Making Sense Of Abrahamic Morality

There are some 3 billion Abrahamists in the world, most of them Christians, Muslims and Jews. As such, understanding the human race requires that we understand the mindset of Abrahamists. It’s impossible to ask the Abrahamists about themselves, because they always lie to make their cults look good. So it’s necessary to take a non-Abrahamic perspective.

The most difficult thing to understand about Abrahamists is their contradictory nature. On the one hand, they all claim to have the blueprint for peace on Earth, if only more people would follow them. On the other, their history is littered with murders, tortures, witch burnings, rapes and massacres.

Elementalism provides the answers to the Abrahamic paradox.

In Elementalism, it is understood that Yahweh, the God of Abraham, is none other than the Principle of Evil. As a consequence, the religions that worship this god are evil ones. The followers of those religions are some degree of evil as well. Some are merely deluded, but the majority have wilfully chosen to promulgate evil, on account of that their souls are rotten.

Genuine spiritual traditions have always laboured the need to change oneself if one wishes to change the world, a mindset Gandhi summarised as “Be the change you want to see in the world.” As an anti-spirituality, Abrahamism seeks to change the world rather than change oneself. This is why Abrahamists are always on a moral crusade.

Whether it’s Jews with their tikkun olam or Christians and Muslims with their degeneracy, Abrahamists are obsessed with setting other people to rights, and ignoring their own flaws. Abrahamists have been instructed to go to war with the world for one ultimate, underlying purpose: to do evil.

Elemental Elementalism states: the true will of Abrahamists is “to cause as much harm and misery as they can, whether physical, emotional, mental or spiritual” (46:28). This line is the key to understanding Abrahamic morality.

Physical harm is shown by the Abrahamist’s love of child abuse. When New Zealand banned hitting children, it was mostly Christian pressure groups that came out in opposition. Even today, Christian fascists like Bob McCoskrie propagandise in favour of hitting children.

If Abrahamists aren’t bashing their kids they’re raping them. The extent of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church is legendary. The extent to which the Catholic Church covers up for child abusers among them is also legendary. But all Abrahamics abuse children.

Muslims have the concept of bacha bazi, in which young boys are bought and sold for dancing and sex. Jews practice metzitzah b’peh, in which a mohel sucks the blood from a freshly mutilated boy’s penis. Any normal, mentally healthy person who reads about metzitzah b’peh will understand intuitively that the people performing it are demons.

That the Abrahamist is constantly at war is also evidence of his sadism. Christians like to claim that the coming of their cult was the coming of an age of peace, as if the Thirty Years’ War never happened. There’s always an excuse for all the wars started by Christians. When Orthodox Russia invades Ukraine, and kills hundreds of thousands in the name of “desatanisation”, it somehow isn’t Christianity’s fault. Same as when George W Bush invades Iraq because he thought he heard the voice of Yahweh telling him to do so.

Muslims and Jews are no different. Muslims will claim that they only ever fight defensive wars, as if it were possible to conquer from Spain to Indonesia though only defensive warfare. Jews deny the existence of their mass murderers: they will tell you that Yagoda and Kaganovich were Russian, and that Kissinger was German.

The Abrahamist’s opposition to abortion also reveals his will to increase the suffering in the world. There are few ways to cause greater suffering than to force a mother to birth and raise a child she doesn’t want. But this is exactly why Abrahamists support forced births. They know that the psychological damage that tends to be inflicted on unwanted children creates a wave of misery that ripples through the whole society.

Emotional abuse is demonstrated by the Abrahamist’s love of ostracisation. Any cult member who starts asking questions is at risk of being expelled and never spoken to again by the others. The Abrahamic cults aren’t like normal religions, in that people are encouraged to explore a diversity of schools of thought. In Abrahamism, you’re given one truth, and everyone else is the enemy.

Out-group antipathy is so strong in Abrahamism that those suffering ostracisation often end up with Religious Trauma Syndrome. “You are not okay” and “you are not safe” are the two characteristic narratives of traumatic religion-based upbringings. They’re also characteristic narratives of Abrahamism.

This form of abuse is particularly vicious in Islam, where people leaving the cult are routinely murdered. Thirteen countries currently have the death penalty for apostasy, all of them Islamic shitholes. Seven of these also have the death penalty for blasphemy. One of easily imagine the type of person that this kind of emotional abuse tends to create.

Intellectual suffering is caused mostly by the Abrahamist’s opposition to education and learning.

Christians have always suppressed the educated. Celsus wrote of them in the second century “This is one of their rules. Let no man that is learned, wise, or prudent come among us: but if they be unlearned, or a child, or an idiot, let him freely come. So they openly declare that none but the ignorant, and those devoid of understanding, slaves, women, and children, are fit disciples for the God they worship.”

Such a mindset led to the murder of Hypatia, the murder of Giordano Bruno, and the 1,200 years of murder inbetween, known today as the Dark Ages. During this time, Christians destroyed so much of the ancient European knowledge that people forgot that the Earth went around the Sun (common knowledge in ancient Europe since the time of Aristarchus).

Today’s Christians now pretend they have always been in favour of science and learning (the Christians with the most chutzpah even claim their cult invented science). Muslims, on the other hand, don’t even pretend. They generally don’t care for reading, whether original works or in translation.

The greatest suffering caused by the Abrahamist is spiritual.

Firstly, they repress genuine spirituality. When Christians invaded Europe, they did not seek co-existence with the European religions, but rather sought to destroy them. The Massacre of Verden, in which 4,500 Saxon nobles were murdered for refusing to abandon the European religions, is probably the most famous example of the lengths to which they were willing to go to achieve this goal.

The War on Drugs is not usually understood as a Christian attempt to suppress genuine spirituality, but it is. The reason why Christians oppose the legalisation of cannabis, psilocybin and other spiritual sacraments is that they know these substances are spiritual sacraments. Therefore, they know that to prohibit them is to force people to suffer in spiritual darkness.

Secondly, Abrahamists promote lies in place of spirituality. The narrative that anyone who doesn’t follow the same religion as the Abrahamist is going to Hell is a psychological crime. It denies the fundamental spiritual truths of reincarnation and karma. So, too, Abrahamic narratives that the world is evil and that pleasure is evil.

The narrative that you can skip out on your karmic debt by pledging your soul to Rabbi Yeshua or to Muhammad is lunacy, a sop to the egos of the wilfully delusional. Hence the Abrahamists push it. Another lunacy is pushing an End Times narrative instead of the truth about the cyclical nature of history and of reality. The more lies, the more confusion; the more confusion, the more suffering.

In summary, Abrahamic morality can be simply understood as doing evil and attempts to justify doing evil. Abrahamists seek to maximise the suffering in the world so as to please their god Yahweh, the Principle of Evil. All of their moral actions follow logically from this.

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!

Looks Like We’re Communists Again

With the announcement this week of a Sixth National Government and its two coalition partners, New Zealand society will now go through some moderate changes. Some cosmetic changes will be made regarding language in Government communications. Taxes will be raised slightly on poor people and lowered slightly for landlords. Nothing fundamental will change, but perceptions will.

One of the most obvious changes will be in the mainstream media. The New Zealand mainstream media has, until now, been paid to cheerlead for the Sixth Labour Government through the Public Interest Journalism Fund, which bunged $55 million to propaganda organs like Stuff.

Some think that the mainstream media will have to be “objective” now that the Marxists are out of power. This is a delusion. In reality, the mainstream media will cheerlead for the capitalists from now on, just as they did up until 2017. Many supposedly left-wing journalists will make an apparent total flip to the right-wing in coming months.

Related to this will be the closure of the more blatant propaganda outlets, such as the Disinformation Project and the Spinoff. People like Kate Hannah and Sanjana Hattotuwa, employed by a leftist government to smear and harass their enemies, will be out of jobs.

Another change will be in the alternative media – and the public perceptions of the alternative media.

VJM Publishing will not change our approach or our focus. We will continue to provide information to those who have seen beyond, from an Elementalist and an alternative centrist perspective. We will continue to provide a high-quality, properly-referenced alternative to the corporatist dross that passes for information today.

We will continue to go hard at the political establishment, and against the constant lies they tell in order to divide and conquer the peoples of the world. However, whatever VJM Publishing does, we will be told that it’s a reaction to the political fashions of the time. And so, perceptions of us will change.

From when this company was founded to 2017, John Key’s Fifth National Government was in charge of New Zealand. As a consequence, our criticism of the then Government led to us being dismissed as Communists. Logical and reasonable criticisms of the housing crisis were written off as Marxist propaganda.

Then, when Jacinda Ardern became the Prime Minister, all the narratives flipped. One of those was the perception of VJM Publishing. Now that we criticised an apparently left-learning government, we were no longer Communists. Now we were Nazis.

All of our criticisms of Labour’s globalist approach – exemplified by their doubling the refugee quota in 2017 – were twisted around and became “Nazi tropes”. All of the reasoning that opposed refugee resettlement from a working-class perspective was ignored. Labour was in charge, and if you don’t agree with them you’re a Nazi.

So now that the right-leaning wing of the Establishment is back in control, the herd will start calling us Communists again. We will continue to criticise the Government for inaction on housing, mental health, wages and child abuse, only now we’ll get called Communists for that instead of getting called Nazis.

It won’t change our attitude. Telling the truth is the highest of all actions. We are now in a time of universal deceit. Therefore, as per Orwell, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. We will continue to tell the truth, and the ruling class will continue to decry us as enemies of society. It’ll be fun!

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 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 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!