Ambassadors Of Weed

The cannabis referendum in 2020 may have failed (even if non-Chinese voters voted in favour of it), but it was close enough that no-one has really complained about the liberal medicinal cannabis regime that the Sixth Labour Government introduced.

It’s now very, very easy to get hold of a medicinal cannabis prescription. There are now numerous outfits that will give you a prescription after a teleconsultation. Some of these might demand that you go through a multi-stage process of first trying CBD oil, then THC oil, before you can first get a prescription for THC flowers. But it’s not a difficult process.

Despite this ease, cannabis is not fully accepted in New Zealand. Decades of Drug War programming has brainwashed hordes of idiots into thinking that cannabis fries brains, causes violence and sexual assaults, and is a gateway to criminality. The truth about cannabis doesn’t matter. The perceptions are what lead to the opposition.

In almost every case where cannabis has become legal (excepting Thailand and a few other places) it only became so after a long struggle. The masses have been brainwashed for so many decades to see cannabis as something evil that changing mass perception is something that can only happen slowly.

Millions of conversations must be had before widespread acceptance of cannabis can exist. This must consist of millions of people hearing from multiple other people each how cannabis helped them, whether medicinally, recreationally or spiritually. And then millions of slow realisations that the government lied about it.

Not only must cannasceptics hear the arguments for cannabis law reform, they must hear them from people they respect if they are to change their opinions.

Whether people accept it or not, human society is status-based. This is how we have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years: in tribes where the higher your status, the higher your chance of surviving and reproducing. Status-seeking and status-judging are as hard-wired into us as sleeping.

Thus, people are more likely to become accepting of something if they see high-status people engaging in it. Status can be hard to judge, but most people realise that polite, happy, pro-social people are higher status than bitter, angry and resentful people.

This essay is an encouragement to all the new legal cannabis users to consider themselves ambassadors of weed.

Many people will not have met a medicinal cannabis user before. So if you can create a polite, happy, pro-social impression on such people, it will normalise in the public consciousness the idea that cannabis users are good people. Let’s not forget, most people who voted no in the cannabis referendum did so because they hated cannabis users.

Some political ambassadors end up representing civilisation among the savages. If you are a cannabis user, this is essentially what you are, among all the pissheads, screen zombies and painkiller addicts. So don’t forget it! Act like you are surrounded by ferals, because you are. Modern drug culture, with its belief in the harmlessness of alcohol and the absolute harm of everything else, is a mass psychosis.

This essay, then, is an encouragement for those with medicinal cannabis prescriptions to act as if they were early traders with cannibal tribes. Try not to shock the natives of Boozelandia too much. They’re superstitious and poorly educated. Try to act in a friendly and understanding manner.

This especially relates to doctors and other medical staff.

If you get a prescription for e.g. Tilray 10:10 oil, such that you are directed to take 1mg every day from a 40mg bottle, then take 1mg every day. Don’t drink half the bottle on the first day and then start hassling the doctor for refills. Holding to the prescribed dose will convince people that it’s possible to use cannabis responsibly without ending up like Trainspotting.

None of this is to say that anyone should use less cannabis or not enjoy it.

Modern Rockefeller medicine has been slow to realise it, but one of the main psychiatric benefits of cannabis is precisely that it gets you high. Being high is the opposite of being low, and being low for too long (so that you get stuck there) is commonly known as depression. Therefore, cannabis is a cure for depression.

I have personally found that cannabis can stop dead all manner of suicidal and/or homicidal ideation, and this is primarily achieved by making you feel good when you would otherwise have felt bad. This sounds straightforward to most people, but it’s still a shock to those who believe that people need to suffer for various reasons of character building/anti-degeneracy/religion/sadism.

Anyone who implies that cannabis is bad because it makes people happy is the sort of authoritarian who ought to be kept far from any decision-making. So, please, enjoy it to the max. As with so many other things, an intelligent balance is necessary.

If New Zealand is ever to step fully into the 21st Century and legalise cannabis, it will first require acceptance of cannabis users by the herd. This will require ambassadors of weed to create that acceptance through positive interactions.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Five Signs That Someone’s Secretly Trashy

By the time most people finish high school, they know that it’s best to avoid trashy people. The problem is that, in the adult world, people engage in elaborate deceptions to hide their level of trashiness. This essay looks at five (relatively) subtle ways that you can see through the deception.

Note here that when we’re talking about trashiness, we’re talking about a person’s own level of rectitude. We’re not talking about social class, much less wealth. Low-frequency people who spread misery, fear and depression around them are trashy, no matter how much bling they may be adorned with.

For most people, it isn’t easy to determine whether another given person is trashy. Most people judge trashiness by inaccurate measures, so easily become misled. An education or a fortune doesn’t mean that one can’t be trashy. There are, in fact, several ways that a person can unwittingly reveal their inner trashiness to observers.

One of the most obvious ways to tell that someone’s secretly trashy is that their family don’t talk to them. If they have one or more adult children who don’t talk to them, chances are high you’re dealing with trash. This is especially true if the person claims to not know why their family members have stopped talking to them.

It’s not easy for someone to go no contact with a close family member. If it does happen, you can be confident that the reason was to protect against further abuse. Abusing one’s own family is perhaps the most characteristic sign of trashiness anywhere. If someone abuses their close genetic relative, it’s a certainty that they won’t feel bad about abusing you as well.

A second way is that a person is abusive to those weaker than them. The classic dating advice that if he’s rude to the wait staff he’ll be rude towards you is classic for good reason. It’s a sign of a bully. Trashy people tend to respect others only if they need to, they don’t respect by default. So if you’re getting respected by one of them now, don’t count on it lasting.

It could be countered here that abusing the weak is an obvious sign of trashiness, and that there’s nothing secret about it. That might be true, but there are a number of subtle signs of contempt and disrespect. A person’s regular use of them is a good sign that they are liable to turn to abuse. This is especially true if it’s coupled with obsequiousness towards the powerful.

A third sign is that a person chimps out whenever told no. In reality, if you respect someone’s boundaries then you also respect when they tell you no, even if you really wanted them to say yes. But some people treat being told no as if it was a grievous personal insult. This is a sign of very poor impulse control, which itself leads to many trashy behaviours.

A person who gets aggressive when told no is very likely to be the kind of person who takes advantage of others. It’s a sign that their moral development has stalled somewhere in early childhood. That kind of victimhood makes it possible for them to justify all manner of malicious actions. So be wary of anyone who behaves in such a manner, because if you ever have to assert your boundaries against them they will rage.

A fourth sign is that a person makes everything about them. Even at other people’s birthdays, weddings or funerals, trashy people act like the spotlight should be on them at all times. This powerful desire to be recognised is usually compensation for a life of little achievement. It’s often a sign of grandiose narcissism.

The classic sign that a person is a histrionic narcissist is that they seem excited when you talk about them, but then you talk about yourself and their eyes glaze over. This reveals the Main Character Syndrome that all but guarantees a person will treat those around them with undeserved contempt.

A fifth sign, perhaps the most subtle, is that a person discounts other people’s suffering. It might be a truism that tragedy is when it happens to me and comedy is when it happens to you. But a person who really acts as if other people’s suffering is meaningless is usually extremely trashy. A failure to empathise with a suffering people is a reliable indicator of trashiness.

This is especially true if their own suffering is considered important, just not anyone else’s. That’s the kind of egomania that is found among the trashiest of people. This goes triple if a person bullies people and claims that they’re joking, but get outraged when someone else “jokes” back at them.

In summary, there are several useful ways you can determine if another person is secretly trashy so that you can avoid them. These ways are mostly subtle signs of malignant narcissism.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clean And Dirty Information, And How To Tell The Difference

This essay describes a concept in information science. This is a concept that is of extreme importance in today’s Post-Truth Age, now that the media is even more full of propaganda than usual. It relates to the art and science of deciding whether a given set of information is trustworthy.

There are already conceptions of clean vs. dirty data. However, those conceptions are inadequate, because cleanliness is considered the same thing as accuracy. As such, they are not useful, because it would be simpler and easier just to use the term ‘accurate’ instead of ‘clean’.

A useful conception of clean vs. dirty information has to take into account the moral dimension of the people promulgating the information. Essentially, then, clean information comes from a clean source who cares about the truth only, with no view to the propaganda value of the information, and dirty information comes from a dirty source, who doesn’t care about the truth at all.

This division is very simple, but applying it in the real world of propaganda is highly complex.

For one thing, it takes great knowledge of the world and of the people in it to make accurate judgments about other people’s biases. The usual, poorly-educated approach is to trust people based on whether they have attributes in common with oneself: race, class, education, occupation etc. The more qualities they have in common, the more trusted.

Another poorly-educated approach used by many people is to determine truth based on whether the speaker has a high rank in the listener’s herd or not. So one’s pastor, boss, father or club leader becomes the authority to which one listens. All that matters is a high position in a friendly dominance hierarchy. This was the approach described in detail by Edward Bernays in Propaganda.

It can safely be said that all information from a political source is dirty. Any press release put out by a political party can be considered filthy. So can any article or book written by a member of a political party. The greater the influence of politics on any source of information, the dirtier it is.

It can also safely be said that most information from religious sources, particularly Abrahamic ones, is dirty. This is especially true of those who are seeking to gain followers for money or political power. Anyone who says that you have to obey them or suffer everlasting pushishment in a Hell Realm can be confidently written off as a dirty source. But in this regard, as with others, the world’s religions vary greatly.

Here it’s necessary to look at the reputations of the people pushing the information. Have they murdered their way around the world over the centuries? Do they regularly sexually abuse their children? Do they practice barbarisms such as infant genital mutilation? Do they have transparently sadistic animal slaughter protocols?

Perhaps there was once a time when the mainstream media was a clean source of information. This was back in the times when honest people chose to become journalists for the sake of spreading the truth (i.e. before the Charlie Mitchells took over). Today, no rational or intelligent person can trust anything in the mainstream media.

It used to be possible to trust scientists, because a lot of the people drawn to academia are the sort of person who values truth above merely material concerns such as political power or wealth. But then corporations started buying research favourable to their products. It turns out that scientists are only slightly harder to buy than politicians.

Who actually does tell the truth?

In order to reliably tell the truth, a person has to believe that there are positive consequences for speaking truth and negative consequences for telling lies. They have to believe in something like karma, or at least the Law of Attraction, before they can be trusted to put the truth before their own interests.

This is to say that it’s possible to trust genuinely spiritual people. But there, again, is another major problem: usually it’s impossible to tell if someone is genuinely spiritual or not. The low-IQ approach is to trust people at the top of the same religious herd as yourself. High-IQ people go on the reputation of the source among other high-IQ people.

If you would ask the ten most intelligent people you know who they consider clean sources of information, and if more than one of them suggested the same source, you could be reasonably sure that source was clean. This is the same logic as academic peer review, and, while an effective way of distinguishing clean from dirty, it’s far from infallible.

The tough news is that there’s no truly reliable way to tell if someone is a clean source of information other than going through everything they have written or said, comparing all facts therein stated to known truths, and subjecting their logic to the most rigorous examination. If they regularly make predictions that turn out to be false, that’s a good sign they’re a dirty source.

Perhaps the two rules of thumb are firstly: never trust an authority figure, because they have reason to lie to you. Secondly: prefer to trust someone who is trusted by smart people and distrusted by dumb people.

The great thing about clean information is that it can be absorbed without the need to take time and energy correcting for bias. A truly clean source of information is worth gold in the information marketplace of 2023. In this age of pervasive AI-generated content though, best of luck finding it.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Elon Musk: Kshatriya

In the ancient Laws of Manu, a quadripartite division of society is made. Known in the West as the “caste system”, it divides people into prescribed social roles based on the type of person they naturally are. There are few more controversial ideas in the West today than the caste system, but there’s an esoteric truth to it that cannot be ignored.

In this conception there are brahmin (the scholars, priests and teachers), kshatriya (the warriors, rulers and administrators), vaishya (the merchants and farmers) and shudra (servants and labourers). Each person can be assigned into any one of these castes depending on the gunas they inherit, where gunas are understood to be properties, qualities or attributes.

This essay contends that this caste system reflects the true alchemical divisions of humankind.

Plato, in the Parable of the Metals in Republic, wrote about a division of human souls into gold, silver, bronze and iron. These are very closely analogous to the four castes, such that those with souls of gold are brahmins, silver are kshatriyas, bronze are vaishyas and iron are shudras.

These divisions are not as arbitrary as they might first appear. They come very close to a natural fourfold division of the Great Masculine Axis, namely into two precious metals and two useful metals, wherein the two precious metals represent the wealth of the royalty and the wealth of the gentlemen, and the two useful metals represent the commerce of the merchantry and the tools with which the peasantry works the soil.

This division, much like the cycle of energies represented in the Quadrijitu, is natural and archetypal. As such, it can be found in the West today even if not acknowledged. Not only can the souls of people be placed along this four-step axis, so can the spirits of times and places.

The current problem in the West is that we have sunk into a dark age, deeper and darker than any before. As such, there are no longer enough brahmins or kshatriyas for quality government. Society now mostly produces shudras, with the vaishyas forming the ruling caste.

In situations like these, what’s needed is for a kshatriya to rise up – a man of silver above the men of bronze and iron – and to lead the people to somewhere greater. It’s necessary for a higher man, with a higher vision, to lead the way, and for the masses to follow. This kshatriya must open the space for a new generation of brahmins to thrive before a true Golden Age can begin.

Enter Elon Musk.

The West today is marked by a complete collapse in spiritual values. The vast majority of us are soulless, nihilistic consumers, and most of the rest are clinging to the corpse of a religion that no-one really believes in any more. Nietzsche’s prediction that widespread atheism would lead to widespread misery comes more true every year.

We’re primed to enter a new spiritual paradigm. Never before has the West been more ready to receive a new interpretation of the perennial philosophy. All that’s needed is for some great king to make space for the priesthood of that new interpretation.

In purchasing Twitter, and in firing most of the censors, such that Twitter has become the Internet’s premier free-speech platform, Musk demonstrated to the whole world that there are values higher than profits. Free speech is such an important value that, without it, society is lost, and he understands this. Musk has raised a middle finger to the totalitarians and to their attempts at curtailing free speech.

This essay also contends that Musk is the first of the great kshatriya souls that will be born into the West as we pass out of our Iron Age and into a new Golden Age. These kshatriyas will create the conditions for the brahmins to expand into. That the brahmins have souls of gold means that, once enough of them are present, a class of philosopher-kings can be formed.

There are few things kshatriyas like more than making merchants seethe, which is why Musk trolls the money-worshippers so hard. Merchants can’t understand Twitter being used for a higher purpose (i.e. more than mere profit), hence why they’re so upset right now. But this is only the beginning.

If Elon Musk would form the provisions for a new spiritual school – one that is tasked specifically with bringing genuine spirituality back to mankind – the seething would be unprecedented. He would truly be the kshatriya king that created a portal for brahmins to re-enter the world.

The foremost sign that such a thing might be possible was when Musk smoked cannabis on the Joe Rogan show. Rogan is one of those who are aware that cannabis, along with other substances, is a spiritual sacrament. How long until Musk walks the pathway from cannabis to psilocybin and DMT? From at least one vantage point, that seems like his fate.

Elon Musk could be more than merely an heir to an emerald mining empire. He could be the spark that sets off a new spiritual era. The way he has run Twitter suggests that he is aware of higher values, something above the prime vaishya value of profit. Could he be the conduit through which higher values return to Western life?

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!