What Actual Racial Equality In Cricket Would Look Like

Everyone’s asking what racial equality would look like in the sport of cricket. The typical, low IQ, explanation is that it would look like equal representation for all disadvantaged communities and blah blah blah. This article suggests an alternative, higher IQ explanation free of Marxist nonsense.

The laws of cricket are based on a great many assumptions. One of those is that cricket is fundamentally a contest between bat and ball. Another assumption is that bowling fast is the “standard” way of beating the bat, and that spin bowling is a variation.

This latter assumption plays out often. The fast bowlers almost always open the bowling. Usually only after they’ve already had a go does the captain bring on a spinner. Often the spinner has to wait until the third (or even fourth) seamer has already bowled.

Seaming conditions are, at time of writing, considered “standard” conditions in international cricket. But not every bowler is suited to seaming conditions. More importantly, not every cricketing nation is suited to producing fast bowlers. And here we’re not talking about culture, but genetics.

As anyone who has recently seen the Australian cricket team will know, there are a lot of tall fast bowlers on the international scene. Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood are 6’7″ and 6’6″ respectively. Pat Cummins is relatively short in such company, at only 6’4″. But even Cummins, the shortest of the three, is two standard deviations above the mean height of Australian males.

Fast bowlers tend to be tall for the same reason that baseball pitchers tend to be tall. The taller someone is, the longer their arms. The longer the arms, the higher the handspeed at point of release (all other things being equal). And the higher the handspeed, the faster the delivery. So international fast bowlers are almost always taller than their national average.

The national average, of course, varies from nation to nation. But it is precisely here that the current cricketing setup advantages some nations and disdvantages others.

Richard Dawkins has explained that civilisation has the effect of making populations smaller over the long-term. This it does by removing the major selective advantage in favour of large size, which is capacity for violence. In a state of Nature, a capacity for violence is the primary determinant of whether a man gets to pass his genes on to following generations. In a state of civilisation, the violent are executed and don’t pass their genes on.

So countries such as India, whose people have been civilised for several millennia, have long since lost a strong selective pressure in favour of size and capacity for violence. Countries with people of Northern European descent, whose people were barely civilised at all as recently as a thousand years ago, maintained that selective pressure much longer. Hence, Northern European men today are much bigger than Indian ones.

If the average height of an Anglo-Saxon male aged between 20 and 35 (the demographic that produces the vast majority of Australian cricketers) in Australia is 5’10”, and if this demographic is 10% of the total Australian population, then there are about 2.5 million men in this population.

If the average standard deviation of male Anglo-Saxon height in Australia is about three inches, then a player like Starc or Hazlewood is about three standard deviations above average. This means that players of their height are about 1 in 740 among the general population. 2.5 million divided by 740 gives us 3,378 – the number of Australian men tall and young enough to be extremely effective international fast bowlers.

Let’s assume that those young and male enough to make the Indian cricket team are also 10% of the population. But their average height is significantly less than that of the average Anglo-Saxon Australian – 5’5″-5’6″. So in order to be around Starc’s or Hazlewood’s height, the average Indian male has to be 4.5 standard deviations above the mean. This makes them much rarer – only about one in 300,000 Indian men will be that tall.

So if all the men aged between 20 and 35 in India comprise 10% of the nation’s population of 1.4 billion, this makes 140 million young enough for the national cricket team. Of them, only some 467 will be of a similar height to Starc or Hazlewood.

In other words, Australia has 7-8 times as many men tall enough to be extremely effective international fast bowlers as India does. This is despite that India has over 50 times as many people.

The conclusion from all of this mathematics is simple: the normalisation of fast bowling as the standard method of bowling a cricket ball provides an unfair advantage to countries with taller populations (the West Indies are also a beneficiary here, as anyone who saw Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose or Courtney Walsh bowling will know).

The Indian phenotype, being shorter and with much more flexible wrists than white people, is far better suited to spin bowling. The more flexible one’s wrist, the easier it is to put large spin on the ball, and the greater the spin the higher the likelihood of taking wickets.

Racial equity in cricket, then, would require the normalisation of the idea that fast bowling and spin bowling were arts deserving of equal attention.

The situation facing the Indian Test team, and Ravi Ashwin in particular, is a disgrace. Ashwin is currently the world’s No. 1 Test bowler by far. The fact that he can’t find a place in the team when India tours England – because conditions in England have been manufactured to suit fast bowling on the basis that that’s normal bowling – is an absurdity.

The main argument of this essay is that genuine racial equality in cricket does not involve any Marxist nonsense, but is chiefly a matter of providing conditions that suit spin just as much as seam.

This might even entail a requirement that conditions in non-Asian countries be manufactured so that teams bowl at least 40% of their overs in spin (averaged across a season), and of the players’ own volition. That way, it could be said that bowling in cricket was something for all possible physiques, not just the tall and strong.

Such a measure would tip the balance back towards skill from strength. Cricket is primarily a game of skill – in contrast to sports like wrestling, boxing or rugby, where strength is the most important factor. Extreme skill on display has always been cricket’s major appeal. Forcing balance between pace and spin could be the way to maximise the skill component of cricket, and to minimise the strength component.

Eventually this might entail that international cricket teams would bowl around half their overs in pace and half in spin.

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!

Where To Now For The Freedom Movement?

Another General Election has been held in New Zealand. The special votes are yet to be counted, but one thing is already clear: the political establishment won the election, and the freedom movement lost. While we wait to see exactly which form of the political establishment will rule over us for the next three years, there’s an opportunity to take stock of where we are and where we’re going.

Let’s recount the history of the actual freedom movement.

In a New Zealand context the freedom movement truly began with the opposition to World War One. New Zealand introduced conscription in 1916. This meant the Government forced Kiwis to fight overseas to kill the enemies of the international bankers who rule the Anglo world. Naturally, sane people opposed this, leading to them becoming labelled as “conscientious objectors“.

Conscription is a major freedom issue. There are few more egregious examples of totalitarianism than forcing men to kill people they don’t know for reasons they don’t understand. The conscientious objectors to conscription in World Wars One and Two were therefore the first real freedom fighters in New Zealand. Archibald Baxter was a household name for this reason.

The battle against globalist military adventurism continued with the battles against compulsory military training, which didn’t end in New Zealand until 1972. The basic principle remained: freedom fighters oppose the Government forcing people to do things that aren’t in their interest.

When forced militarism ended in the wake of the end of the Vietnam War, the globalist control freaks opened up a new front against the peoples of the world in the form of the Drug War. Locking people up in prison for using medicinal substances or spiritual sacraments might not be as brutal as conscripting them into battle, but the callous sadism of it was enough to spark resistance.

The names of the freedom fighters who resisted the War on Drugs are numerous. Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, Terence McKenna, Jack Herer and many others fought for the freedom to explore our own minds free of government interference. Inspired by such people, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party was founded in 1996.

After the 20th Century ended we got 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act introduced restrictions on civil liberties that were previously considered unthinkable. First and foremost, it allowed for widespread spying on and surveillance of American citizens by the American Government. Incredible volumes of information were collected on everyone in an effort to predict the next terrorist attack.

These measures were soon copied by other Anglo nations, leading to the Search and Surveillance Act in New Zealand. The end result was a new wave of freedom fighters. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are among the best known of those who resisted the new totalitarianism, this being more like Big Brother than even Orwell had predicted.

Recently we have seen the Covid pandemic excuse a new suite of totalitarian measures from the authorities. Vaccine mandates outraged a large number of people and led to the Parliament Lawn protests in 2022. These protests were one of the major achievements of the freedom movement in New Zealand, and created another new wave of people who understood the value of freedom for its own sake.

Looking back at all of these battles, some patterns are evident.

First, the freedom movement is primarily a movement against government coercion. It’s not terrorism to understand that governments often have different interests to their citizens. When those interests clash, governments often use their monopoly on violence to force the citizens to do the governments’ bidding.

The freedom movement isn’t primarily a moral crusade. It isn’t primarily a temperance, chastity or Puritanical movement. It might contain elements of those things on occasion, but the number one enemy is government forcing the citizens to do things against their own interests (as determined by the citizens). The freedom movement is certainly not about using the power of government to coerce others to behave morally.

Second, the freedom movement is against the freedom to cause harm to others. We must observe Zechariah Chafee’s maxim that “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” As such, no marital rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers, slavery advocates, hard drug traffickers, cheap labour importers or vaccine mandate supporters need be included.

These two points give us a much better idea of what we can agree freedom is, and therefore what the freedom movement is about.

Kelvyn Alp’s suggestion was to not worry about freedom so much, and to focus on truth instead. This means facts and evidence first and foremost. This makes sense as freedoms are usually downstream from perceptions of truth. Unfortunately there are many different ideas about what truth is, and many different ideas about how to determine truth from falsehood.

It seems that the freedom movement can’t make any progress until we develop a coherent fundamental philosophy. This will have to include the values and beliefs commonly agreed upon by those who genuinely desire freedom. Perhaps the model to follow is the American Constitutional Convention that took place after the American Revolution.

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!

Why People Are Helping Tom Phillips Hide From The Police

When I was younger, I had a family member in the trade of supplying medicinal cannabis to people with various conditions, including Huntington’s disease. One day the New Zealand Police caught wind of his operation, so they came to his house, arrested him, and chucked him in a cage with rapists and murderers for nine months.

He came out damaged – not physically, but with a transparent case of C-PTSD. Evidently the nine months of constant physical threat caused serious trauma and brain damage. He came out paranoid, aggressive, bullying, abusive and impulsive, seeing threats and dangers everywhere. Another casualty of the War on Drugs.

Shortly afterwards (in 1990), I was watching the television news with some of my family when there was a report about a Police officer who had died falling from a helicopter sling during a cannabis recovery operation. Upon hearing this, my family cheered. Comments about how the only good pig was a dead one were made. A dead Police officer was a dead enemy.

Our family suffered greatly from the law against cannabis, and we are far from the only ones. This century alone, tens of thousands of Kiwi families have been destroyed by cannabis prohibition – destroyed by New Zealand Police officers who mindlessly enforced a cruel and unjust law written by scum politicians.

The net result is that everyone in my family – like tens of thousands of others – hates the Police. We don’t see them as heroes keeping the community safe, but rather as the footsoldiers of tyrannical filth – no different to the enforcers of every other despot.

Upon hearing such things, most mainstream Kiwis react with denial. My family must just be really fucked up, most people conclude. But mainstream Kiwis, secluded from the underbelly of society, don’t understand that there is a large segment of the New Zealand population who hate the Police and consider them the enemy of anyone who wants to live freely in peace.

Many such Kiwis are wondering how “fugitive” Tom Phillips has managed to evade the New Zealand Police for so long. The part of New Zealand in which Phillips is hiding is not so big, the Police have surveillance capacities that most of us couldn’t dream of, and Phillips has been featured on television several times. Why haven’t they got him yet?

Based on the fact that my own family has harboured people on the run from the law, I can make a good guess. In all likelihood, Phillips has an entire community of people looking out for him. They know that the Police are looking for Phillips – and that makes him the good guy, the same way that Sauron hunting for Frodo made Frodo the good guy.

Because law enforcement has always eagerly served tyrants, there have always been communities that served as Underground Railroads, helping to keep the victims of oppression free from “justice”. In principle, there is little fundamental difference between an Underground Railroad hiding escaped slaves from the authorities, and a hypothetical community of social outsiders hiding other people falsely accused of being criminals, whether political dissidents, spiritual sacrament users or Tom Phillips.

I can all but guarantee that there are at least a hundred people who know where Tom Phillips is, and they’re all keeping quiet because they hate the Police, knowing them to be agents of tyranny. Almost certainly those hundred personally know victims of previous human rights abuses carried out by New Zealand law enforcement. These people feel that by defying the Police, who are evil, they are doing good.

Understanding why Tom Phillips has so many supporters is a matter of understanding why the New Zealand political establishment has so many enemies. And this has a simple explanation: the New Zealand political establishment is evil, and has a history of causing suffering to innocent people without moral justification.

There is only one possible solution to this dilemma.

It’s not to reform the Police. The Police will always be the same: unthinking dogs obeying their masters. They’re incapable of being anything else. In practice, the Police are a tool, like an automatic rifle. Used wisely, they’re capable of preventing great harm. Used unwisely, they’re capable of inflicting great harm.

Therefore, our solution is to reform the political class, so that they do the right thing, and do not direct the Police to cause harm. All victimless crimes must be abolished. Those who made crimes out of victimless actions have to be punished. Those who waged the War on Drugs on the New Zealand people have to be tried with treason.

If we want the New Zealand Police to operate in harmony with the population they’re policing, and not as an America-style cudgel of the state with which the population are beaten into submission, then we need a new policing philosophy. Perhaps one in which individual Police officers were empowered to – or perhaps even obliged to – disobey unjust laws. This may be impossible without a New Zealand Constitution.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms! https://linktr.ee/vjmpublishing
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books! https://www.amazon.com/author/vincemcleod

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!

Newspeak in 2023

In 1984, the purpose of Newspeak was to make anti-government thoughts impossible. The logic was that if people were prevented by language from talking about opposing the government, they’d also be prevented from thinking about it. Being unable to think about opposing the government, they’d make perfect slaves.

In the West of 2023, our rulers have forced a form of Newspeak on us. As in 1984, the purpose of it is to make dissent impossible. The major difference is that, in our world, Newspeak works by confusing and corrupting existing definitions of words. This has the effect of making communication impossible, and thereby making resistance impossible.

The word ‘racist’ is the classic example of twisted definitions. The word used to refer to people with racial prejudice, who expressed contempt for others for no other reason than their race. But over time, as people displayed a willingness to submit to those shrieking racist, the definition expanded. Today some will argue that the term can only refer to white people.

Ther term ‘racist’ is now so overused that you can be called racist for resisting racism, such as if you say ‘It’s Okay To Be White’. ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ is an explicitly anti-racist statement, used primarily by working-class whites in response to comments such as that of Marama Davidson. That it can be considered racist shows that words (and phrases) can be twisted to their exact opposites in the Newspeak of 2023.

‘Nazi’ is a related example. Originally used to refer to members of the German NSDAP of 1920-1945, it’s now so overused that any nationalist or anti-globalist sentiments are written off as Nazi ones. Today, almost any unfashionable opinion attracts cries of Nazism.

As with racist, a person can explicitly decry Nazism, to the extent of listing multiple grievances with the doctrine, and still get accused of being a Nazi. Trying to distinguish between the nationalist aspects of Nazism and the totalitarian aspects is not permitted. To do so is to become a “Nazi apologist”.

‘Far right’ relates to the above examples. Logically, if the right-wing is capitalist then the far-right ought to refer to hypercapitalist neoliberals like the ACT Party. Bizzarely, however, those described as far-right today are primarily working-class nationalists, whose main complaint is often the corporate importation of cheap labour. Somehow the right-wing are corporates while the far-right is anti-corporate.

‘Nation’ no longer means a population united by ties of blood and soil, as it has always meant. In the Newspeak of 2023, national ties are just like masks that a person puts on and takes off as needed. Anyone can claim to be of any nationality. The dumbing-down of language has obscured the difference between roots citizens and paper citizens. All are considered part of one big club, defined not by Nature but by the Government.

‘Disinformation’ now means ‘anything said by someone the Government doesn’t like’. This has been made evident by the New Zealand Government’s Disinformation Project, which serves as a Ministry of Truth, smearing anyone who speaks out against the ruling class. Enemies of the Government, in Newspeak, are incapable of speaking the truth. Everything they say is either disinformation, misinformation or malinformation.

‘The economy’ now means ‘the interests of international banking and finance’. It doesn’t have anything to do with the material needs of the nation being met. Today’s Newspeak will claim that the economy is doing well because unemployment is low, and will ignore the fact that most of those jobs don’t pay enough for the workers to own homes and raise families.

It doesn’t matter if people can raise families, because, as per the Newspeak definition of nation, the nation doesn’t need families. It can just import them from overseas, and as long as the GDP goes up it’s all good. Herein it can be seen that the Newspeak of 2023 is a form of neoliberal totalitarianism, unlike the national socialist and communist forms of totalitarianism in surface ways, but like them in fundamental ways.

‘Conspiracy theorist’, heard often in the mainstream media of 2023, is classic Newspeak. It’s another term for wrongthinker, denoting someone who is outside of society, a memetic outlaw. Even though human history is a parade of conspiracies, one after the other, anyone who notices a conspiracy in 2023 is equated with the severely mentally ill. ‘Conspiracy theorist’, in 2023 speak, is a synonymn for ‘schizophrenic’, i.e. a person whose paranoia leads them to see things that aren’t there.

There’s a reason why Confucius said that, if he were to be offered power, the first thing he would do would be the “rectification of names” i.e. he would make sure that words had accurate, commonly-understood meanings again. Newspeak was a thing in ancient China just as it was in 1984, and just as it is in 2023. Wherever you have totalitarianism, you have centralised attempts to control expression.

“In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it,” Orwell wrote. In 2023 thoughtcrime has been made impossible by the fact that each of us has been trapped in a silo of language, where communication is crippled by an absence of common understanding of the words we are using.

The Newspeak of 2023 has twisted all language, not to the service of Big Brother, but to globohomo – the alliance of globalist capitalism and globalist communism that has forced neoliberalism on the populations of the West. It’s no longer a sure thing that, when a person uses a particular word, that their audience will understand the intended meaning of that word. And so, we’re too confused to resist our ruling classes.

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!