Why People Aren't Willing To Fight

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!

What Lee Kwan Yew Might Have Said To Bronze Age Pervert (And To Us)

A recent tweet from Bronze Age Pervert has caused a shitstorm on Twitter. BAP wrote that “Only a myth of race blindness is workable.” The accompanying tweet thread (highly recommended reading) contains much controversy.

The logic that Bronze Age Pervert is describing is the logic that has ruled the West since World War II. It’s very close to the idea of Plato’s Noble Lie, in the sense that many understand it to be false, but it’s supported anyway for moral reasons (BAP states that supporting it is not his own preference but that avoiding this is politically impossible).

This logic claims that social harmony in the West depends on everyone believing in the myth that all races are equal. If certain races are told that their adverse collective outcomes are the result of their inferiority, they will get angry and destructive. It’s a matter of survival, therefore, that human biodiversity is denied, even as a concept.

If denying racial differences is the Anglo-Judaic approach post World War Two, Lee Kwan Yew supported a different approach.

Lee Kwan Yew was perhaps the most famous proponent of the race realist position. Being Chinese, he mostly managed to avoid accusations of being a Nazi. Lee was happy to state that different races had different average intellectual potentials, and that these different potentials were the reason for their different economic and academic outcomes.

Not only was Lee happy to state this, he was unrepentant. He had very good reason to be so.

Lee Kwan Yew pointed out, quite reasonably, that there were many great pitfalls to the race blindness approach. First and foremost, if we assume that all races are equal, then it logically follows that the lower economic and academic achievement of the less successful races is due to racist discrimination.

If a recipe for inter-racial resentment could be written, it would consist of claiming that wealth gaps cannot be explained by natural wealth-creating aptitude, and that they must be explained by structural discrimination, and that anyone who denies this is a racist. As Ibram X. Kendi’s writing reveals, raceblindness axiomatically assumes that if you aren’t raceblind, you’re a racist bigot.

Lee also pointed out, correctly, that if racist discrimination is widely believed to be the reason for the underperformance of certain races, then demands for quotas and affirmative action would inevitably follow. And then if those quotas and affirmative action programs did not result in equal outcomes, more demands for more of them would come.

The end result of “race blindness” is a never-ending cycle of increasing demands of equal treatment.

The resentment caused by this cycle is, as Lee realised, a major threat to social cohesion. When you have a large proportion of the population believing that the rest of the population has stolen something from them, social cohesion disintegrates. But this is the inevitable result of pushing the race blindness myth.

In the New Zealand mainstream media, one often sees articles decrying a supposed Pacific pay gap. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission’s “Pacific Pay Gap Inquiry” is ostensibly intended to discover the reasons for the fact that Pacific Islanders get paid less than white and Asian people. In reality, the reason for the inquiry is to fearmonger about white supremacism.

The reason for the Pacific pay gap is the same reason as for the working-class vs. middle-class pay gap: intelligence. It’s known that the average Pacific Islander IQ is considerably lower than the average white/North Asian IQ (see: Samoa 88, Tonga 86, Fiji 85). This is as predicted by Cold Winters Theory. So the pay gap simply reflects the gap in cognitive resources bestowed by Nature. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

The narrative that the pay gap necessarily implies structural discrimination, and that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi who sees others as racially inferior, is a narrative of pure resentment. It’s a slave mentality, designed to rabble-rouse and to destroy.

As Lee was aware, racial equality narratives are often pushed by Communists in particular, who push any and all anti-nationalist narratives. This is one of the reasons why he had to oppose them so hard. He knew that if a Communist narrative of Malays getting exploited by Chinese took hold, Singaporean society was liable to disintegrate.

If Lee Kwan Yew could give advice to those of us in the modern West, he would likely tell us to abandon the myth of racial equality. Promulgating it might make certain white people feel morally superior, and it might placate the egos of browns and blacks, but it creates a massive resentment that itself leads to an explosive social tension. He might argue that the “every man for himself” nihilism of the modern West was an inevitable consequence of this resentment.

Finally – and Lee made this same argument many times – races do not have to be intellectually equal for individuals from those races to be equally worthy of respect. There is no reason to disrespect an individual just because his race might have a lower IQ, not any more than there is to disrespect someone because his family is lower class. To do so is vulgar, a sign of low frequency.

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!

Five Signs That Someone’s Secretly Trashy

By the time most people finish high school, they know that it’s best to avoid trashy people. The problem is that, in the adult world, people engage in elaborate deceptions to hide their level of trashiness. This essay looks at five (relatively) subtle ways that you can see through the deception.

Note here that when we’re talking about trashiness, we’re talking about a person’s own level of rectitude. We’re not talking about social class, much less wealth. Low-frequency people who spread misery, fear and depression around them are trashy, no matter how much bling they may be adorned with.

For most people, it isn’t easy to determine whether another given person is trashy. Most people judge trashiness by inaccurate measures, so easily become misled. An education or a fortune doesn’t mean that one can’t be trashy. There are, in fact, several ways that a person can unwittingly reveal their inner trashiness to observers.

One of the most obvious ways to tell that someone’s secretly trashy is that their family don’t talk to them. If they have one or more adult children who don’t talk to them, chances are high you’re dealing with trash. This is especially true if the person claims to not know why their family members have stopped talking to them.

It’s not easy for someone to go no contact with a close family member. If it does happen, you can be confident that the reason was to protect against further abuse. Abusing one’s own family is perhaps the most characteristic sign of trashiness anywhere. If someone abuses their close genetic relative, it’s a certainty that they won’t feel bad about abusing you as well.

A second way is that a person is abusive to those weaker than them. The classic dating advice that if he’s rude to the wait staff he’ll be rude towards you is classic for good reason. It’s a sign of a bully. Trashy people tend to respect others only if they need to, they don’t respect by default. So if you’re getting respected by one of them now, don’t count on it lasting.

It could be countered here that abusing the weak is an obvious sign of trashiness, and that there’s nothing secret about it. That might be true, but there are a number of subtle signs of contempt and disrespect. A person’s regular use of them is a good sign that they are liable to turn to abuse. This is especially true if it’s coupled with obsequiousness towards the powerful.

A third sign is that a person chimps out whenever told no. In reality, if you respect someone’s boundaries then you also respect when they tell you no, even if you really wanted them to say yes. But some people treat being told no as if it was a grievous personal insult. This is a sign of very poor impulse control, which itself leads to many trashy behaviours.

A person who gets aggressive when told no is very likely to be the kind of person who takes advantage of others. It’s a sign that their moral development has stalled somewhere in early childhood. That kind of victimhood makes it possible for them to justify all manner of malicious actions. So be wary of anyone who behaves in such a manner, because if you ever have to assert your boundaries against them they will rage.

A fourth sign is that a person makes everything about them. Even at other people’s birthdays, weddings or funerals, trashy people act like the spotlight should be on them at all times. This powerful desire to be recognised is usually compensation for a life of little achievement. It’s often a sign of grandiose narcissism.

The classic sign that a person is a histrionic narcissist is that they seem excited when you talk about them, but then you talk about yourself and their eyes glaze over. This reveals the Main Character Syndrome that all but guarantees a person will treat those around them with undeserved contempt.

A fifth sign, perhaps the most subtle, is that a person discounts other people’s suffering. It might be a truism that tragedy is when it happens to me and comedy is when it happens to you. But a person who really acts as if other people’s suffering is meaningless is usually extremely trashy. A failure to empathise with a suffering people is a reliable indicator of trashiness.

This is especially true if their own suffering is considered important, just not anyone else’s. That’s the kind of egomania that is found among the trashiest of people. This goes triple if a person bullies people and claims that they’re joking, but get outraged when someone else “jokes” back at them.

In summary, there are several useful ways you can determine if another person is secretly trashy so that you can avoid them. These ways are mostly subtle signs of malignant narcissism.

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!