will rarely accept that they shouldn’t have done so, and even when they do they are never sincere.
A striking lack of remorse after the psychopath did something that harmed someone might be the clue that lets other characters realise that they’re dealing with someone who is a bit different up top. The psychopath might be unaware that they’re supposed to feel remorse (depending on their level of sophistication) and may appear to become confused when another character acts as if remorse would be expected.
Lying is another essential characteristic of the psychopath. From the perspective of the author, this presents an interesting challenge, because the characters that interact with the psychopath are unlikely to realise (at least, not initially) that they are being lied to.
This isn’t just a question of telling a lot of lies. Psychopaths are good at lying as well. They stay cool when telling lies – even if initially disbelieved, and this means that the microsignals that people subconsciously use to detect liars are present less often.
A character who encountered a psychopath might find themselves slowly figuring out that they’re being lied to. They might be so taken in by the glib charm of the psychopath character that they are reluctant to accept that that character has been misleading them, and only by thinking hard about the facts do they realise that something doesn’t add up.
These two traits combine as well, in remorseless lying. The psychopath does not care about the consequences of telling lies, neither when it comes to the suffering caused or the risk of being caught out. The lack of shame means that even if they are caught with indisputable proof that they are lying, they might continue to insist that their accuser must be mistaken, possibly mentally ill, or that they should just “get over it”.
These characteristics might be of more interest to psychological fiction than a psychopath who is just a remorseless killer. Although, if they are a remorseless killer, they no doubt will have developed a fantastic web of lies to divert attention from the fact. Keep in mind that some serial killers were even able to keep their streak of murders a secret from their own wives!
Another personality trait that typifies the psychopath is a constant need for stimulation. It seems that psychopaths do not derive the same satisfaction from everyday activities that non-psychopaths do, and this has leads to an increased incidence of risk-taking behaviours, such as sexual promiscuity, violence and drug use. The psychopath tends to be impulsive, on account of that they don’t have much in the way of inhibitions.
This means that a psychopath character will almost certainly not practice meditation, for example. Neither will they be fond of long walks on the beach, hiking, chess, Test cricket, gardening etc. They wouldn’t be able to sit still for long enough to partake in pastimes such as these.
A history of irresponsibility also characterises the psychopath. It’s common for psychopaths to be incapable of holding down a stable job or relationship because of the need for constant stimulation and because their lies and callous behaviour tends to limit social opportunities. Some other characters in your story might find this history a warning sign.
Another decision that the author will have to make is whether their character is a psychopath or a sociopath. Although both conditions generally fall under the rubric of Antisocial Personality Disorder, there is a distinction in that psychopathy is innate whereas sociopathy is a learned condition from the environment.
Depending on the needs of the story, the character might have been “born bad” or they might have lost their natural empathy as a consequence of massive physical, sexual or psychological abuse. The author will have to decide this once they decide what emotional reaction they want to reader to have, because a character who has had everything good beaten out of them in childhood will be more engaging to some readers, particular those with a higher demand for psychological realism.
Taking these considerations into account when writing a psychopathic character should allow the author to make an accurate portrayal of someone with the condition while avoiding the common cliche of mindless, uncalculating sadism.
In this section (c. pages 776-847), titled “A Declaration of Pre-emptive War”, Breivik discusses how “Christian/conservative/nationalist” forces can organise themselves to best resist the coming chaos. Here he is particular about making sure that the work is seen as hypothetical and fictional, apparently for the reason that he is concerned about potential legal consequences from being too explicit.
Here again Breivik demonstrates that he is not a neo-Nazi, at one point by demanding that the national governments of Europe issue a statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression, at another by calling Hitler a “twisted mass murderer.”
Here also he holds European politicians accountable for every single crime committed by Muslims in Europe, a crime rate that he describes as “an average 1000 atrocities per 100 000 Muslims annually.” The line of reasoning Breivik pursues here is that, without Muslims being in Europe, none of these crimes would ever have happened. This is perhaps the most untenable of all the claims in this document.
Although it’s literally true that none of the crimes committed by Muslims against Europeans would have happened if there were no Muslims in Europe, the absolute numbers of crimes in a particular country is primarily a function of the absolute numbers of people – after all, America manages to maintain an extremely high rate of crime (by developed world standards) with far fewer Muslims than Europe.
Breivik tends to conflate all genuine criticism of European traditions and institutions into the category of the great Marxist/feminist conspiracy against Europe. He does this with the nature of the Church’s influence on European society – here Breivik can not tolerate any criticism of the Church on libertarian or humanist grounds. All criticism of the Church is a Marxist plot to destroy Europe.
The paranoid nature of some of the earlier parts of the document resurfaces when Breivik details a media-led conspiracy to deny the truth about historical Islamic violence. This also misses the mark.
The media doesn’t educate anyone, ever – it sells advertising. Breivik considers it a kind of bias for the media to be silent on, for example, the genocide of Hindus and Buddhists in the Hindu Kush, but that degree of historical detail is reserved for special and academic interests, not for a mainstream media which speaks to a twelve-year old intellect.
There is an eerie foreshadowing of the future when Breivik cites Jefferson as saying “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Indeed, later on in this section he goes as far as declaring that “The time for dialogue is now over. The time for armed resistance has come.”
The legal measures suggested in this section are those that Breivik appears to believe should be instituted by any genuinely patriotic European front, should any take power. Curiously, one of the policy points allows for the immediate release of all “patriotically-minded” individuals from Western European jails.
Perhaps Breivik himself, incarcerated as he is for life, is counting on such a policy in order to get out of jail himself.
When he writes that “Norway and Sweden are two of the world’s most repressive Marxist regimes,” he echoes a sentiment that is common among Scandinavian conservatives, especially Christian ones. This sentiment is grounded in a disbelief that the conservatives are in a genuine minority. Where majority opinion does not agree (and it’s far from agreeing with Breivik’s demands that all Muslims be deported on pain of execution), this is considered evidence of brainwashing.
Interestingly, Breivik lists all of Communism, Cultural Marxism, Islam and Nazism as “hate ideologies” which must be opposed by any European male who wishes to be accepted into what he hopes might become a renewed European chivalric order.
It’s apparent that anyone who thinks like this in contemporary European society is bound to experience a certain degree of social isolation. This might ultimately help to explain the reasoning that led Breivik to take the actions he did.
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’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.
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.
In Hinduism, the Kali Yuga refers to a final age of strife and discord that the world falls into before righteous order is finally restored and humanity realigns itself with the will of God. According to the Sanskrit scriptures, humanity is doomed to repeatedly pass through cycles of time that end in this degenerate Kali Yuga. This essay asks – are we living in the Kali Yuga now?
The Hindu theory of the Yugas has an astonishing similarity with the theory of political decline described in Plato’s Republic. This is possibly because of a shared intellectual tradition that informed all of the civilised nations of antiquity.
The basic idea is that humanity starts off in a Golden Age, or Age of Truth. This is called the Satya Yuga in Hinduism, and corresponds to the rule of the Men of Gold in the Republic. In this stage, humanity is governed by the gods, and our actions allow morality to shine through and illuminate the world. Plato considered it to be an age where humans were ruled by philosopher-kings, who were able to guide humanity skillfully and steadfastly through their challenges.
Unfortunately, this golden age is too good to last and humanity eventually degenerates into the second age, called the Treta Yuga. In this age, people begin to lose touch with their spirituality and become more materialistic. As a consequence, morality starts to degenerate, and fear creeps in. This age corresponds roughly to the oligarchy described by Plato and references the rule of the Men of Silver.
This degeneration continues even further into the Dvapara Yuga, the third age. In this era, the divine intellect no longer manifests, and as a result people become pleasure-seeking and ignorant. Because of this, people no longer are truthful. They will tell lies about anything in order to gain advantage, and this leads to an age of disease and misery. This corresponds to the democracy in Plato’s Republic, in which people only care about short-term pleasure.
Eventually, all of this degeneration causes the entire system to fall apart, in the fourth age, the Kali Yuga. This is an age of war, discord, strife and misery.
The Hindu texts prophecise the rejection of spirituality that takes place during this age. This is perhaps the most definite sign that we are currently living in the age of Kali Yuga.
During this age, it is written, rulers will no longer consider it their duty to promote spirituality, Indeed, this is precisely what we are currently faced with. The rulers of the West make no effort at all to promote genuine spirituality – they are satisfied with merely paying lip service to some rotten Abrahamic tradition that has lost any connection it had to God millennia ago.
In fact, the rulers of our age have gone out of their way to attack spirituality at its source. Where Hindu religions drew spiritual inspiration from entheogenics such as cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms, our age is so grossly materialistic that we have made use of these sacraments illegal, and will go as far as putting each other in cages for using them.
Neither do we meditate. Where meditation was once seen as an essential practice for anyone who so much as hoped to distinguish reality from illusion, nowadays the practice is mocked as something that only brain-dead hippie space cadets would engage in.
It is also written that human relationships will degenerate during this period, and just by simple observation it’s possible to see that this has happened. Avarice and wrath are common, and people don’t see anything wrong with mindless lusts towards sex and murder. Essentially, we have strayed so far from spiritual truth that we have become something close to animals.
At the end of this age, it becomes impossible to even speak of God. It can be argued that we are already at this stage, because it can easily be observed that no-one does speak of God. Churches are full of empty rhetoric drumming up hate against non-believers, the newspapers and television only exist to sell advertising for material goods, and spiritual sacraments have been replaced with alcohol and methamphetamine.
It can be observed that people who do speak of God are roundly mocked, and if this does not deter them they are diagnosed with a mental illness and medicated.
Eventually, the Kali Yuga is supposed to end with a fiery cataclysm that heralds the dawn of a new Golden Age. With the aggressive nuclear program of North Korea attracting ever more aggression from Donald Trump’s America, the likelihood of this cataclysm draws ever nearer. Perhaps the Kali Yuga is soon to end, and perhaps the human race is about to return to God.
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.
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.
In this section (c. pages 574-658), Breivik puts some statistics on the demographic changes that are occurring in Europe, and tries to determine where this might lead. Like the previous sections in this document, Breivik here lists as many crimes committed by Muslims as he can possibly find – there is nothing too trivial to escape notice. Also like the previous sections, Breivik’s solutions are drastic. At one point he declares that “mass deportation of Muslims is the only viable alternative”.
At the beginning of this section he lists some “projections” of the future Muslim population in European countries. These projections state that France will be a majority Muslim country by 2050, at which point, Breivik contends, social order will start to collapse (if not beforehand).
Worryingly for those tempted to dismiss Breivik as a crackpot, the concerns in this section are backed up by hard statistics. The birth rate of European women in Europe is much lower than the birth rate of Muslim women, and, if this continues, it’s simply a matter of time until Muslims become more numerous.
This logic is mathematical. If a person puts $100 in a bank account at 3.5% interest, and $1,000 in another bank account at 1.3% interest, it’s clear that the first bank account will sooner or later become the larger of the two. The practical evidence is demonstrated by phenomena such as the population of Pakistan increasing five-fold in less than sixty years after 1951.
On some questions, it’s impossible to take any other position than agreement with Breivik, especially when he points out the mathematical likelihood of an ever-increasing Muslim population leading to further civil unrest. Some opinion polls for next year’s Swedish General Election suggest that the neo-Nazi Sweden Democrats will become the largest party – a total disaster from the perspective of liberal democracy, but one that was entirely predictable.
The new totalitarians, Breivik tells us, deal in persuasion and manipulation, and this is how they are distinguished from the old totalitarians, who used force. This is a phenomenon that this newspaper refers to as “chains of silver supplanting chains of iron”.
Given what we now know about Breivik, there are some very ominous passages in this section, in particular “My advice to Westerners in general is to arm themselves immediately, first of all mentally with knowledge of the enemy and pride in their own culture and heritage, but also physically with guns and the skills to use them.”
In other words, Breivik considers the movements of peoples that have characterised recent decades to be a war like any other war, in which victory can only come from killing enough of the enemy to force their surrender. He writes that “Islam hasn’t changed in the last 1400 years. Unless we are prepared to accept conversion or dhimmi status, we have to fight.”
It is telling that Breivik reserves his sharpest vitriol for the European elites who have facilitated what he sees as an Islamic invasion. In many ways, he comes down harder on them than on Muslims themselves. After all, the Muslims are merely taking advantage of the weakness of their enemy, an attitude which is entirely understandable and logical.
The European elites, however, are effectively acting as traitors by facilitating the mass migration of Muslims into their countries, with the resulting terrible effects on the native population. They are therefore the real enemy, and this perhaps goes a long way to explaining why Breivik chose the targets he did, rather than shooting Muslims themselves.
When George W. Bush declared a “War on Terror” in the wake of 9/11, right-wing parties in every Western nation immediately won a great victory. Ever since then, they have been able to appeal to the need to fight this war on terror in order to get votes. This has given them a big advantage over the left-wing parties, but now the left wing has its own equivalent of the War on Terror: climate change.
George W. Bush and his Republican Party knew full well that there would never be an end to terror, because there will never be an end to the human nature that impels sexually frustrated young men towards political violence. The Middle East will always be violent, because it’s in their nature to be, and even if they weren’t someone else would be.
Somewhere in the world, there will always be violence and terror, and this means that the War on Terror is an endless war. It is a battle that can never be won. No matter the circumstances, right-wing parties will always be able to use the violence somewhere in the world to justify increasing military spending and cracking down on civil liberties.
This has given them a permanent advantage over the left wing – until now.
If there’s one thing that can be said for certain about Nature it is that she is ever-changing. And she always will be – for over four billion years, Nature has thrown up an ever-shifting set of environmental conditions and admonished her children to adapt or die. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this, because Nature is infinitely stronger than even our collective will.
At any given time, somewhere in the world, there will be people suffering due to the whims of Nature. Somewhere in the world there will be droughts, somewhere else there will be floods, and in other places there will be storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, typhoons and tsunamis.
What the left wing has recently caught on to is the fact that, insofar as we have a moral obligation to fight climate change, this obligation will never and can never be discharged.
If the political class is at all capable of persuading the people they rule to submit to further taxation in the belief that the money will be used to “fight climate change”, they will be able to do so in perpetuity, because the climate will always change.
Because it’s a law of Nature that the climate will always change, no matter what humans do or don’t do, the left wing will always be able to use climate change as a justification for increasing government reach and cracking down on civil liberties. In this regard, the left wing has a weapon that matches the power of the right wing’s War or Terror. Any time anything bad naturally happens as a result of freak weather events, the left wing will be able to use it as an excuse to turn the screws.
This is how we have ended up with politicians like Jacinda Ardern saying that climate change is the “nuclear free moment” of our generation. The Labour Party knows that it can thump the drum of climate change forever, and therefore there is greater scope for long-term gathering of political capital if they prioritise this issue rather than issues like cannabis law reform (which will be soon be solved and moved on from).
Ten years, twenty years, fifty years from now, the left wing will still be prattling on about climate change.