bullshit artistry

The Long Walk Out Of The Desert

Of all the trials and travails that the West has suffered over the past 120 years, one of the most arduous remains. Although the West went through a renaissance of its own greatness some centuries ago, this was mostly limited to scientific and artistic achievements. There is still a Major Renaissance to come. The first stage of this is to overcome Abrahamism in all aspects: the Long Walk out of the Desert.

The phrase ‘Long Walk out of the Desert’ was coined by an X poster known as MarbleBust. In this context, “The Desert” refers to the desert of Abrahamic religion, where white people have been wandering, lost, for many centuries.

Desert life is infamously cheap. The history of the Near and Middle East is the history of one massacre after another. Out-group antipathy has never in human history reached such extremes as in these desert cultures. And their religions reflect this: they are cruel, deceitful, treacherous, monstrous. All of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are supremacist in nature, considering outsiders somewhere between filth and cattle.

Whether owing to exaggerated and prolonged degeneracy, unfortunate chance historical events, a counter-reaction to the Roman Empire, an unusual gullibility on the part of the Europeans or perhaps that we are now in the Kali Yuga, the desert religions are predominant in Europe today. This puts us in a situation where, in order for us to return to spiritual narratives suited for us, we must abandon those that have been pushed on us for centuries. We must take that Long Walk out of the Desert. That requires a solid grounding in our history.

The desert religions conquered the West in stages.

The first stage was the decision of Constantine in 313 CE, with the Edict of Milan, to accept Christianity as a legitimate religion. Up until then, it had been recognised by the Romans for what it was: yet another Jewish slave cult based around some egomaniac’s claims to be the prophecised Messiah. They treated it as they would have done any other degeneracy. But with the Edict of Milan, Christianity started to be treated with respect by European rulers.

The second stage was the decision of Theodosius in 380 CE, with the Edict of Thessalonica, to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was the date upon which Europeans abandoned the religions of Europe for the religions of the desert. If there was a Long Walk into the Desert, this was when it began.

The third stage was when Theodosius, in 391 CE, outlawed the practice of European religion. This was mostly due to pressure from Christians obeying passages such as Exodus 22:20, which calls for the destruction of worshippers of gods other than Yahweh (Yahweh is a jealous god). From this moment onwards, the European religions were in the descendancy.

The fourth stage was the destruction of the Eleusinian Mysteries and the murder of its priests in 396 CE, under the Christian and Gothic king Alaric. The mystery school at Eleusis was one of the major reasons for the greatness of Greco-Roman culture: it was famous for liberating its participants from fear of death, which allowed them to live heroic lives from then on. With these mysteries destroyed, Europeans entered an age of fear and superstition involving subjugation to the desert religions. Thus, we have been “in the desert” for over 1,600 years already.

The fifth stage was the progressive Christianisation of Northern Europe, with events such as the Massacre of Verden (in 782 CE) and the Northern Crusades. The Albigensian Crusade could perhaps be included here. These events saw the murder of great numbers of people for refusing to abandon the European religions.

After Christians had hunted down the last remaining followers of the European religions to the remotest islands and forests, Christianity reached the apogee of its power. But because Christianity was not natural to us, and was forced on us, as soon as it weakened it began to die. European culture returned with the Renaissance, and, although Christians killed as many as they could to keep it down, it flourished.

Some 800 years after the start of the Renaissance, few Westerners are still Christian. But many Christian habits still linger, and many Christian assumptions are still taken for granted, especially moral assumptions. These lingering artefacts continue to lower the quality of life all over the West.

The Long Walk out of the Desert refers to the replacement of all Abrahamic morality and thought with a morality and thought appropriate to Westerners today.

We must stop seeing Jews as people who brought us spiritual gifts, and start seeing them as spiritual enslavers. Abrahamism did not bring us liberation from spiritual ignorance: we already had Plato. Neither did it bring us sophisticated ethics or metaphysics: we already had Aristotle. What it did bring us was a replacement of our own native culture and moral philosophy with one that put Jews, and Jewish culture, front and centre.

We must also realise that Abrahamism was forced on our ancestors through violence. The narrative that our ancestors realised European religions were for savages, and switched them out for a Jewish religion based around a dead rabbi, is nonsense. Our ancestors were murdered by Christian invaders and forced to submit, in much the same way that people in Africa, the Middle East and Asia are forced by Islamic invaders to submit to the god of Abraham today.

Perhaps most importantly, we must stop seeing Christian morality as an advance over Greco-Roman morality, and see it for what it is: a massive retrograde step. It did not end human sacrifice. It did not end slavery. It did not unite us in a vision of something higher. What it did do was deliver us into mindless superstition and a thousand-year Dark Age. It switched the master morality that had brought us so much glory for a wretched slave morality that brought us a millennium of stagnation.

Part of this moral revaluation is to no longer view passivity, tolerance and weakness as virtues. This does not, in any sense, mean that we have to swing to the exact opposite of those supposed virtues like Muslims. The correct approach is as Aristotle recommended in The Nicomachean Ethics: to find the correct balance between too much and too little. The right amount of assertiveness, instead of all or nothing like a Semite.

This will require that we get over our squeamishness about e.g. the death penalty, drugs and border enforcement. Christian “sanctity of life” must be replaced with an understanding that life, although precious, is sometimes not worth living. Christian hysteria about pharmakeia must be abolished. National borders must be enforced again, no matter what the Catholic Pope says about Rabbi Yeshua having been a refugee. We have to do all of these things to save ourselves.

The Long Walk out of the Desert, and the desert religions, will be complete when we have constructed a theological, philosophical, moral and ethical system that can guide us through this century and beyond.

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 Harvester Judgement And How Much Has Been Stolen From Us

Mainstream media propaganda would have us all believe that the West has never been wealthier. Our glorious leaders have led us into an unparalleled age of prosperity. Never before have the lives of everyday Westerners overflowed with such abundance. Apparently, even the lowliest Westerner has easy access to luxuries that kings could not have dreamed of in ages past.

If you don’t agree, the media tells us, you’re a terrorist. A filthy, ungrateful reprobate whose resentment endangers the entire project of civilisation itself. How could a person not be grateful for the beneficence shown by our ruling classes? Just how?

As it turns out, anyone with a solid knowledge of history has reason to feel ripped off at their current treatment.

In 1907, the idea of a minimum wage was introduced in Australia. In a case relating to the Sunshine Harvester Company of Victoria, Justice Henry Higgins determined that a “fair and reasonable” wage for a manual labourer was that which could support a family of five. A skilled worker should receive even more. This was later known as the “Harvester Judgement“.

Because people higher up the social ladder would make more money than manual labourers, the Harvester Judgement created a floor underneath which no full-time worker could fall. It therefore ensured a decent quality of life for everyone in Australian society, not just the rich. This judgement became a core principle of Australian employment law and is one of the main reasons why the Australian worker’s standard of living has been so high until recently, and why Australia is known as “The Lucky Country”.

According to Grok, a family of five living in Auckland requires some $7,000 per month to meet housing, food, utilities, transportation and other costs. This means some $84,000 per year – after tax. Before tax, it’s $112,963 per year. Less than that means a family of five has to start going without some things.

This is the income necessary to have a similar quality of life to a labouring family in 1907. This means nothing extravagant – just basic housing, decent food, the lights on, the ability to get to work and visit some people etc. It doesn’t include luxury travel or building an investment portfolio.

Also according to Grok, fewer than 8% of New Zealand workers earn $112,000 or more. Because some 10% of the population has an honours degree or higher, this means the top 8% of the workforce will be mostly professionals and managers, i.e. highly qualified, highly experienced people. Those few in the top 8% without an honours degree or higher will mostly be top managers.

$112,000 is about 70% higher than the median New Zealand wage of $66,000. What’s more, that median wage figure itself includes those highly-paid professional and managerial jobs, which means that the median manual labourer’s wage is even lower still. The minimum wage in New Zealand is currently $23.15 per hour, which works out to $46,300 per annum if one works 50 weeks of 40 hours, and many manual labourers will be close to this.

In practice, therefore, almost none of the people working in manual labour positions in New Zealand are paid enough for their wage to be considered “fair and reasonable” under the Harvester Judgement. The entire idea that a wage ought to pay enough to raise a family has been abandoned, seemingly by the employees as well as the employers.

Our wages are now less than half of what is needed to support a family of five. But the quality of life promised by the Harvester Judgement has not simply been lost, it has been stolen from us.

It has been stolen from us in a number of ways, but the mass importation of cheap labour is the foremost of these. The explanation for how full-time manual labourer wages were decoupled from the requirement that they could support a family of five is simple: employers have undercut local workers by importing cheaper ones from overseas.

The Neoliberal Era normalised this practice, so that it become ideologically impossible to even object to the imports. Anyone who did so was smeared as a racist acting out of pure hate. Several decades of this allowed the employer class to drive wages down so far that they’re now about half of what they need to be, as per the Harvester Judgement.

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!

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 Three Castes Of Woke New Zealand

Many Kiwis look with astonishment on the caste system of the Hindus, thinking it a barbarism that should have been abolished long ago. The caste system of Imperial Spain, with its division into Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizos, and Indigenous peoples and Africans, seems likewise bizarre to us. But few appreciate that the people of New Zealand are divided into their own caste system. This essay explains.

In the woke New Zealand of 2024, we have a tripartite caste system involving high, middle and low castes. The highest caste are the Tangata Whenua, the middle caste are the Tangata Moana and the lowest caste are the Tangata Tiriti.

The Tangata Whenua are the Maori people. As the highest caste, they are effectively the only full citizens in the Woke Regime. Tangata Whenua means ‘people of the land’, and in this context means those who are naturally here. The implication is that everyone else is here unnaturally, and thus at the pleasure of the Tangata Whenua. Only a Tangata Whenua can be a true resident of New Zealand; everyone else is a mere guest.

Because the Treaty of Waitangi is considered New Zealand’s founding document, and because the Te Reo Maori version of this is considered the true version, the power to interpret that document lies solely with those who can speak and read Te Reo Maori. This makes them the equivalent of the Brahman caste in the Vedic system.

Because everyone else in New Zealand is a mere visitor, only the Tangata Whenua may consider it a true homeland. Thus, when giving a pepeha, only Tangata Whenua are permitted to claim an association with local mountains and rivers. Tauiwi (a term that covers both Tangata Moana and Tangata Tiriti) are just passing through, even if their ancestors have lived in an area for two centuries. Thus they are categorically different to Tangata Whenua.

In Woke New Zealand, whatever Tangata Whenua says goes. They are openly acknowledged to have more rights than tauiwi, and must be consulted on all decisions.

Tangata Moana are the middle rank. This caste refers to other people of the Pacific Ocean: Samoans, Tongans, Fijians et al. (Fijian Indians count as Tangata Tiriti however, because this caste system is racial in nature). Tangata Moana are presumed to have “allyship” with Tangata Whenua, hence why Tangata Moana are a higher caste than Tangata Tiriti, who are the oppressors of Tangata Whenua.

Hence Tangata Moana can step off a plane and instantly qualify for benefits and scholarships that Tangata Tiriti don’t get, not even with eight generations of ancestry. It’s also why people can move to New Zealand from a Pacific Island and then immediately start crying about colonisers (see tweet above). Tangata Moana also have their own Super Rugby team (Moana Pasifika) in order to prevent contamination from associating with Tangata Tiriti.

There is an unspoken law in New Zealand that the protections of the Treaty of Waitangi also apply to Tangata Moana. Hence, conversations about the obligations of Tangata Tiriti to Tangata Whenua tend to drift into obligations to Tangata Moana. This is why Samoans and Tongans are considered victims of systemic racism, despite knowingly moving to a country where systemic racism existed instead of staying in one where it didn’t exist.

Working-class whites, even if their ancestors have been here since before New Zealand was fully civilised, are mere Tangata Tiriti. Tangata Moana, in other words, are people of the nearby region, unlike Tangata Tiriti, who are people of distant lands. Thus they occupy a higher caste status. This higher caste status explains why Pacific Islanders have their own dedicated government ministry, while working-class whites do not, despite similar levels of deprivation.

Tangata Tiriti are the lowest caste, roughly equivalent to shudras in the Vedic system. In this caste is everyone without any Maori or Pacific Island ancestry. It doesn’t matter if a person’s ancestors have been in New Zealand for 200 years: that person is still categorically lower than any Tangata Whenua or Tangata Moana.

The logic of the New Zealand caste system is that Tangata Tiriti are only allowed to be here thanks to the permission of Tangata Whenua. It was the Treaty of Waitangi itself which gave Tangata Tiriti the right to be in New Zealand, hence the name of the caste. Should that permission ever be revoked, Tangata Tiriti would no longer have any right to remain in New Zealand, and would presumably have to move overseas or be killed. So they better behave themselves.

The purpose of the Tangata Tiriti, in practice, is to labour for the benefit of the higher two castes. Thus, Tangata Tiriti have no right to complain that they are forced to pay heavy taxes on the income from their labour. Neither do they have the right to complain about anyone in the upper castes being on welfare. The upper castes simply have the right to be on welfare paid for by the Tangata Tiriti.

The Government is not obliged to consult with Tangata Tiriti or to take the interests of Tangata Tiriti into account when making decisions, ever. It is understood that Tangata Tiriti already have it good by being permitted to live here. Political rights over and above that are considered egregious.

Tangata Tiriti are not permitted any pride. Even saying ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ is not allowed. It is permitted, however, to identify as Tangata Tiriti, because this is considered to be an acceptance of lowest-caste status. Distinguishing oneself within that caste, however, is verboten. All Tangata Tiriti are the same, whether white, Asian, Indian or African.

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!

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 Oliver Jull Was Censored By New Plymouth Boys’ High School

The ongoing saga around New Plymouth Boys’ High School student Oliver Jull has depressed freedom-lovers all over New Zealand. Jull’s speech contained nothing objectionable enough to warrant censorship. But that doesn’t matter to the New Zealand school system, for reasons this essay will elaborate.

Jull wrote a speech for a school competition, but was barred from speaking in the finals of that competition on the grounds that his speech was likely to “upset” some listeners. This then became a drama involving The Platform and the Free Speech Union.

It transpires that NPBHS authorities then lied when they denied that Jull had been banned from speaking on the grounds of the content of his speech. According to the Free Speech Union, Jull recorded conversations with those authorities in which they explicitly stated that he would be permitted to continue to the finals if he changed the content of the speech.

Many observers find it incredible that a high school would go to the extent of censoring one of their own students and then lying about it. These observers are operating under the common, but naive and mistaken, assumption that schools are there to educate.

The role of the school, in reality, is to induce submission and obedience. The school system was created by the ruling class for a specific purpose: to churn out submissive, obedient workers and soldiers. The ruling class want to be obeyed when they order someone to work their whole life for a wage they can never buy a home on, or to charge a machinegun nest and kill everyone inside.

Central to the obedience-inducing process is brainwashing the student to believe that their ruling class is perfect.

One simply must believe that one’s rulers are the greatest rulers in history: the most just, the most wise, the most knowledgable, the most perfect in every way. As such, to doubt or to question them is outrageously antisocial. One simply must believe that one’s society is eternally and inexorably marching upwards. To suggest otherwise is to question the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of the ruling class.

The problem is that Jull’s speech criticised the ruling class.

Schools regiment the thinking of their students such that those students come to accept everything the ruling class tells them to think. This is why teachers love to assert that everything is better now than it ever has been. This is especially why educators love materialist science, which has marched ever-forward for a few centuries now, and why they don’t like classical studies, which dispel the myth of progress.

The last thing the ruling class want is a generation of young men who think for themselves. From the perspective of the ruling class, letting young men think for themselves is inherently a license for destabilisation. ‘Ignorance is Strength’, ran one of the three mottos of Big Brother, and it’s as true for us in Clown World today as it was for Winston Smith in Airstrip One.

Hence, Jull is not allowed to give a speech about the decline of Western civilisation.

A sentence such as “Mass immigration and multiculturalism have disrupted the very fabric of Western societies,” is outright forbidden. The globalists in charge of the West want all the cheap labour they can stuff in. To manufacture consent for doing this, they take measures to stifle any and all anti-immigration sentiment that arises. Immigration is how the rich get richer, thus it’s beyond criticism.

It’s also verboten to state, as Jull did, that “mass immigration has disrupted cultural continuity [and] increased violent crime.” The NZ Police monitor VJM Publishing social media for making comments exactly like that (see screenshot below). The fact that certain immigrant groups commit enormous amounts of crime, and others don’t, is a very touchy subject in the eyes of our ruling classes. If it were more widely known, there would be more opposition to mass immigration, and less immigration means less profit.

The ruling class, by contrast, has no such speech restrictions – they’re not even restricted to the truth. We lowly peasants don’t have the right to question our rulers: not regarding World War conscription, not regarding the War on Drugs, not regarding permission to give speeches. As the ruling class lied about the World Wars and the War on Drugs, without facing any sanction, they can lie to us about our rights too. Hence they lied about why Jull was not permitted to give his speech in the competition finals.

None of the NPBHS staff who lied to Jull will face any consequences – because they lied on behalf of the interests of the ruling class. As this column has previously written, everything is acceptable if it serves the interests of the ruling class.

In summary, Oliver Jull was silenced for the same reasons that VJM Publishing has been silenced over the years: speaking the truth in defiance of the interests of the ruling class.

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!

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!