psychology – Page 80

The Case For Cannabis: Cannabis Does Not Make People Violent

As ridiculous as it may sound to many, the public opinion of cannabis and its effects have been informed by images like the murder scene from Reefer Madness. In the minds of a large section of the voting-age population, using cannabis leads directly to a desire to murder other people just for the thrill of it, or at least to an meth or alcohol-like aggression. This article looks at the truth.

Anyone who has been part of a cannabis-using scene knows that the supposed link between cannabis and violence is bullshit. It’s simple enough to just contrast the results of cannabis cafes in Amsterdam, or cannabis festivals, with bars and pubs just about anywhere else. Cannabis, by itself, makes people mellow in the vast majority of cases.

The myth that cannabis makes people violent was proven false as far back as 1977. A review published that year in the Psychological Bulletin stated that “The consensus is that marihuana does not precipitate violence in the majority of those using it sporadically or chronically.” All of the further research since then backs up this point.

Interestingly, that article cites the importance of set and setting, which is something that any responsible person would emphasise if they wanted to reduce harms (more on this below).

The presence of a scientific consensus that there is no causal link between cannabis use and violence doesn’t stop prohibitionists from cherry-picking data and research to create the impression that such a link exists. After all, there are correlations between all kinds of things, but (as any honest scientist knows) these correlations are often best explained by underlying third factors.

There is certainly a correlation between violence and cannabis, as there is between violence and everything on the black market. This is inevitable, because anything on the black market is all but guaranteed to be sold by someone who won’t go to the Police if they are ripped off, stood over or killed. Cases like the example of Marlborough man Colin Farrell, who was robbed of his cannabis plants in a home invasion, only happen because of prohibition.

It’s true of everything that if only criminals use it, it will have an association with crime. It’s also true that if something is illegal, then only criminals will use it. Therefore, anything that’s illegal will have an association with crime. This, by itself, explains most of the link between cannabis and violence.

Another reason why an association exists between cannabis and violence is that some people use cannabis as part of a pattern of polydrug usage during nihilistic benders. There are a lot of meth benders that end up with a person smoking cannabis to try and calm themselves down and get to sleep, only to find it not quite working, at which point something really out of order often happens. The same is true of alcohol benders.

This is why the headlines proclaiming things like “Cannabis Crash Tragedy Kills Five” inevitably lead into an article that describes how the driver was also drunk, and/or on meth and/or on prescription sleeping pills. The mainstream media is happy to play up the cannabis angle to these stories, partly because drink driving fatalities are not news and partly because it pleases the alcohol manufacturers who spend millions advertising in that same media.

Logical thinking tells us that, just because a person smoked cannabis and became violent later doesn’t mean that the cannabis caused the violence. This is an example of the informal logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this.” This is because people who smoke cannabis and become violent have usually been drinking alcohol or doing methamphetamine at the same time, or haven’t slept for days.

Logical thinking would ask: “Where are the cases of murders and violent crimes being committed by people who were only on cannabis and nothing else?”

Of course, there are few or none – even making an Internet search for examples comes up with little. This is because the people who are using cannabis without also using alcohol or methamphetamine are almost always just quietly using it at home, to relax, in a similar manner to how many responsible people drink alcohol daily.

Much like alcohol, the emphasis ought to go on educating people about the real effects of the substance. Absurd lies like the Reefer Madness story have to be consigned to history, where they belong alongside witch hunts, virgin sacrifices and the persecution of left-handers as embarrassing examples of human superstition, cowardice and stupidity.

The truth about things like set and setting have to be explained to people, so that they can make intelligent decisions about their cannabis use instead of relying on abstinence-based fearmongering (this is true of alcohol as well as cannabis). Part of this involves only using cannabis in situations where they are safe and where they don’t have to be responsible for anything, and preferably around people they like and who won’t harass them when they are high.

Any correctly informed person who is concerned about violence would support the legalisation of cannabis, because it would replace known violence-causing drugs (in particular alcohol and methamphetamine) with something that causes less violence. In reality, the connection between cannabis and violence is so weak that, far from being an argument for its prohibition, it’s an argument to legalise it.

This article is an excerpt from The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, compiled by Vince McLeod and due for release by VJM Publishing in the summer of 2018/19.

The Best Way to Raise Wages Is to Strengthen The Negotiating Position of The Working Class

Low wages are blamed by many for the various social ills befalling the nations of the West. If only wages were higher, a lot of problems with housing, education and healthcare would be solved. Although this is true on the face of it, little thought goes into what actually leads to high wages. This essay explains.

A popular belief, particularly among young leftists, is that the wage being paid reflects the employer’s goodwill. This is true to a minor extent (it reflects the degree of solidarity that the employer has with their employees), but in practice the size of a wage reflects little else than the respective negotiating strengths of the employer and the employee.

These people don’t understand that a person’s wage is the result of a negotiation process, and that this process is determined by economic principles. In particular, the wage reflects what the employer and employee each have for a Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) – the alternative that would arise if negotiations failed and both parties walked away from the table.

If the employer’s BATNA is to lose production and fail to fill orders because they are short-staffed, that employer’s negotiating position is weak. Likewise, if the employee’s BATNA is to get a well-paid job somewhere else, that employee’s negotiation position is strong.

Conversely, if the employer’s BATNA is to get the Immigration Minister to import cheap labour from the Third World and to hire them instead of a local, then that employer’s negotiating position is strong. Likewise, if the employee’s BATNA is that his family back in the Third World starves, that employee’s negotiating position is weak.

So it can be seen that a person’s wage is chiefly a function of the demand for that person’s labour and the supply of competing labour. All other factors being equal, the greater the demand for that person’s labour, the higher the wage, and the greater the supply of competing labour, the lower the wage.

If one wishes to raise wages, then, the only thing that will reliably work is to restrict the supply of the labour competing for those wages.

The capital owners of the West have always striven to minimise their labour expenses. The most effective way to do this is through slavery, because then the capital owners get labour (effectively) for free. The American cotton and sugar plantations of the 18th and 19th centuries were profitable because slavery minimised their labour expenses, and the closer a modern company can get to free labour, the better.

In the 21st century, the way to keep wages low is to import cheap labour from overseas. This has the massive benefit of allowing the capital owner to undercut the native working class, and to pay a fraction of their wage to the new imports instead. If the cheap labour is from a poor country, they will often be happy to live 20 to a house so that they can send some of their wages home in remittances.

Many modern enterprises in the West are only profitable because of importing cheap labour, but allowing this is a form of corruption that harms the working class. In a natural capitalist system, companies that can’t pay a living wage to their employees go out of business because they can’t find staff. Under the system we have, those companies import cheap labour and their previous staff go on the dole.

Despairingly, many leftists now think it is “racist” to oppose open borders, on the grounds that it’s mean to tell non-white people they can’t live in the West. These leftists are indifferent to the argument that opening the borders to cheap labour is against the class interests of the working poor. In fact, they often verbally abuse those working-class people for agitating for their own class interests, while the capital owners laugh all the way to the bank.

There is only one reliable way to increase the wages of labour. This way is to improve the negotiating position of the working classes. The negotiating position of the working classes can only be increased in two ways: by increasing the demand for labour, and by decreasing the supply of labour.

Only if the best alternative to a negotiated high wage is another high wage will the employer pay one. If the worker asks for a living wage and cheap labour is available, the employer will go with the cheap labour in almost every case. The employer doesn’t give a shit if this leaves the original worker unemployed – the cheaper the labour, the more profits for them.

The sad truth is that the international capitalist interests who have created this arrangement also own the mainstream media. As a result, this media has convinced us that this state of affairs is natural and that anyone who complains about their wage must be a racist. They don’t care if they’re hated – they still own everything and hate doesn’t stop them. What they do care about is a weakening of their negotiating position.

The New Zealand Labour Party – like neoliberal parties everywhere – has completely betrayed the New Zealand working class by keeping the floodgates of cheap labour wide open. It is by doing this that the Labour Party have kept wages low and contributed to the current social problems. As this magazine has argued previously, this betrayal risks that the New Zealand working class turns to fascism. The only way out is to strengthen the negotiating position of the workers.

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

ACT Could Get 5% If They Became The Alt-Right Party – But It’s Risky

The ACT Party and David Seymour are the darlings of the globalist mainstream media, but despite being soaked in positive coverage, they win little real support from the New Zealand public. Clearly a change in policy is needed. Numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, explains the considerations of the ACT Party staking a claim for the alt-right territory.

A number of parties larger than ACT have staked their claim for a part of the political landscape. Labour represents the old left and National represents the old right. The New Zealand First Party represents the opportunistic centre, that which seeks to play the old left off against the old right. Peters’s crew are, however, very much part of the Establishment themselves.

The Greens represent an alternative to this arrangement, as can be observed by their unusually young candidates. They are not shy about claiming to represent the left, which makes them the alt-left. Parties like The Opportunities Party and Sustainable New Zealand make up the alt-centre.

The ACT Party has struggled to find a place in this arrangement. For the duration of the Fifth National Government they were content to merely drift along in support in the belief that, no matter how badly National ran the country down, at least it was cheaper than if Labour was in charge.

Looking at the description above, one clear niche presents itself. If the Greens are the alt-left, then the ACT Party is the alt-right.

They have already made large strides in this direction by coming out in favour of laws entrenching our right to free speech. The right to free speech is something that the alt-left is notoriously weak on. They are so weak that this magazine has previously joked about them giving us a list of opinions that we’re allowed to express.

If the ACT Party would properly declare itself a right-wing alternative to the Establishment – i.e. an alt-right party – and adopt a mission statement of opposing the excesses of the left, they could gain a tremendous amount of support from the currently disenfranchised. Despite the television news readers breathlessly telling us how Jacinda Ardern is the most popular leader in world history, there are plenty of people who hate her for her authoritarian style and her commitment to the United Nations before New Zealand.

What ACT will need to achieve is to provide a genuine alternative to both the Establishment (in its form of Labour/National/NZF) and the new parties (in the form of Greens, TOP etc.). This will require that they take policy positions that explicitly repudiate positions that the Establishment has taken on – for example – gun control, free speech, the importation of cheap labour and drug law reform.

To some extent, ACT has done this already, but if they want 5% of the vote they need to go further.

This might require that the ACT Party acknowledges the truth in a number of alt-right talking points, such as some of what figureheads such as Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux have to say, particularly when it comes to their criticisms of globalism, the correlation between race and intelligence and the effect of mass immigration on social cohesion and working-class wages.

At this point, it has to be made clear that the ACT Party does not in any way have to align itself with the seedy and hateful side of alt-right culture. They do not have to campaign for a whites-only state and they don’t have to campaign for the release of Branton Tarrant. They don’t need to campaign to remove the Jews or to roll back women’s suffrage.

They just have to provide an alternative to the insanity of the left, and they can do this simply, by deploying what has become like kryptonite to leftists: cold, hard facts.

They may have to come out and state outright, for example, that mass immigration of Muslims and Africans to Europe has been a catastrophe, and that this was all but inevitable on account of their lower IQs, and that ACT opposes it. This doesn’t mean they have to support a white ethnostate – ACT could, for example, take a selectionist approach that would already be broadly in line with New Zealand’s current merit-based approach to immigration.

This synergises well with their pre-existing policies. For instance, ACT’s “Freedom to Earn” policy suggests a flat tax rate of 17.5%. This will certainly demand a sharp reduction in Government spending. Things like importing refugees to live on the benefit forever, as Europe has been doing, will be impossible if public spending is cut to the bone (assuming the ACT Party doesn’t want to start nativist riots).

However, if they did the exact opposite of this, and slashed the refugee quota on alt-right grounds, they could find themselves rewarded with much support. There are tens of thousands of Kiwis in precarious housing situations, and they have watched on bitterly as the Sixth Labour Government doubled the refugee quota and housed foreigners while they went cold. They might support ACT even if ACT did nothing more for them than to reduce competition for housing.

Of course, if ACT should decide to take this path, they will have to contend with a suddenly hostile media. The Establishment media is currently in the hands of the globalists, and for these globalists the more cheap labour the better, and the more pressure on housing the better. Since they own all the capital already, anything that increases the leverage of that capital is a good thing. An ACT shift to nationalism would lose them their current darling status in the eyes of the mainstream media.

However, if they did take a nationalist path, some other policies would become obvious, and they could pick up more votes by becoming more credible on these issues.

Cannabis law reform is perhaps the most obvious. Because cannabis use is an integral part of Kiwi culture, there is a strong overlap between those who want legal cannabis and those who have nationalist sentiments. If the ACT Party would shift to nationalism, they could emphasise this side of their policy more. This would help them make inroads into the large number of cannabis law reform supporters who do not vote.

Shifting the focus of ACT Party representation from globalism to nationalism would be a risky move. There is much to gain, but it risks losing favourable mainstream media coverage. Although the alt-media would step into that breach in such a case (indeed, the VJMP Reads column has already covered Seymour’s Own Your Future), there is no guarantee this would work better for ACT than the current cozy arrangement.

The Creeping Normalisation of Political Violence

“Milkshaking” and “Egg Boy” are new terms in the popular mediascape, as minor political violence continues to become normalised. Both of these phrases refer to a spate of minor assaults on anti-Establishment politicians in Britain, Australia and elsewhere. This essay looks at how this phenomenon arose and where it might lead to.

In 2002, the European political Establishment had a serious challenger in the form of Pim Fortuyn. This flamboyant Dutchman was a ferocious opponent of mass Muslim immigration, stating that the Abrahamic cult was “an extraordinary threat”. His attitude was that, as a homosexual, he had a lot to lose from increased Islamic influence in Dutch society, as did women.

Like all anti-Establishment figures, Fortuyn believed strongly in free speech, stating that it was more important than any other freedom. This was probably driven by his (correct) perception that there were many who wanted him silenced.

The Dutch Establishment, addicted to the ready supply of cheap labour that the Muslims represented, responded by throwing all kinds of invective at him. Like Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984, Fortuyn was demonised every day in the Dutch media, compared to Hitler and described as a megalomaniacal psychopath. This steady stream of rhetoric had inevitable consequences.

On 14th March 2002, Fortuyn had a pie thrown at him. This was a minor incident, but it foreshadowed the next move. On the 6th May, he was shot dead by a deranged leftist, who stated at his trial that he didn’t want Muslims to become scapegoats for populism.

The murder of Fortuyn follows the blueprint for how the Establishment defends itself against ideological mavericks. They don’t need to send the Police to arrest men like Fortuyn and put them in concentration camps – those are crude and unsophisticated methods that provoke reactions. Much better to manufacture popular consent for that person’s destruction and let social forces do the dirty work.

The sophisticated, modern method is for the Establishment to use its control of the apparatus of propaganda, in particular mainstream media, to create the impression that the anti-Establishment target simply has to be destroyed for the sake of the greater good, and that anyone who does so will be a hero. It is by way of such encouragement that assassinations have been conducted ever since President McKinley was killed in 1901.

Make no mistake – the Establishment has always supported violence against its challengers. The Establishment has always demonised them, caricatured them as evil and dangerous, blamed them for the Establishment’s own failures and whipped up fear among the masses. It does this primarily through the mainstream media, which legitimises and normalises these sentiments.

They know that if they do this successfully enough, some weak-minded fool will let the propaganda get the better of them and strike out against one of the people that the Establishment has painted a target on. There will always be some young, impressionable idiot who doesn’t have the sense to understand how they’re being manipulated, and many of these are happy to do something obscene for the sake of fame.

So when anti-Establishment candidates in 2019 have milkshakes thrown over them and eggs cracked over their heads, and when the mainstream media lionises the people doing so and justifies their actions, we can observe that this is simply a repeat of the same pattern that the Establishment used to destroy Fortuyn. The Establishment are hoping that the mob will kill their enemies, and are shaping the mob’s behaviour in that direction.

Although no-one has yet tried to kill Fraser Anning or Nigel Farage, there have been several violent attacks on Tommy Robinson, some involving mobs hurling bricks. With the hysteria about Brexit reaching fever pitch, it’s possible that the milkshaking attacks will lead to a murder attempt. The mentality that Farage is destroying Britain by scapegoating the oppressed is not far from the mentality that Fortuyn’s killer possessed.

The Establishment would love nothing more than for another far-left extremist to put a bullet in a Marine Le Pen, a Jimmie Akesson or a Thierry Baudet, because such acts of terror would discourage other nationalists from coming forward to represent their people. The Establishment is unashamedly globalist, and therefore nationalists are anti-Establishment by default.

What the rest of us can probably expect are increasing tensions that eventually lead to outright conflict. It’s as clear as day from the reactions to the milkshaking and egg cracking that the pro-Establishment masses are howling for the blood of those who challenge their masters. They bear massive resentment borne of their own weakness and ineptitude, and they hate to see anyone strong enough to challenge the system.

One can expect that this increase in tensions will lead to further violent actions. Whether this leads to any genuine acts of anarcho-homicidalism are unclear. So far, the attackers are only attacking those who challenge the Establishment, not the Establishment itself. The creeping normalisation of political violence will, however, put the idea in a lot of people’s heads.

Eventually, however, we can predict that something like the Freikorps vs. Communist street battles of 1920s Germany will return as tensions lead to people chimping out. At this point, either things will disintegrate into chaos or someone imposes a new philosophical order. If the former, the violence will be terminal; if the latter, a new Golden Age will arise.