bullshit artistry

Why Mainstream Conservatives Support Homosexuality But Not Cannabis Law Reform

Forty years ago, mainstream conservatives believed that both cannabis and homosexuality ought to be criminalised. Today, they still believe that cannabis use should be illegal – but they celebrate homosexuality, as shown by their attendance at the various pride parades. What is the reason for supporting the status quo on one moral issue, but making a complete flip on another? This article explains.

What it comes down to is a war on consciousness.

Homosexuality might be a threat to a certain kind of moral order, one based around the family and raising children. But it isn’t a threat to capitalism. In fact, the logic of nihilistic consumption is common to both homosexuals and capitalists. Both tend to live for today and for the pleasures of today, with little thought to posterity or to their legacy.

American marketers believe the “pink dollar” – the total consumption of LGBTQ people – to be worth over one trillion dollars per year in the United States. Yahoo Finance states: “there is a correlation between the growth of the pink economy and the increase in demand for luxury products and premium services, since it is estimated that this community spends 15% more than heterosexuals.”

This is the reason for the right-wing about-face on homosexuality over recent decades. By encouraging homosexuality, the conservatives encourage people onto a path of hedonistic, spendthrift materialism. Today’s conservatives no longer care about conserving anything, they only care about money. So for them, the ideal citizen is someone who just spends, spends and spends.

Cannabis is a different matter.

Cannabis has been used for thousands of years as a spiritual sacrament. As with other spiritual sacraments (such as psilocybin), cannabis inspires people to do things that our corporate overlords don’t like. Such as recycle, minimalise consumption and even drop out of capitalist society completely to devote one’s life to higher pursuits.

Unlike homosexuality, then, spirituality is a direct threat to the capitalist paradigm. Spirituality induces people to find pleasure in everyday things, such as the rise and fall of the Sun, the glow of the Moon, the caress of the wind. It causes people to assign merit to the good, not to those with the most expensive car or shoes.

Spirituality also causes people to take extreme long-term viewpoints. Because it inclines people to think about reincarnation and karma, it also inclines people to think about their wider family, clan, nation, race and species, and justice for those groups. This kind of thinking comes into direct conflict with the capitalist imperative to atomise every individual into a consumerist silo.

The National party’s biggest concern is keeping people on the employment-rent treadmill, whereupon they can be plundered for maximum profits. To this end, they want people taking the most short-term possible view. They want people obsessed with the crudest, most bestial pleasures. Understanding this, one can also understand how Judith Collins can march in a pride parade while campaigning to have cannabis users locked up.

In esoteric terms, the situation can (as so often) be best understood with an appeal to the Mithraic Ladder.

The mentality, and the spiritual frequency, of homosexuality is something that belongs to the lowest levels of the Mithraic Ladder. The energy of Saturn, or of lead, is an energy not concerned with reproduction. Saturn consumed his offspring, and, in the same way, homosexuals do not create a next generation. Homosexuality is the frequency of death, where pleasure is raised higher than life itself.

People on those low levels are not thinking about a revolution of philosopher-kings. As such, cocks going up arses are not, in any sense, a threat to the Government or to conservatism. In fact, in so far as it serves as a distraction from the development of the political consciousness necessary to challenge the ruling class, sodomy is a benefit to the Government and to conservatism.

The same phenomenon can be seen on /pol/, where the catalog is regularly flooded with porn and sex threads, distracting from the development of political consciousness. This is the result of a deliberate effort to destroy a space in which free political thought takes place.

The spiritual frequency of cannabis use, by contrast, is about higher vistas. Cannabis users tend to think about things like justice, God and their own karmic debts. This naturally leads them to think about political questions. A person whose mind is fixed on the eternal is the ultimate threat to tyrannical rulers. Such a person, like the Terminator, cannot be distracted by mere pleasures and they’re much harder to intimidate into submission.

Mainstream conservatives, in summary, support homosexuality and not cannabis law reform because homosexuality has the ultimate effect of upholding the status quo, whereas cannabis use does not.

Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World about a society in which no-one participated in intellectual pursuits, but were obsessed with sex. This culture was of great benefit to the rulers of that world, who thereby went unchallenged. Huxley was aware in the 1930s of that venal, money-grubbing tendency among conservatives. In our time, that tendency has fully bloomed.

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 piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

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

The Case For Rejecting The Consensus

Here, I would like to suggest some reasons why someone might be justified in questioning their tacit, unswerving allegiance to the consensus.

Firstly, did you realise you were in an ongoing agreement? Because you may not have realised this, and you may not have already decided to say ‘no’ and walk away. What would that take? Simply that. Your refusal to continually go into agreement to that which no longer serves you – in your outer life, as well as your inner life. One produces a reflection of the other.

We have wars started by greedy idiots, bloodthirsty zealots and control-hungry ideological fundamentalists. We are brought to question whether we might abstractly agree or disagree that a given group of people could justifiably be blown to pieces, as though this were somehow our call. Your agreement or disagreement here doesn’t matter in order to qualify as insanity; what matters is that you are demanded to be on beck and call to participate in the insanity served up to you by a mentally diseased consensus.

The consensus wants to force your hand into playing the game to power the illusion that you were the one choosing it. Your choice to bear witness to all of this is your agreement to it. This happens in the same way a hostage might be forced to dictate the methods of his own torture – as though being invited to weigh your opinion on this narrative represents some kind of fairness, or democracy of mind.

We have political systems which are presented on the presumption of self-evidential necessity. You may choose this stream of madness, or the other – but you must choose. Remember that you tacitly agreed to this system, because you were born into it? At least, this is the narrative, as fragile as it is. Even the most benignant and equitable of these are a travesty – you are presented with an ultimate option of choosing one terrible option over another, as though there was no alternative.

This is in the service of democracy, the abstract notion that what is best for you lies in the appearance of having the ‘freedom’ to choose what is best for your region or your nation, when all of the information you are being fed derives from a source with an agenda to exert influence and control. Everything that was ever claimed to go to work on your behalf was an empty promise, a sham.

We are the inheritors of a scientific materialism, which against all true scientific spirit, presumes to dictate the total conditions of the universe at the level of human meaning. Specifically, that there is no possibility of individual or collective human participation in divinity, because we are all simply evolutionary automatons.

Science is far from objective or disinterested – there is a wider agenda to uphold. Detraction from the mainstream narrative is punished through control of funding and decisions about how much influence you will continue to exert in academia. This is how public talks can justifiably be banned without red faces.

The new paradigm of the evil is named ‘pseudoscience’, although it has born different names as were suitable to the era or context, such as ‘witchcraft’, ‘atheism’, ‘socialism’ – essentially though, all it consists in is ‘the other’. It is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss because it would undermine the authority of the institution in question.

All that this ‘other’ is ever reminding you of is the simple fact that you can’t ever know for certainty what you think you know – that is all it is, and yet this represents the vital human umbilical connection into the wider spiritual universe.

Our various cultural institutions’ insistence on the rigidity and finality of the knowledge they produce is leading us to squander our multidimensional heritage, our imagination, our shared godhood. What appears to be the groundlessness of epistemic uncertainty is far too subversive to those who pretend to this authority. So, the label ‘pseudoscience ‘is the new brush you will be tarred with if you dare detract from this reactive and emotionally fragile scientific consensus.

These are churches, if you haven’t noticed – there are priests, altars and rules to be followed. Dissent is not appreciated, and while we may no longer burn people at the stake physically, the same consequences can now be effected ruthlessly via social media. Technology has ironically permitted the expansion of ostracism to the digital realms, which are the foreshore of our mental meeting grounds as human collectives.

To adhere to a mindset whereby the majority of people in your culture will turn their backs on a person and say ‘we don’t acknowledge this person anymore’ is not only merely unhealthy, it indicates a collective personality disorder. Refusing to acknowledge a person whom the mainstream collective disapproves of is one of the tallest, broadest and brightest of red flags. It happens in small groups such as family groups and office environments, and it happens in nations – as above, so below. And yet, we retain the freedom to decide as the inheritors of the totality of human culture as to whether such behaviour is worthy to be kept.

The catch is, anything we sleep on is kept automatically. All it takes for the majority to continue to harbour such systemic insanity is to pretend that we don’t suffer from it, thereby immunising it from scrutiny. Staying asleep then becomes akin to alcohol as the ’cause of’ and ‘solution to’ all of life’s various social ills.

We have a culture in which religious institutions are offered as fictitious oases from an insane materialism, only to discover that you are being thrown out of the frying pan and into the fire. The desire to save your soul and claim you for the eternal turns out to be yet another tentacle operating on the behalf of control and delusion, though flown under the banner of spirituality. The grandiose fantasies of the worldly ego are here offered in the spiritual realm, success, being chosen, included, and living forever as the personal self you know and love. The monotheistic religions reflect all the ego’s madness and self-importance back to it in an imaginary monarchy, which consists in a personal being at the top who variously approves, disapproves, judges, or becomes pleased or angry with you as the mood takes him. Your virtue and worth will be decided by how close you can get to the feet of the king at the expense of others through your various deeds, devotions and cringing prostrations. This is all for your group, the blessed and chosen, while those who have chosen incorrectly, believed wrongly, or failed to meet the standard within your group will be expelled like refuse through a cosmic garbage-chute.

The false promise propping up all of these religious institutions is this one delusional creed: unity through separation. Be better than the others, be better than the other groups. Then you will earn favour, then you will be united, so you had better make sure you beat down all the others. In other words, the spirit realm, as contextualised by the consensus ideocracy, is that if you are well-behaved, then you will be rewarded, but if you are poorly behaved or you have believed incorrectly, you will be punished.

You are either in line, or out of line.

Can you see how the cultural influence from the consensus reveals itself in the projection of the religious? It promises you the favour of an authority who is responsive to your own animal needs, wants and desires, and unresponsive of those whom you deem unworthy or inferior. Could there be a more tantalising ego-trip on offer for the disturbed human animal?

We have a media which enjoys success on the basis of how accurately the content resembles juicy gossip. We are offered these hints of what those individuals who are implied to be far more important than us are doing with their lives such as celebrities, including those we imagine to have sufficient fame and money to have earned freedom and happiness. The more important a person is deemed to be, the less significant the news about them need be in order to warrant publication.

For example, it is more important whether members of royalty are having a minor spat or social disagreement about wearing a certain hat in public than any question of whether you have any personal freedom or satisfaction in your life, from birth to death. Most of what we call ‘news’ is presented as a drama triangle in which you are framed as the victim, in the hope of inflaming your censure toward those framed as the perpetrators.

When slaves were kept, it was a common practice to lure them with the possibility that one day they might be freed by their own efforts. This ensured that they kept up the good work and didn’t lapse into despondency which might eventually collapse into such dense suffering as to spark an inner or outer revolution.

If you want to see how it is the consensus would prefer you to keep acting and thinking, take a look at how they medicate you with empty promises of your eventual success and freedom. These empty promises are on offer at every street corner, in every wing of human society. They are all clamouring for your investment of attention.

Does this sound like a balanced, sane society? Does this sound like a valuable investment of your ongoing input as a free being? What would it take to simply say ‘no’, and walk away from all of this idiocy once and for all – even if this only happened within your own most private inner sanctum?

Perhaps Aristotle was correct in his analysis of man as a political animal, and that humankind will always be bound by social conventions and the need for society in general. The big question however is: are you human? If not, what are you? Because if you are not what you think you are, what makes us think it is sensible to reduce our deepest needs to humankind’s needs, to the needs of the animal?

What are the requirements of the soul, what are the values of the true self? Maybe there are none, perhaps consciousness is just a temporary phantom. But how would you ever know unless you first cleared the table before you of all of the clutter?

There may not be very much time left to decide, as the human animal is now engineering intelligences capable of outsmarting itself. Consider the simplicity of the parlour tricks that have led man down the garden path over ages past. What is to come will likely consist in even more powerful demonstrations of illusion and persuasion.

What better time than now to inquire into the truth of who you are?

Simon P Murphy is a Nelson-based esotericist and philosopher, and author of His Master’s Wretched Organ, an astonishing and surreal collection of weird fiction stories.

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

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

Why People Aren’t Willing To Fight

The war drums are beating, and everyone can hear them. The Western powers are arraying themselves for a cataclysmic showdown with the Eurasian axis of Russia, Iran and China. This means they’re going to be looking for cannon fodder to help them kill Russians, Iranians and Chinese people. But it won’t be as simple as previous times.

The glib assumption made by the Western ruling class is that they can declare an eternal war against their Russian, Iranian and Chinese foes, and simply draft young Westerners to fight it. This is what they have done in previous wars, and it worked out great for them. Today’s ruling class, however, have lost touch with reality somewhat: they don’t realise that many of the old rules of mass manipulation no longer apply.

Recent mainstream media propaganda has pushed the concept of conscription on us. This has been especially true in Britain and in Australia. But the Establishment was not prepared for the reaction from the populace. Many young people (not just VJM Publishing) have expressed an extreme unwillingness to allow themselves to get conscripted to fight for the West.

Why?

Most young people today feel like the social contract has been broken. The intergenerational social contract, as has been understood for centuries, was that each generation leaves the following generation a better society, in return for getting a decent pension from that society. The elders were respected and given a cut of society’s proceeds because they had left a quality standard of living to the next generation.

Today’s young people aren’t getting a better society. By most honest measures of wealth and well-being, young people today are doing much worse than the Boomers did, sometimes several times worse. This is especially true when it comes to housing: young people today have to put in about four times as much effort to own a house. The Boomers are now extorting the younger generations to the maximum.

On top of that, the Boomers are mass importing cheap labour to compete with the Boomers’ own descendants on housing and wages. So those descendants are finding themselves having to scrap with half of the Third World just to get a quarter of what their parents had. It’s a rotten deal by any fair analysis.

So now many young people are saying to themselves: if the social contract was never upheld for us, why should we uphold it for anyone else? Why fight for an arrangement where we’re little better than slaves, sentenced to pay off mortgage debts to Boomers until we’re decrepit ourselves?

Why fight for a system that’s rigged against us? Young people in the trenches against China wouldn’t be fighting for a system that gave them a better chance of owning a house and raising a family than the Chinese system, but the opposite (the homeownership rate in China is close to 90%). They’d be fighting for a system of usurious enslavement that sought to suck the life energy not only from them but from their descendants for generations to come.

No young Westerner can, with a clean conscience, support the system that has enslaved them. It follows that they would only fight for it under the most extreme form of duress. Given the extent of the fragging that existed near the end of the Vietnam War, the ruling class could rightly be concerned that something similar would happen again if they brought conscription back, only on a bigger scale.

Moreover, some are asking: Fight for what?

It’s no longer clear that we even have nations anymore, at least not in the way that we’re used to thinking about them. The advent of multiculturalism has meant that the old in-group boundaries are now very fluid. The countries our ancestors fought for are now very different – some would argue categorically different.

Most young Westerners now understand that they’re being replaced by Third World cheap labour, and that this replacement is not a natural phenomenon. Rather, it is deliberately being orchestrated by the Western ruling class for profit. So what would we be fighting for in the case of getting conscripted to kill Russians? A McNation of cheap labour imports? An economic zone ruled by an ideology of “every man for himself” economics?

Our families would be better off if we didn’t go to war. The only beneficiaries of war today are the globalists who would not only get to destroy their rivals, but who would also profiteer from the killing. Realising this en masse, young people are no longer willing to fight as previous generations had been.

Some of the unwillingness to fight can be attributed to the influence of alternative media. For decades now, alternative media outlets devoted to the fight against evil have served to educate the public about the workings of the ruling class, and how they manipulate the rest of us into doing their bidding. VJM Publishing has been among those, and we will continue to do what we can to enlighten people about how the warmongers manipulate them into battle.

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!

Malinformation, Or How Facts Can Be Racist

Today’s authoritarian left have dreamed up three categories of things you’re not allowed to say. There is disinformation, wherein someone wilfully says something untrue; there is misinformation, wherein someone inadvertently repeats an untruth told to them by someone else; there is malinformation, wherein someone tells the truth but is still guilty of wrongthink. This essay explains.

According to the United Nations itself, malinformation is “information that is truthful but is slanted to mislead and cause potential harm”. The examples usually given are doxxing, swatting, catfishing etc. However, the term is broader than that, because it seems to include political harm, or at least the perception of political harm.

Malinformation is an exceptionally wide-ranging term, because harms (especially political harms) are often subjective. The Iona University website makes the astonishing claim that sharing truthful information about members of the British monarchy evading taxes is malinformation, because the sharing of that information can be decreed to be intended to harm that monarchy.

The truth is no defence.

The Iona University website also tells us that “Malinformation can become disinformation with enough social media virality”. In other words, the truth can become a lie with enough “social media virality”. Apparently the context in which a piece of information is shared now determines whether that information is true or false. One can hear Orwell’s mocking laughter from beyond the grave.

The concept of malinformation is an inevitable development of postmodernism. Once the concept of objective truth is thrown out the window, sharing information becomes a primarily moral decision. Whose interests are served by the sharing of this information? And are they oppressor or oppressed?

It seems that one person’s opinion is another person’s malinformation. So, perhaps ironically, it comes down to whoever can force the widespread acceptance of a definition of malinformation that suits them.

For instance, the Iona University website claims that “entire articles reducing a complex situation to an image” is a form of malinformation. But reducing a complex situation to an image is precisely what the corporatist media did when it reduced the mass immigration of Middle Eastern “refugees” to Europe to a photograph of a drowned Syrian boy. And yet, no misinformation expert seems to consider the sensationalisation of this photo in the mainstream media to be a form of malinformation.

Pointing out the incredible numbers of rapes and other crimes committed by Muslim and African immigrants is, apparently, malinformation. The fact that people from such countries commit certain crimes at a disproportionate per capita rate, sometimes ten or even 20 times that of native Europeans, is apparently not remarkable by itself. But if used as a supporting argument to build a case against immigration from Muslim and African countries, then it’s causing harm, and is malinformation.

Naturally, mainstream media stories about how one particular refugee got a job are not malinformation, because they’re not causing harm (harm being defined as harm to the interests of the globalist banking and finance concerns who own the mainstream media). Propaganda intended to make people more accepting of mass immigration is not harmful, according to this definition.

A Swedish study found that “In 2017, 58% among those suspected for crime on reasonable grounds are migrants. Regarding murder and manslaughter, the corresponding figures are 73%. These figures are interesting out of purely scientific reasons. Due to migration, murder rate in Sweden has quadrupled.” Mentioning this is also malinformation, if it’s intended to make open borders politicians look bad.

Presumably the correct context is to blame everything on white supremacy. Sharing information about colonial atrocities is, for this reason, not malinformation, because it harms the right people. So facts can be racist if they harm the interests of certain already disprivileged races (or at least the interests of those who claim to speak for those races).

Facts about how men commit far more violent and sexual crimes than women are not malinformation, because men are oppressors.

Here one starts to understand the political motivation behind the creation and promulgation of the concept of malinformation. The world is currently under globalist control, and therefore sharing of truthful information is a bad thing if it harms globalist interests. And those interests are primarily about keeping the rest of us fighting while they loot the place.

Note that the Government is never guilty of malinformation. The Government, seemingly by definition, never uses the truth to mislead or to cause harm. This reveals the reality of the concept of malinformation: just as with disinformation and misinformation, malinformation is whatever with the people with power say it is, and malinformation is never what the people without power say it is.

Essentially, there is little difference between something truthful the people in power don’t want their political opponents to say on the one hand, and malinformation on the other. Mentioning crime statistics is a form of malinformation because it does harm to the political establishment to point out measures of its incompetence. As does mentioning corruption on the part of the ruling class.

In principle, the sharing of any facts or evidence that goes against the political objectives of the globalists who own the world’s media and governments is malinformation. The only real counter to this is to develop networks and ecospheres of free-thinking people, outside of the control of the government or the influence of the mainstream media.

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!