justice – Page 40

Weapons of Mass Psychological Destruction

The phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” evokes a special horror, with thoughts of Hiroshima and the incineration of a hundred thousand people in a matter of heartbeats. The geopolitics of today have made the use of such weapons impossible, but this only affects the physical realm. In the psychological realm, weapons of mass destruction are still being employed. This essays discusses some of these weapons of mass psychological destruction.

There are four basic ways to enslave a person or group of people. The two physical ways are through threats of starvation and violence, but there are also two psychological ways. These are confusing the mind and confusing the spirit. In the same way that weapons of mass destruction can destroy people in the physical realm, so too do weapons of mass psychological destruction destroy people in the intellectual and spiritual realms.

The primary weapon of mass psychological destruction is the mainstream media, in particular the television, but also YouTube to a major (and increasing) extent. The mainstream media serves the purpose of delivering disinformation to the people, so that they can no longer tell truth from fiction. It does this both by lying about the truth and by selective focus on the truth.

Because humans are naturally trusting, most people believe that the mainstream media is a reliable source of information, or that if manipulation exists it is only minor and easily countered. Consequently, if the television states something as true, then it is taken as true. Anyone questioning the authority of the television risks becoming ostracised, which is how the ruling class keeps people in check when they can’t imprison or starve them.

The mainstream media serves as a weapon of mass psychological destruction by telling lies that misdirect the will of the people. Instead of telling them who is really to blame, the media funnels rage towards a panoply of petty criminals. By such means, a racist remark to a waitress becomes a national scandal, while the theft of an entire generation’s wealth goes without mention.

The publishing industry is very much a part of this. As Otago University Professor James Flynn discovered this week, the mainstream publishers will simply refuse to publish anything that’s too honest. Professor Flynn’s book about free speech revealed a brutal truth: the mainstream publishing industry censors information in order to shape public opinion to suit its agenda.

Because the mainstream media is owned by foreign banking and finance interests, the crimes of those interests are covered up by that media. Only the alternative media reports on the fact that the nation is being plundered by foreign banks, with a massive transfer of wealth away from New Zealanders to the shareholders of those banks. ANZ alone made almost $2 billion in net profit last year – $500 for every Kiwi adult.

The second major weapon of mass psychological destruction is the school system. The school system conditions people, much like lab rats, to be submissive to authority. Over the course of a decade or more, children are punished for doing, saying or thinking anything that they have not specifically been given permission for.

This is a true weapon of mass psychological destruction because it makes it possible to manufacture consent for all manner of Government atrocities. Had it not been for the normalisation of the Prussian style of schooling to meet the needs of industrialisation, the mass slaughters of the first half of the 20th century may have been impossible. A population conditioned into obedience is liable to do anything without hesitation.

Today’s world doesn’t condition people for physical warfare, but it conditions them for the psychological warfare that is characteristic of our age – the propagandising, the relentless advertising, the passive and cowardly nature of our political discourse. In particular, it conditions them to sit and passively absorb such information under the assumption that it’s coming from an authority and is therefore true.

The school system punishes children for the slightest refusal to submit to authority. For over a decade, children are conditioned to surrender all day, every day, their every thought and action determined wholly by the will of the relevant authority. By the end of school, children have been so brutalised that they can’t offer the Government or their employer any meaningful resistance.

The Government serves as a third way that weapons of mass psychological destruction are employed against the populace. The Government passes arbitrary and immoral laws that serve to set people against each other, with the honest half of the population defying such laws and the submissive half obeying them. This puts them at each other’s throats, making ruling over them easy.

They also take from the productive to finance a variety of schemes. Although many of these schemes increase the productivity of the populace (such as healthcare and infrastructure), many of them pointedly do not (such as enforcing cannabis prohibition and importing Third World refugees). By such means is the people’s wealth wasted, making it harder for them to achieve independence. The frustration and humiliation that this engenders also promotes submission.

The Government teaches people that the course of their lives are not decided by them, but dictated from above by powers the people have no control over. The people learn that laws such as cannabis prohibition just have to be surrendered to. By these means, the actions of the Government serve as a weapon of mass psychological destruction that saps the people’s will to resist the predation of the ruling class.

The purpose of deploying all of these weapons against people is very simple – it’s the usual story of greed. There are limited resources on this planet, so we either have to share them or force each other into positions of dependency. The people who have arrogated to themselves the position of ruling class want to have the power to not share those resources. Consequently, we must fight for social position.

Weapons of mass psychological destruction are a much greater problem, in today’s world, than weapons of mass physical destruction. The latter can’t realistically ever be used, whereas the former are continually employed against the peoples of all nations of the world by their ruling classes. These weapons of mass psychological destruction make it much harder for those peoples to resist oppression and exploitation, primarily by undermining our solidarity and capacity to organise.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 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 2017 is also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

The Gender Wage Gap Is Bullshit

Periodic outrage arises at something called the “Gender Wage Gap.” We are constantly being told that men are paid a certain percentage more than women because of anti-female discrimination and prejudice within the workplace. The problem is that the idea of a gender wage gap is absolute bullshit. Demographer Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, explains.

There is, indeed, a correlation of 0.23 between net median income and being male (and commensurately a correlation of -0.23 between net median income and being female). This is not a very strong correlation, and in this study is only on the borderline of statistical significance.

This does mean that men control slightly more of the nation’s money supply than women do. Some people, particularly on the left, make the assumption that all human population groups are precisely the same, and therefore any difference must be the consequence of oppression. The existence of a positive correlation between personal income and being male is taken as proof that women are systematically underpaid.

However, a closer look at the data reveals the lie in this lazy assumption.

The correlation between being male and having a personal income above $150,000 was 0.03 – essentially nonexistent. The correlation between being male and having a person income between $100,000 and $150,000 was even less than this, at 0.01. This shows that the distribution of the highest-earning jobs is almost perfectly even between men and women.

Indeed, we can see from Understanding New Zealand that there is essentially no difference between men and women when it comes to higher education. The correlation between being male and having a Bachelor’s degree is not significant, at -0.04, and for the postgraduate degrees the correlation is weaker still. So the equal share of educational achievement leads naturally onto an equal share of the top professional jobs.

The best-paid jobs in New Zealand are appointed on the basis of education and not gender. Further proof for this comes from the fact that the correlations between working as a professional and having any degree are extremely strong – around 0.80 to 0.90. The correlation between being a professional and being a male, by contrast, is not significant, at -0.10.

Nearer the centre of the earnings scale we can see that the correlation with being male rises, to 0.22, for an income between $50,000 and $60,000. This correlation is borderline significant, but it is in the wage brackets between $40,000 and $70,000 where the bulk of the nation’s income is earned. All of these wage brackets have a positive correlation of at least 0.18 with being male.

Lower down the earnings scale, we can see that the correlation with being male is negative for all income brackets below $30,000. It is a borderline significant -0.19 for the prime beneficiary’s income bracket of $10,000 to $15,000. Indeed, we can see that the correlation between being male and being on the unemployment benefit is -0.39, so women are significantly more likely to be bringing in less than average.

So if women and men are paid the same at the top levels, why do men earn more in the middle levels?

As mentioned above, the reason that men make more money than women overall is because of the fact that there are more of them in the $40,000 to $70,000 range and fewer in the $30,000 and below range. But the reason for this is not prejudice.

Most of this difference can be explained by the correlation of 0.48 between being male and being in full-time work. There is also a correlation of -0.48 between being male and being unemployed. Simply put, this means that men work a lot more than women do. Further proof comes from the negative correlations between being male and being on the unemployment benefit (-0.39), being on the invalid’s benefit (-0.26) or being on the student allowance (-0.21).

What this means is that the plum jobs are shared out equally between men and women, but the lower one goes down the socio-economic scale, the more likely it is that women will become unemployed instead. This makes perfect sense, because the less one earns the more marginal working becomes in comparison to spending that time on one’s family, and women are much more likely to make such a calculation than men.

The gap in earnings between men and women can be best explained, therefore, not by sexism or any other form of prejudice, but by life history patterns. Men tend to work hard as young adults and then work hard as older adults. Women, by contrast, tend to work hard as young adults and then transition to part-time work as they get older, shifting the primary focus of their concern from their career to their family.

What the statistics show is a very reasonable pattern of women starting out as professionals if they can, otherwise starting at the bottom and transitioning into family care as they age. Men also start out as professionals if they can and also otherwise start at the bottom, but the difference is that they tend to transition into managerial positions as they age. This is evidenced by the correlation of 0.49 between being male and working as a manager.

The “gender wage gap”, therefore, is best explained as the result of different choices made by the average man compared to the average woman. It has nothing to do with prejudice or sexism, and anyone claiming that it does is either misguided or lying.

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

When The Last Boomer Dies, God Will Return To Earth

The Boomer is an utterly Godless creature. Having completely forsaken divine guidance and surrendered to ego, it lives a life of pure narcissism, driven only by instinct, lurching from one impulse-fuelled drama to the next. However, there is always a resurgent spark of yang everytime yin appears triumphant. When the last Boomer perishes, God will return to Earth.

The Boomers are a deeply damaged generation, in two major ways.

Men who spend several years in mortal combat, as the parents of the Boomers did, almost inevitably end up with warped attitudes to violence, abuse and mental health. This isn’t to blame that generation – this is simply pointing out a psychological fact by way of explanation. When you add large amounts of alcohol to this mix, in lieu of an actual mental health system, you end up with a parenting style that doesn’t lead to healthy offspring.

Many returning veterans became alcoholics to deal with the trauma of surviving combat and the deprivations of war. Many others became emotionally distant. A great number found that a screaming child brought them straight back to the screams of the wounded on the battlefield, and this brought with it bursts of adrenaline – hardly the right mindset to be raising children with.

For Boomer children, it was common to only see one’s father when completely pissed after work. When they did interact with fathers, it was often with damaged, broken men who behaved unpredictably. Coming to one’s parent with a problem was often met with a “Fucking harden up!”, and causing problems frequently led to the bash. What the Boomers learned from this was to put themselves first, always, because the world was a terrible and dangerous place.

However, World Wars One and Two did a lot more damage than merely causing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to millions of veterans who would then go on to neglect and abuse their children. It also demolished their belief in God.

In the lead up to, and during, World War One, people on all sides were told that their nation’s participation in the war was the Will of God, and that God wanted them to go and fight in Europe. This severely weakened the belief that most Westerners had in God. World War Two destroyed it. By the end of World War Two it was widely believed that the very idea of God was for weaklings, and was just a trick to sucker people into doing the priest’s bidding.

Consequently, the Boomers were raised in an unprecedented absence of spirituality and spiritual sentiment.

This combination of self-centredness and godlessness led to a narcissism that had never previously been seen. This monstrous egotism has pushed the world into an extremely precarious state, with numerous dangers that pose existential risks to the human species. Not only is the environmental and military situation precarious, but the ideological climate is conducive to fanaticism.

Generation X is aware that the selfishness of the Boomers is far from normal. We’ve seen our grandparents’ generation, who were entirely different. Despite the hardships they themselves had endured, they were kind, thoughtful, other-focused: the anti-Boomers. Some of us can even remember our grandparents saying that there was something wrong with the whole Boomer generation, that they must have been spoiled or left in front of the television too long.

Generation X, as described in Fight Club, has faced a different dilemma. With a parental generation so self-centred as to be all but absent, and a grandparental generation mostly shuffled off this plane of existence, our Great War is a spiritual war. We have problems such as finding gratitude for what we have when we know that our parents had it so much better. We must look for meaning in a dying culture.

Many people like to act as if God was an unnecessary thing altogether, and that an absence of belief in God had no meaningful effect on a person’s behaviour. The reality is that, absent a belief in God, an individual will inevitably behave as if they were an animal, driven only by biological concerns for resource acquisition, social dominance, shitting, pissing and sex. This causes tremendous suffering to all.

The first Boomers were born in the mid-40s, and the last ones in the early 1960s. This means that the oldest Boomers are already in their mid-70s, and that means that they’re about to start dying off in droves. Right now, Boomers are in complete control of the political, economic and cultural agenda, but their impending mass retirement means that they will cede all of this to their offspring over the next fifteen years.

The death of the last Boomer will be as the bursting of a great dam, one that held back the flood of a new spiritual age. With no more Boomers to trash the planet in search of an ever-comfier retirement, Generation X and the Millennials will be able to build a world that focused on the cessation of suffering. This we shall achieve through a great spiritual renaissance.

A Universal Basic Income Would Pay For Itself In The Bitching It Would Prevent

The Internet is full of bitching about who is entitled to what and who is ripping who off. Endless back-and-forths that have been running for decades already, and sometimes for centuries before the Internet was invented. This bickering does a tremendous amount of social damage, fostering distrust, suspicion and cynicism at all levels. As this essay will examine, a universal basic income would pay for itself by settling much of this bitching.

One of the eternal debates relates to the pension age.

Our society is currently structured so that 64-year olds are made to work under threat of starvation, but 65-year olds are gifted $370 a week from the state until they die, no questions asked. A person’s life is radically different from the week before they turn 65 compared to the week after. Turning 65 grants you access to so much free money that it’s like winning the lottery.

The problem, from the state’s point of view, is that the pension already costs New Zealand some $16 billion dollars per year – a figure that is rising by about a billion a year. This means that there is a great incentive to cut down on costs by raising the pension age. On top of that, many argue that the current pension arrangement in unsustainable, on account of that people are in good health for longer.

Naturally, proposals to raise the pension age are bitterly resented by those close to it. Howls of outrage are inevitable every time the media raises the subject. Also naturally, those younger still, who have no hope of the luxury pension lifestyle that today’s elderly enjoy, don’t give a shit, and are happy to just laugh. Therefore there is bitter resentment on all sides.

We already have a universal basic income for those over 65. If we would lower the size of the payment to something more reasonable, and then extend the age limit all the way down to 18, would could get rid of the need to argue over the pension age entirely.

Another eternal debate revolves around making a distinction between the mentally ill and the lazy. The logic is that it’s fair to pay mentally ill people welfare because they can’t be expected to hold down a job, but it’s not fair to pay lazy people on welfare because it will just encourage them to not work.

The difficulty is, of course, that it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between the two. It’s not at all routine to find agreement between two psychiatrists as to whether a given patient is mentally ill or a malingerer. It couldn’t possibly be, given how complicated the average mind is and how long it takes to get to understand it.

In practice, there’s essentially no way to tell whether a person’s unwillingness to work stems from mental illness (thereby demanding a feminine solution) or a failure of the will (thereby demanding a masculine solution). There is no scientific test, so the psychiatrist just asks a bunch of questions and then offers a degree of help commensurate with how much they like the patient.

This means that a large part of the welfare apparatus – that devoted to distinguishing the “deserving” from the “undeserving” – is superfluous and could be scrapped at no loss. A universal basic income would remove the need for absurdities such as the requirement to get a doctor’s certificate every year or so to “prove” that one was too mentally infirm to hold down a job.

A mentally healthy person will not choose to avoid work, for the simple reason that employment is the only realistic way to meet one’s social needs today. Some people might need to take a break away from intense social pressure on occasion, and a UBI would help them do this. Then they could return on their own terms when able. This would prevent people from being ground down into destruction through the stress of trying to maintain employment with a mental illness.

Seldom does a person stop and think about how much social damage is caused by arguments about who is worthy to receive a basic level of financial dignity and who isn’t.

A universal basic income would settle all of these disputes in one stroke. It would say: there is no such thing as public welfare anymore, only dividends. Every citizen gets a basic dividend of the nation’s wealth, enough to stave off abject misery, no questions asked. No more squabbling about who’s paid in enough and who has been promised what.

There is a lot of talk about a looming financial crisis, and how we can’t lower interest rates to fight it, and will therefore have to print money. The last time we printed money we gave to the banks, and that didn’t help alleviate the human suffering. This time we should print money and give it to everyone to meet their basic survival needs.

If 3,500,000 people received a dividend of $250 for 52 weeks, the total cost would be $45,500,000,000. According to the New Zealand Treasury, crown income was $81,800,000,000 for the 2016/2017 financial year. That same link also shows us that the current cost of social security and welfare is $30,600,000,000, currently paid for by taxation and not money printing.

This means that we could scrap the entire social security and welfare bureaucracy, shift all of the funding for it to a UBI, and we’d only be $15,000,000,000 short. This shortfall could be made up for by money printing, or from increased economic efficiencies brought about by the structural change of every person having government-backed poverty insurance.

One likely side-effect of a UBI is that is will make many things much cheaper.

For instance, without the life-or-death pressure of needing to get a job before one starves, Kiwis would be much more willing to live in places with fewer job opportunities. This would create a drift to rural areas and release some of the demand pressure on urban land. Introduction of a UBI would, of course, mean the termination of the Accomodation Supplement, as there is simply no justification to live somewhere you can’t afford if this isn’t necessary for work purposes.

The fact is that New Zealand needs entrepreneurial activity if it is to succeed this century, and much of this will necessarily be Internet-based owing to New Zealand’s extreme geographical isolation. A UBI would make it possible for small start-ups to get off the ground in the smaller centres, because these start-ups would have much lower initial costs.

The rest of the value might be made up from the social benefits of putting a definitive and official end to all questions about who was worthy of Government assistance and who was a bludger, malinger, thief etc. Everyone gets $250, and when the rate goes up it goes up for all. Because everyone gets it, and the same amount, there would be no question over who is entitled and who isn’t.