They Would Go Back To Chattel Slavery If They Could

A number of wage subsidy scams are being reported right now, usually involving a worker being coerced into working for free or for discounted wages. Many people seem surprised that employers would be so brazen as to take advantage of a struggling person, especially in times when solidarity is needed. The reality is that employers would go back to chattel slavery if it wasn’t against the law.

The typical attitude of an employer in New Zealand is most accurately summarised by the Magic Talk caller known only as “Mark”. Mark called in to say that Kiwis were lazy and that immigrants made much better workers. This contempt for New Zealand workers is shared by most of the ruling class. John Key spoke for this ruling class when he said that we need to import foreign workers because Kiwis are lazy and on drugs.

As any Kiwi who has worked overseas knows, Kiwi workers are highly sought-after specifically because we are not lazy. If we had been lazy, we would never have survived the challenges put before us in our short history, because those challenges demanded that we shape an entire nation out of almost nothing, and we overcame them.

The truth, as is widely understood if not widely admitted, is that workers who are dependent on their employer for a visa will be much more submissive, and will accept much worse treatment, than those who are not dependent. This is why foreign workers are desired in New Zealand and New Zealand workers desired in foreign countries.

The mentality of the average employer, anywhere in the world, hasn’t changed much from 200 years ago. People from the working class are still considered cattle; their suffering is routinely ignored in the pursuit of profit. The mindset of today’s employer is still to put profit first and to discount human suffering, especially if those suffering are poor. It’s little different to the mindset of a cotton plantation owner.

Understanding the psychology of the employer – and, thereby, understanding why our economies are structured the way they are – requires the realisation that the ruling class would rather pay the workers nothing at all. If society was governed by an employers and landowners union, it would happily go back to chattel slavery.

Because the ruling class can’t get away with that, they can only push the worker as close to chattel slavery as the law allows. This is achieved by taking away as much of their productivity as legally possible. And so, most of the productivity of every worker is taken from them by the three lions of profits, taxes and rents.

The employer in a capitalist system is obsessed with profit. Profit is a matter of maximising incomes and minimising expenses, and the major expense is usually labour. It’s not cheap to get a person to work on your plantation all day when they’d rather be at home taking care of their family and community. So employers usually have to pay big. This has conditioned them to seek out any and all opportunity to maximise their access to cheap labour.

It can be said that cheap labour makes the world go around.

One of the first things that Brazil did after coming into existence was to import slaves – some 5 million were brought to Brazil before 1866, mostly to farm sugar cane. America, likewise, didn’t wait long before importing African slaves of their own. Even though only 300,000 were brought to the United States, it was enough to significantly depress wages in the Deep South. Much of colonial South and Central America operated on the slave plantation model pioneered by the Portuguese.

Australia and New Zealand never operated on this model. The Anzac ruling classes, however, have always been subject to the same temptations as the other colonial ruling classes. The temptation to maximise profit by minimising the cost of labour has always been present, sometimes intensely. We can see this from the fact that the Western ruling class have pushed the workers as close to slavery as possible without calling it slavery.

Rather than import slaves, and maintain them at the employer’s own expense on their plantations, it’s easier for those employers to import foreign cheap labour, and dump them into working-class neighbourhoods to fend for themselves. This is not only as profitable as chattel slavery, but it outsources the mental labour of arranging to feed, clothe and house the workers back to the workers themselves.

The importation and then naturalisation of cheap labour externalises the cost of diversity onto wider society, while keeping all the profits for the employer. The major negative consequence of diversity is lower wages. This occurs because diversity makes it more difficult for the working class to present the united front necessary to force the employer class to share the productivity of the workers.

The net result of 70 years of the mass importation of cheap labour: our wages have fallen so far that the average worker has no hope of owning their own home. The mainstream media screams ‘Racist!’ at anyone who draws the connection, but even high-school economics students understand that an oversupply of cheap labour will inevitably crash the price of working-class wages.

In 1992, the average Kiwi could buy the average house after about 7,000 hours of labour at the average wage. Today, so much of the average Kiwi’s productivity is sucked away in profits, taxes and rents that it takes over 25,000 hours of labour at the average wage to buy the average house. Vast numbers have completely given up hope. It’s already becoming the case that people are working just to stay alive, and some have to borrow money just to be able to do that!

All this was made possible by the working class getting pushed, closer and closer, over several decades, towards chattel slavery.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 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 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, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Explaining The ‘Young Couple Buys House’ Propaganda

Observant Kiwis will have noticed a recent deluge of articles featuring young couples who have just bought a house. These are presented as heart-warming tales of plucky young people overcoming the odds, but they’re actually very insidious works of propaganda. This essay explains.

The New Zealand housing crisis is now so bad that, if it was half as bad, houses in Auckland would still be considered “severely unaffordable”. The Demographia international housing affordability survey (link goes to .pdf) considers a country’s housing to be unaffordable if it is three times the median household income, and severely unaffordable if it is more than 5.1 times the median household income.

According to the housing affordability calculator at interest.co.nz, the average New Zealand house price was 8.43 times the median household income in July 2021. The average Auckland metro house price was 11.32 times the median household income. These figures mean that even second-tier cities like Nelson and Dunedin are severely unaffordable. The thought of owning one’s own home, once considered a standard part of life, is now just a distant dream to most Kiwi workers.

This housing crisis is having severe consequences. It has meant that great numbers of young Kiwis have seen their dreams evaporate. Their hopes – if not expectations – of raising a family that they could be happy with are gone. Raising a happy family is a function of many things, but one of the most important ones is security of housing. Security of housing is only for the rich when the median house price is ten times the median household income.

Without a hope of raising a happy family, many people give up. The prospect of genetic immortality through one’s offspring appears to be the fundamental drive keeping great numbers of people going. Without it, a deep sense of anomie sets in, usually followed by nihilism. This latter condition can lead to all manner of atrocities, as the 20th Century demonstrated beyond doubt.

The obvious risk facing Western society in coming years is, by now, apparent to most. The widespread anomie and nihilism brought about by the housing crisis could lead, in short order, to equally widespread chaos and destruction. In other times and places, an entire generation getting locked out of housing would lead to civil unrest. The ruling class knows history, so they know that mass violence is potentially not far away.

Kiwis are a gutless slave race, as shown by our current wretched state, but even we will protest if we’re all made homeless. It’s to pre-empt these potentially riotous emotions that the mainstream media runs so many “Young couple buys a house!” stories. Their intention is to normalise the idea that a typical young couple can easily buy a home in today’s market.

If it was widely believed that a young couple could easily buy a home in New Zealand today, much of the discontent from the way the country is being run would be neutralised. Any young person complaining about how much easier the Boomers had it could simply be referred to the young couple in the NewsHub article linked in the first paragraph.

“If they can do it, why can’t you?” the Boomers will cry. You just need to get off your arse etc.

At times like these, it has to be borne in mind that the mainstream media is owned by international banking and finance interests, and so the media only runs stories that serve those interests. Banks want the highest possible house prices, because that means the maximum possible mortgage profits. To that end, they want to normalise mass immigration and million-dollar mortgages, and to abnormalise multi-generational housing.

Ultimately, the reason for all the “Young couple buys house” propaganda is to stop young people from getting angry at the intergenerational rape being committed against them by the Boomers. Pre-empting this anger will allow those Boomers to ride the gravy train for as long as possible.

The mainstream media will do everything it can to create the impression that homeownership is still normal for young people, and to deny the grim reality that even families with two working adults have trouble owning the roof over their heads. If they would admit the latter, they would run the risk of powerful revolutionary sentiments taking hold.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

In Clown World, Spirituality Is Considered Mental Illness

The strangest item in the New Zealand popular consciousness this week was the story about the University of Canterbury sociology lecturer Dr. Anne Scott. It seems like Dr. Scott was dismissed for having unorthodox religious beliefs, in particular “spiritualist beliefs”. She appears to have been another victim of the fact that, in Clown World, any genuine spiritual wisdom is considered to be mental illness.

Everyone alive today is subject to what is known as the Clown World Fork. This is the major cause of strife in Clown World today.

The Clown World Fork is that only two attitudes towards the divine are allowed. Either you declare yourself to worship a dead rabbi nailed to a tree and call it God, or you declare the world to be a soulless, meaningless slaughterhouse of unending despair and horror. Anyone who asserts any other attitude is mentally ill, and can get forked.

This fork, or something similar to it, has been observed long ago by other commentators. Cyril Scott, in An Outline Of Modern Occultism, noted that only a minority saw appeal in occult philsophy: those who thought both that mainstream religion was illogical, and that materialism was empty and soulless. However, as mentioned above, being in this minority comes with social risks.

Dr. Scott fell victim of the Clown World Fork. She bravely tried to assert a third path, away from mindless superstition and mindless nihilism, and towards using reason to uncover spiritual truths. Unfortunately, the modern university system is no place for any kind of original thinker, and she was duly shunned.

Our society is grounded on three spiritual falsehoods, and anyone who denies any one of them is likewise shunned. Christians are allowed to pretend to deny these falsehoods, as long as other people understand that those Christians aren’t really serious. These three spiritual falsehoods are reinforced by all official conduct and by all popular culture. To question any of the three is to be considered psychotic.

The first falsehood is that the brain generates consciousness, and so, with the death of one’s physical body, one’s consciousness will be extinguished. The second falsehood is that this physical world is all there is, and the worlds seen in dreams and visions are illusory. The third falsehood is that neither consciousness nor the physical world is divine in any sense, both being mundane expressions of physical causes.

All of these falsehoods are known to be falsehoods by anyone who has studied occult philosophy – but therein lies the problem. Anyone who realises that any of these three assertions are false is labelled mentally ill by the Clown World herd. In Clown World, it’s taken as granted that only the mentally ill would question one of these three great spiritual dogmas, and so these terrible metaphysical lodestones continue to weigh us down.

The Western World of 2021 is in desperate need of a spiritual revolution.

During the recent cannabis referendum debate in New Zealand, the mainstream media featured people making most of the arguments that VJM Publishing has also made for cannabis law reform. One argument they didn’t make, however, was that cannabis is a spiritual sacrament that helps people reconnect to the divine, and therefore ought to be legal on spiritual grounds.

Arguably, cannabis is already legal under Sections 13 and 15 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, which enshrine the right to religious practice. Unfortunately, no-one except for VJM Publishing made this argument. Alternative spiritual practices are highly taboo in Clown World society, as evidenced by the case of Dr. Scott. As such, the prevailing narrative is that cannabis causes mental illness, not that it grants spiritual insight.

As anyone who has ever dealt with the mental health services has learned, the Establishment will not allow any talk of spirituality. Anyone who denies one of the three assertions mentioned above is considered mentally ill – and no discussion will be had. This goes triple for anyone who came to deny one of those assertions after doing a psychoactive drug. Such people cannot escape the label of mental illness, because the three false assertions are believed with such obstinate righteousness that even questioning them is an outrage.

The natural reaction, upon learning that society is built on false metaphysical assumptions, is to become anxious. It is terrifying to realise that society has got the basics wrong and that we’re causing a massive amount of unnecessary suffering to ourselves for no rational reason. It’s horrifying to realise that Plato, the founder of Western civilisation, wrote about his belief in reincarnation in Timaeus, and yet this belief is routinely casually dismissed by far, far, far lesser minds.

Western society today has no conception of “took a spiritual sacrament, became wiser, is now operating on a higher plane.” It’s merely “took drugs, went mad.” Clown World, being the combination of soulless corporate whoring and soulless anti-intellectual rabble rousing, has no ideological space for anything spiritual. All talk of spiritual insight, all questioning of the three great dogmas, is merely mental illness. Anyone expressing such sentiments needs sedative medication, or, at least, to get kicked out of their job.

Such is the wretched state of spirituality in Clown World.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Jewish Position

The greatest controversy in psychological science today – perhaps in all science – is that regarding the heritability of intelligence. Although the science itself is reasonably clear, the topic is so heavily politicised that certain positions have become entrenched.

The anti-hereditarian side can be dubbed the Jewish Position. This is for two reasons. One – the foremost supporters of the position are all Jews, and two – almost all Jews adhere to this position. Both of these assertions become clear if one examines the history of the debate around the heredity of intelligence.

Franz Boas was the earliest major opponent of the hereditarian position. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Wikipedia says of him that “Boas’s main project was to distinguish between biological and cultural heredity, and to focus on the cultural processes that he believed had the greatest influence over social life”.

This belief – that cultural influences have the greater influence on human behaviour and biological ones the lesser, or none at all – is the Jewish Position in a nutshell.

Boas introduced the concept of cultural relativism to the psychological sciences. Before him, it was assumed that the more civilised a culture was, the superior. After him, it was claimed that no-one could say that any culture was superior to any other. This attitude, which is essentially that of slave morality, is political and not scientific in nature. It’s the attitude of someone who promotes tolerance for the sake of tolerance and not for the sake of alleviating suffering.

When Boas’s supposed finding that American and European whites have significantly different skull sizes was proven to have been made up, Jewish professor Jonathan Marks defended his co-ethnic, claiming that those who had debunked Boas had themselves “been quickly rebutted by more mainstream biological anthropology.”

According to Marks’s Wikipedia page, he is “skeptical of genetic explanations of human behavior” and “of ‘race’ as a biological category.” These two attitudes are core components of the Jewish Position, the intent of which is to encourage out-group favouritism and to discourage in-group favouritism. As such, it strenuously denies any scientific evidence that suggests an out-group might be genetically inclined to behave violently or criminally.

Marks once wrote, citing fellow Jew Richard Lewontin (see below) that “…the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin’s analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species…” The Jewish Position denies that race is an valid concept.

Boas heavily influenced co-ethnic Elliot Aronson, born in 1932. Aronson’s ‘Nobody Left to Hate‘ continued the established Jewish trope that exclusion is to blame for pathological behaviour. The book suggested that the reason for the Columbine High School shooting may have been that Klebold and Harris had been excluded by the other students, and therefore the solution to violence is to reduce out-group antipathy.

Central to the Jewish Position is the idea that all exclusion on the basis of genetic or biological grounds is inherently immoral. Further, any in-group preference exercised on genetic or biological grounds is immoral. Proponents of the Jewish Position draw a connection between border control and concentration camps. For them, all lines between folk groups – whether lines of inclusion or exclusion – are evil.

Also born in the 1930s was Richard Lewontin. Lewontin pushed the Jewish Position so hard, a fallacy was named after him. A stubborn opponent of genetic determinism, Lewontin’s approach was typical of the Marxist that he proudly claimed to be. As is often the case with both Jews and Marxists, he opposed genetic determinism in part because it downplays the value of social activism.

Lewontin was one of the harshest critics of Edward O. Wilson’s landmark work Sociobiology. As is typical of those pushing the Jewish Position, his criticism of the work equated genetic determinism with fascism. He went on to co-write, with two other Jewish authors, a book called ‘Not In Our Genes‘, a groundbreaking work of biology denial.

One of the co-authors, Steven Rose, was from Britain, whereas the other two were from America. This reveals the degree to which the Jewish Position is supranational: Jews everywhere believe it, no matter which country they’re living in. In Australia, South Africa, Brazil, just as in America and Europe – everywhere there are Jews, the Jewish Position is asserted.

Lewontin collaborated closely with Stephen Jay Gould, another co-ethnic who prominently supported the Jewish Position. Gould had no shame about equating genetic determinism with Nazism, going as far as to blame people who believe in IQ science for the Holocaust. Gould took issue with anyone who believed in border control at all, also equating this to Nazism.

Gould was criticised for his 1981 propaganda masterpiece, The Mismeasure of Man, in which he smeared intelligence researchers as racists. It has been observed that “Gould’s Marxist political beliefs made him attack intelligence research because he saw it as a threat to his egalitarian social goals.” Ironically, Gould was aware that a person’s social goals affected what that person considered to be accurate science. He just didn’t apply this criticism to himself.

Robert Wright wrote in a letter to the New York Review of Books that “many evolutionary biologists consider Gould’s writings a serious impediment to popular understanding of Darwinian thought.” This is of true of everyone who takes the Jewish Position, which in its essence prioritises political expedience over truth and knowledge. It is a form of science denial, in particular biology denial.

The most prominent Jewish anti-hereditarian in popular culture today is Jared Diamond. Diamond’s most famous work, Guns, Germs and Steel, sought to show that the European dominace of recent centuries was a geographical fluke and not due to any inherent genetic superiority. According to Diamond, if Africans had had more plants suitable for domestication and a more pronounced East-West axis, they would have dominated the world instead.

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond describes as “loathsome” the use of biological differences to explain economic outcomes. Yet, as a critique of Diamond’s points out, Diamond’s environmental determinism cannot account for why natural resource-poor Japan is wealthy, or why natural resource-wealthy Nigeria is poor. A biological determinist, aware that the most valuable human capital is the IQ of the people, can easily account for both.

The most prominent Jewish anti-hereditarian in academia today is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg is foremost in pushing nonsense like stereotype threat, the laughable idea that the low academic performance of blacks is because they’ve internalised white supremacist ideas about blacks being dumb.

Stereotype threat has been cited by Jewish researchers such as Joshua Aronson (the son of Elliot menioned above) as the reason for black academic underachievement. The reality is that, like all the other excuses made by people holding the Jewish Position, stereotype threat is a political concept and not a scientific one.

The political conclusion that Sternberg is desperately trying to avoid is that schools ought to be resegregated. To that end, he promotes the narrative that white people are to blame for black underachievement. Sternberg and his stereotype threat narrative claim that blacks only underachieve because white people expect them to, and thus black underachievement is due to white moral failure.

In summary, the Jewish Position is biology denial applied to the subject of human behaviour.

It’s fair to call it the Jewish Position because almost all of the people promoting it are Jews (as mentioned above) and because almost all of the people opposing it (Francis Galton, Ronald Fisher, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, James Watson, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Satoshi Kanazawa, Linda Gottfredson et al.) are non-Jews. Jewish hereditarians, like Richard Herrnstein, are rare.

It’s worth noting that cultures without a heavy Jewish academic and media presence, such as China, India, Japan and Korea, near uniformly reject the Jewish Position. It’s only in the West, which does have a heavy Jewish academic and media presence, where the Jewish Position is taken seriously. Everywhere else, the genetic influence on intelligence is treated much the same as the genetic influence on height, i.e. as an obvious truth.

It’s also worth noting that the Jewish Position is never taken with regards to Israel. Where Israel is concerned, not only are borders and exclusion considered perfectly legitimate, but biological science (in the form of DNA analysis) can even be used to tell if someone is Jewish or not. In Israel, people can have a marriage licence denied if they can’t prove Jewish ancestry by DNA test.

Such policies would result in howls of outrage from all of the Jewish intellectuals mentioned above if any Western country introduced them – yet Israel may do so without a peep of protest.

The reasons why Jews almost uniformly hold the Jewish Position are probably best explained by Kevin MacDonald in his Culture of Critique. It’s enough for this essay to establish the trend that Jews who hold academic positions in the life sciences almost always reject hereditarianism, whereas non-Jews in similar positions in the life sciences almost always accept it.

The sum total of all of these facts is that no-one should ever trust a Jew or anyone pro-Jewish (such as a universalist Abrahamist) when it comes to discussions about heredity and the effect of genetics on human behaviour. They cannot be trusted to be honest on such issues any more than Nazis can, because they have a vested political interest in misrepresenting the truth (an example of what this column has previously called the Palestinian Paradox).

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!