Island Tameness And New Zealand Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

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

Clown World Chronicles: What is the ‘Boogaloo’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History Is The Patterns Of Conflict Between Master And Slave Moralities

Many historical theories view the world as an eternal struggle between two forces. The Christians call it good and evil, the Communists call it the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the Nazis call it the Aryan and the Jew. A previous essay here suggested it was between the K and r-selected. This essay takes a new approach: that Friedrich Nietzsche was more accurate than anyone else, and the true eternal struggle is between those with a master mentality and those with a slave mentality.

In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche described two basic forms of morality.

Master morality judges actions on the basis of good or bad. Nietzsche defines master morality as the morality of the strong-willed: it is championed by the noble and the powerful. This doesn’t mean that master morality is mere domination – it also prizes honesty and an accurate appraisal of one’s own weaknesses. People with this mentality are not concerned with what the herd thinks. They prefer to pursue their own self-defined form of excellence.

Slave morality, by contrast, judges actions on the basis of good or evil. In slave morality, strong people are equated with evil. In slave morality, goodness is equated with passivity, timidity, agreeableness and an insipid kindness. Slave moralists aren’t concerned with accurate viewpoints – they simply believe whatever makes them feel good. Questioning the herd is a great sin, because it requires strength and therefore only someone evil would do it.

The masters are always fewer in number, and the slaves more numerous. In this regard, master and slave morality maps fairly closely to the mentality of the K-selected vs. the mentality of the r-selected. The major differences are that K-selected people are liable to suffer from pathological altruism, whereas the master morality (not feeling pity) does not, and that r-selected people do not lack vitality and are not prudish, whereas the slave morality is neurotic.

The true course of history has been the ebb and flow of these two different forms of morality.

Nietzsche himself wrote that the ancient Greco-Roman culture encapsulated master morality, but was subverted from the inside by Christianity, one of the original forms of slave morality. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 323 A.D., Westerners became slaves, our natural spiritual traditions having been thoroughly destroyed and replaced with superstition.

This victory of slave morality endured until the Renaissance (an event which a previous essay here called the Minor Renaissance). At this time, some of the old master morality returned in the form of the quest for scientific knowledge, previously hidden or taboo philosophy and exploring the world. Unfortunately, this didn’t last.

The 19th Century was a relative high point for master morality (of course, Nietzsche didn’t know this). During this decade, the European Empires reached their greatest extent. The British Empire had achieved such a state of dominance that it was able to settle Australia and New Zealand – lands on the other side of the planet – at the same time as providing most of the settlers to North America, and all this while keep the world’s shipping lanes open.

Unfortunately, there was no Major Renaissance, as the wider Western consciousness kept falling at the first three hurdles of dumb Abrahamism, blind Materialism or deaf Satanism. The West never managed to revive the master spirituality it had before being poisoned by Christianity some 1,700 years ago.

It has long been observed that empires tend to fall from the inside, rather than get smashed by any outside force. The reason for this is the internal rise of slave morality. The reason why the West has fallen into the decrepitude that it has is because slave morality has risen to the point where it is normal. Accordingly, we are weak.

It has also long been observed that good times lead to weak men, who then create hard times, which leads to strong men, who then create good times. This has been discussed here as the Red Pill-White Pill-Blue Pill-Black Pill sequence. New Zealand philosopher Rick Giles describes it as the Dignity Culture-Honour Culture-Victimhood Culture-Slave Culture quadrichotomy.

Hard times lead to strong men by process of selection. When times are hard, there’s not enough surplus to waste any of it. Therefore, the people in charge of resources have to be discriminating. Even more pressing is the fact that, when times are hard, people will fight over what little resources exist. This fighting, being in the realm of iron, rewards the hard and those who can do without.

This Spartan sense of miserliness leads to efficiency and a masterly mindset. When things operate efficiently, life is good. Everyone has their needs met and, as is usually the case when people’s needs are met, they become wealthy. When everyone is wealthy, everyone tends to be happy, and it is as if a Golden Age had descended upon the land.

When everyone has their needs met, they stop being hard. No-one with a full belly wants to fight – better to just wait until the problem goes away. If there’s no food in the cupboards, that’s when it’s time to worry. People in the “fat and happy” mindset tend to ignore challenges rather than respond to them.

This doesn’t only lead to physical softness but, more crucially, it leads to mental softness. This mental softness prevents people from being able to make sharp and accurate distinctions between the phenomena they encounter. Consequently, they become apathetic and indifferent, a malaise that they mistake for the virtue of tolerance.

This apathy and indifference leads to a failure to adequately deal with corruption. Either corruption is ignored, or the corrupt are not punished – a slave’s mindset. Because no-one is strong enough to challenge the corrupt, they come to positions of dominance. When corrupt people are in power, hard times are just around the corner. And so, the cycle repeats.

In today’s Clown World, slave morality has the total ascendancy. We are so apathetic that our politicians can kick us in the guts on a daily basis and we just roll over and take it. The total victory of slave morality is, perhaps, the fundamental explanation as to why Clown World is the way it is. This is a world without masters. The slaves have completely inverted natural morality.

What’s needed is the Major Renaissance. This would constitute a spiritual renaissance that would reconnect the people of the Western World to God. Being reconnected to God, we would then possess the necessary illumination to see the path forward in the darkness. We need a new set of masters for a new age.

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

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

If The Nazis Had Won World War II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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