Many people believe that slavery ended in the 1860s in America, in the 1820s in the British Empire, and it hasn’t existed since then. In reality, slavery just changed forms. It became more subtle.
In truth, our rulers don’t need to put chains on our bodies, because they already have chains on our minds. In the 21st Century, people are made into slaves not through beatings but through relentless, all-pervasive media propaganda, psychological brutalisation in schools, unforgiving work schedules and an irrational, capricious government. This mental beatdown creates slave mentality, of which various signs are evident.
The first and most obvious sign that a person is spiritually a slave is being against freedom. If they don’t understand what motivated the American Revolutionaries, they are very likely to possess powerful slave sentiments. Note that this doesn’t mean free people necessarily support degeneracy: the degenerate is as much a slave to their biological impulses as anyone is a slave to anything.
Freedom as a philosophical concept is rejected by all spiritual slaves. They simply don’t understand the pleasure that comes from exercising free will. Ever the yin element, they prefer to be directed.
A slave mentality is often present in cases where a person doesn’t understand the important freedom issues of the day. Those who vote against cannabis freedom in the various referendums want the government to tell them what they’re allowed or not allowed to do, which is pure slave mentality. Someone without a slave mindset will naturally try to maximise their agency. Thus they support freedom as a general principle.
A second sign of a slave mindset is a tendency to lick upwards and kick downwards. The tendency to fawn towards one’s social superiors and abuse one’s social inferiors is extreme in many Third World cultures, and Western travellers immediately notice.
The tendency exists in Western countries too (but to a lesser extent) as it reflects an aspect of human nature: when enough fear is put into a person they become vicious. This viciousness is the reason for the abuse of the weak. In contrast to the truly belligerent, however, those with slave mindset do not challenge the strong.
A third sign is respecting violence more than intelligence. In a normal, healthy society, people think further than their immediate environment. Those who are the best at that naturally gain esteem and rise in the social hierarchy, where they are given power to make some decisions on behalf of the collective. This is natural because the survival of the tribe is best served by giving the most power to those who have the deepest understanding of reality.
In slave morality, normal morality is inverted. Long-term thinkers are resented, and short-term, impulsive thinkers are prized. Anyone who thinks long-term is assumed to be weak, nerdish, sickly of mind. Thoughtfulness is hesitance is weakness. Being “tough” is more important than being wise or intelligent. Thus, the most thuggish and aggressive are at the top. The slave doesn’t see such people as thuggish, of course, but rather cool, fun, spontaneous, powerful etc.
A fourth sign is perhaps the most subtle, but also the most characteristic: resentment. As Nietzsche understood, slaves feel immense resentment at the strength and beauty of free people. A person deep into a slave mindset will feel resentful at life itself. If a person resents the role that Fate seems to have placed them in, and makes life harder for others thereby, they are a certainty to possess a slave mindset.
A perpetual bad mood is a clear sign that a person knows they’re a slave and can’t get over it. If a person is constantly surly, disagreeable, sullen – chances are very high you’re dealing with a slave mindset.
A fifth, and probably the most telling sign, is that a person has given up. There is a great word in Swedish called ‘uppgivenhet’, which means ‘resignation’ in English, but which literally means ‘given-upness’. A person’s level of slave mentality correlates highly with their level of uppgivenhet.
Much like the dog that has been shocked so many times that it lacks the will to take an obvious escape offered to it, a person who has given up will do nothing to better their situation even when presented with opportunity. Those who, when given freedom, spend it watching television, mindlessly scrolling, gossiping or boozing are slaves by any other name.
It’s best to avoid people who demonstrate these five signs of a slave mindset. They won’t lead you into physical bondage but even worse: psychological enslavement.
Sometimes on X, as in real life, a discussion arises about Ashkenazi Jewish IQ. Such discussions usually involve claims (such as the one made by Grok above) that Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is superior to that of whites, which explains their observed over-representation in positions of power such as academia and politics. These claims are hotly disputed. As a psychological scientist, I thought I’d investigate, so that you don’t have to.
The 2005 Cochran paper referenced by Grok can be found here. In the section titled ‘The Psychometric Evidence about Ashkenazi IQ’, it states: “Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ [of] 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976).”
However, these claims, as well as the other claims from this section, cannot be verified.
Backman’s study can be found here. The most important table from it is reproduced below.
This table suggests that Jewish intelligence is higher than that of whites in verbal knowledge (VKN) and mathematical ability (MAT). If intelligence was limited to these two submeasures (ignoring e.g. English language and visual reasoning abilities), and normalised to a white IQ of 100, Jews would score ((57.1/51.9)*100) = 110 for verbal knowledge and ((58.6/52.1)*100) = 113 for mathematical knowledge, around 112 overall.
This has been taken as hard evidence of superior Jewish IQ by Cochran and by Grok and others.
However, if we look at the ‘Sex’ group, we also see great differences between men and women. Normalised to a female IQ of 100, men score ((53.7/48.3)*100) = 112 in verbal knowledge and an incredible ((63.9/44.6)*100) = 144 for mathematical ability. Taken together, this suggests an IQ of 128 or so for men compared to 100 for women.
Such a suggestion is transparently ridiculous. Yet, it comes from the exact same dataset as the supposed hard evidence of superior Jewish intelligence.
If I would be an academic, and claim that men had superior IQs to women based on this dataset, and that this superior IQ explained male over-representation in academia and politics, I would be fired instantly. I would be cancelled, hounded to oblivion and destroyed. Yet, it’s acceptable to make the exact same claim about a superior Jewish IQ from the exact same dataset. Grok will even it repeat it unquestioningly.
Moreover, it’s apparent from reading the methodology of the study that the sampling is suspect. The initial study of 400,000 students might have been representative, but this particular study only looked at the 2,925 students who responded to a follow-up study five years after graduation. It’s not clear that this subsample is representative of the actual racial populations.
Levinson’s 1959 study from the Journal of Clinical Psychology is not available online and could only be found if I have access to a university library. Romanoff’s study is part of a thesis that can only be found on microfiche at the National University of Israel.
So of the three ancient references given by Cochran, two are unavailable, and the third contains massive methodological flaws.
A 2o04 paper by Richard Lynn is also referenced. It can be found here.
Lynn’s paper mostly examines verbal intelligence. He does not skirt around this point; it is stated openly in the table in the discussion section (reproduced below).
He notes, as per Backman, that Jews score differently on various submeasures of intelligence. Although they might score higher than whites on verbal intelligence, they are known to have significantly lower scores on some other measures. This can be seen in Table 2 from Backman’s study, where whites scored 51.8 on a measure of visual reasoning and Jews only 46.0.
Taking one submeasure on which Jews do well, and generalising it to assume that Jews do well on all submeasures, is a classic composition fallacy. If I would say that Jews have lower IQs than whites because they scored only ((46.0/51.8)*100) = 89 on a submeasure of visual reasoning, which I had generalised to Jewish IQ in general, I would get laughed out of academia, if not cancelled for life on anti-semitism accusations. Yet people who do make this exact same composition fallacy, only in favour of Jews, are quoted by Grok as world psychology experts.
Moreover, Lynn’s paper states “These figures are well below previous estimates of Jewish verbal ability.” This tells us that, even by the one of the few measures Jews do excel at, a normalised score of 107-115 is an exaggeration. He notes that this Backman study is the only one with a proper national representational sample, meaning that it has the highest quality data of all the studies on this subject. The other studies showing Jewish superiority do not have enough representation or a big enough sample size to be valid.
Lynn concludes that “Probably all that can be concluded with a fair degree of confidence at present is that Jews have high crystallized intelligence (verbal ability) of which the vocabulary test used in the present study is a good measure and that on this ability their IQ in relation to gentile whites is approximately 107.5.” Crystallised intelligence is another way of saying ‘learned intelligence’ and is primarily a matter of education, which Jews are well-known for taking seriously, and is something very different to natural intelligence.
The Cochran paper then goes on to cite The Jew In London, a study from 1900, as evidence for this supposed superior IQ (not accessible).
Also linked here is a 1928 paper from the Eugenics Review. This paper is also cited by Cochran as evidence of Jewish mental superiority. But the same paper states that Jews are between 100% and 300% more likely than whites to suffer mental disease. As with the Backman study, some extremely selective reporting of the results has taken place, such that pro-Jewish results are emphasised, and anti-Jewish results are de-emphasised. Moreover, this study was funded by the Jewish Health Organisation, an obvious conflict of interest.
The Eugenics Review study is methodologically flawed on a number of counts. For one, the intelligence test questions are obviously loaded in favour of learned intelligence and not natural intelligence. For another, we know from the Wilson Effect that the heritability of intelligence increases with age, from 0.2 at age five to 0.8 at age 20. It follows from this that intelligence tests given to younger children, such as the eight to thirteen-year olds in the Eugenics Review study, reflect the environment the child was raised in more than their natural, biological intelligence. Indeed, the paper alludes to this, stating “It is often alleged that, though Jewish children are precocious, they do not fulfil their early promise.”
Perhaps most damningly, the paper concludes that the evidence within is too flimsy to draw any conclusions outside of its sample of Jewish emigre children in London. A 21st Century observer would point out that immigrants to the West from e.g. India and Nigeria are known to be much smarter than the racial averages of their home nations, owing to a powerful selective process, and that the same process would likely have selected for higher intelligence among Jewish immigrants to London 100 years ago, making the Eugenics Review study unreliable.
That is all the evidence presented in the paper linked by Grok for supposedly superior Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. It’s extremely weak.
There seems to have been a high degree of conflation, deliberate or otherwise, between verbal and mathematical intelligence on the one hand, and general intelligence on the other. This conflation is not made for visual reasoning intelligence, in which Jews do poorly. So high levels of Jewish success in literature and mathematics are taken as evidence of high Jewish IQ, but low levels of Jewish success in engineering and architecture are not taken as evidence of low Jewish IQ. This selective reasoning seems to reflect a massive pro-Jewish bias on the part of intelligence researchers. This bias appears to have influenced Grok.
Ashkenazi Jews have been selected over time for aptitude in specifically urban occupations, hence why (in comparison to whites) they are great at reading and talking, and poor at visual reasoning. They have not been selected for all-round intellectual superiority. Great Jewish engineers and architects are extremely rare: one would expect the exact opposite if Jews were all-round intellectually superior to whites.
Thus, Ashkenazi Jews cannot be said to be smarter than whites in general. Certain subfacets of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence might be higher than those of whites, but certain other subfacets are lower, so claims of overall Ashkenazi Jewish IQs of 108-115 are complete rubbish.
The conclusion of this author is that Ashkenazi Jewish over-representation in positions of power is because of Christians. Christians believe that God blesses those who bless Israel (Genesis 12:3), where ‘Israel’ is taken to mean Jewish interests in general, and that “if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings” (Romans 15:27). As a result, they work to promote Jews into high positions of power in academia, politics, business and other areas, reasoning that by serving the Jews in this manner, God will bless them.
Support for this assertion comes from the words of Charles Murray, a Christian researcher, who claims that the reason for supposed higher Jewish IQ is “The Jews are God’s chosen people”. This statement summarises the pitiful state of research into the subject of race and IQ in 2025. James Watson can have his reputation destroyed for suggesting that whites are smarter than blacks for biological reasons, but researchers who make the exact same claim about Jews being smarter than whites, only on far, far, far weaker evidence than Watson has, are cited as authorities.
I argue that the perception of Jews as intellectually superior comes from their central role in the Abrahamic religions, and not from any actual advantage in biological intelligence. Because of this central religious role, they are worshipped by Christians looking to curry favour with the God of Abraham. This worship leads to them being promoted by Christians into positions of power, influence and wealth. This promotion by Christians, and not superior IQ, explains massive Jewish over-representation in such positions. The reason why the Ashkenazis are the prime beneficiaries of this process, and not other subpopulations of Jews, is because the Ashkenazis live around the most credulous and gullible Christians, i.e. American ones.
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.
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.
