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 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!

Clean And Dirty Information, And How To Tell The Difference

This essay describes a concept in information science. This is a concept that is of extreme importance in today’s Post-Truth Age, now that the media is even more full of propaganda than usual. It relates to the art and science of deciding whether a given set of information is trustworthy.

There are already conceptions of clean vs. dirty data. However, those conceptions are inadequate, because cleanliness is considered the same thing as accuracy. As such, they are not useful, because it would be simpler and easier just to use the term ‘accurate’ instead of ‘clean’.

A useful conception of clean vs. dirty information has to take into account the moral dimension of the people promulgating the information. Essentially, then, clean information comes from a clean source who cares about the truth only, with no view to the propaganda value of the information, and dirty information comes from a dirty source, who doesn’t care about the truth at all.

This division is very simple, but applying it in the real world of propaganda is highly complex.

For one thing, it takes great knowledge of the world and of the people in it to make accurate judgments about other people’s biases. The usual, poorly-educated approach is to trust people based on whether they have attributes in common with oneself: race, class, education, occupation etc. The more qualities they have in common, the more trusted.

Another poorly-educated approach used by many people is to determine truth based on whether the speaker has a high rank in the listener’s herd or not. So one’s pastor, boss, father or club leader becomes the authority to which one listens. All that matters is a high position in a friendly dominance hierarchy. This was the approach described in detail by Edward Bernays in Propaganda.

It can safely be said that all information from a political source is dirty. Any press release put out by a political party can be considered filthy. So can any article or book written by a member of a political party. The greater the influence of politics on any source of information, the dirtier it is.

It can also safely be said that most information from religious sources, particularly Abrahamic ones, is dirty. This is especially true of those who are seeking to gain followers for money or political power. Anyone who says that you have to obey them or suffer everlasting pushishment in a Hell Realm can be confidently written off as a dirty source. But in this regard, as with others, the world’s religions vary greatly.

Here it’s necessary to look at the reputations of the people pushing the information. Have they murdered their way around the world over the centuries? Do they regularly sexually abuse their children? Do they practice barbarisms such as infant genital mutilation? Do they have transparently sadistic animal slaughter protocols?

Perhaps there was once a time when the mainstream media was a clean source of information. This was back in the times when honest people chose to become journalists for the sake of spreading the truth (i.e. before the Charlie Mitchells took over). Today, no rational or intelligent person can trust anything in the mainstream media.

It used to be possible to trust scientists, because a lot of the people drawn to academia are the sort of person who values truth above merely material concerns such as political power or wealth. But then corporations started buying research favourable to their products. It turns out that scientists are only slightly harder to buy than politicians.

Who actually does tell the truth?

In order to reliably tell the truth, a person has to believe that there are positive consequences for speaking truth and negative consequences for telling lies. They have to believe in something like karma, or at least the Law of Attraction, before they can be trusted to put the truth before their own interests.

This is to say that it’s possible to trust genuinely spiritual people. But there, again, is another major problem: usually it’s impossible to tell if someone is genuinely spiritual or not. The low-IQ approach is to trust people at the top of the same religious herd as yourself. High-IQ people go on the reputation of the source among other high-IQ people.

If you would ask the ten most intelligent people you know who they consider clean sources of information, and if more than one of them suggested the same source, you could be reasonably sure that source was clean. This is the same logic as academic peer review, and, while an effective way of distinguishing clean from dirty, it’s far from infallible.

The tough news is that there’s no truly reliable way to tell if someone is a clean source of information other than going through everything they have written or said, comparing all facts therein stated to known truths, and subjecting their logic to the most rigourous examination. If they regularly make predictions that turn out to be false, that’s a good sign they’re a dirty source.

Perhaps the two rules of thumb are firstly: never trust an authority figure, because they have reason to lie to you. Secondly: prefer to trust someone who is trusted by smart people and distrusted by dumb people.

The great thing about clean information is that it can be absorbed without the need to take time and energy correcting for bias. A truly clean source of information is worth gold in the information marketplace of 2023. In this age of pervasive AI-generated content though, best of luck finding it.

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!

The Point Of Pushing A Language You Don’t Understand Is To Humiliate You

Most people have noticed all the Boomers getting mad recently about Maori language. Those of us who don’t watch the news have trouble comprehending the extent to which Boomers feel humiliated by non-English language use in mainstream media. The tendency among the young is to laugh in mockery, but there is a sinister agenda behind the control system’s actions.

It’s true that it’s humiliating being spoken to in a language you don’t understand. It feels very much like being a child again, helpless and not respected. It also feels like when you’re out of your depth intellectually, when you are stupid.

In either case, it’s a deeply disempowering and unsettling experience for most people (those of us who have lived in non-English speaking areas for a while usually don’t care, but few are privileged enough to have such an experience). Especially for those old enough to have already developed a grievance about the degree of future shock that modern life placed them under.

However, humiliating the plebs is precisely why the ruling class push languages that aren’t understood.

Theodore Dalrymple once stated that “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.”

The Communists today are now part of Globohomo, the authoritarian Communist-Capitalist alliance that rules over Clown World. The logic of authoritarianism, however, is the same. Just as the schoolyard bully and the domestic tyrant induce submission through abuse, so too does the authoritarian government.

They can’t get away with corporal punishment anymore, so they focus on psychological punishment. Humiliation is the major component of that.

It is always authoritarians who bully people into pronouncing words the way those authoritarians want them pronounced. The libertarian is happy to let people pronounce words different ways, just like they’re happy to let people follow different religions. It’s just culture, part of the rich smorgasbord of life. Not so the authoritarian.

For the authoritarian, it’s always a matter of “respect” that you do what you’re told. You have to kneel down and obey your masters otherwise someone, somewhere, will be disrespected.

The authoritarian puts signs up telling the local people how to pronounce their own street names (see image at top, from outside the Nelson Library). As per the Dalrymple quote, it doesn’t correspond to reality to state that the people who live somewhere don’t know how to pronounce their own streets and neighbourhoods, and that they need to be told by the Government. But stating such absurdities increases the humiliation, so they do it.

The message is that you are too stupid to know how to pronounce your own streets and neighbourhoods. Therefore, you have to be taught the same way you were taught basic life lessons in kindergarten.

The implication is that everything about your culture might prove to be wrong. If you didn’t even know how to pronounce your own street, how can you be sure that free speech is really important?

The undertone is simple: you don’t belong here.

Forcing Maori language serves to remind the majority of New Zealand that this is someone else’s country. No matter how long your ancestors have lived here, you don’t really belong. Therefore, there’s no need to struggle for freedom or dignity. There’s no need to fight to rid New Zealand of political corruption. Just give up!

This is also why the control system tirelessly hounds you about pronouncing words incorrectly. If you have to be told, over and over again, how to pronounce Tauranga correctly, maybe you’re stupid? And, if you’re stupid, maybe the Government should just get on with things without needing your input?

Same deal with putting Maori language first on road signs and the names of Government departments. The whole point of this is not to encourage Maori langauge use. The point is to humiliate and, through humiliation, to induce submission to the ruling class.

None of this is an argument against the Maori language. I agree that te reo is a treasure and that learning to speak it will open up new avenues of thought. I agree that there are concepts in Maori that non-Maoris would benefit from learning. I agree that bilingual children tend to be smarter and have a much easier time learning further languages.

The best way to promote it, however, would be to emphasise such rational and logical arguments without force. That way, there wouldn’t be such a powerful counterreaction to it.

The force, however, is the point, because it humiliates. Humiliation engenders submission, which is the end goal of authoritarians everywhere.

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!

Jordan Peterson’s Unthinkable Corollary

One of the topics that Jordan Peterson most enjoys lecturing us about is how we would have all been Nazis if we had lived in 1930s Germany. Peterson once said “I teach my students that had they been in Nazi Germany during the 1930s they would have been Nazis.” But there’s a corollary to Peterson’s logic – one that he himself dare not consider.

Peterson is an exceptionally knowledgeable psychologist and there’s little inaccurate about what he said. It’s true that human beings are social animals. As Edward Bernays wrote almost a century ago, people don’t tend to form their opinions by thinking about them, but rather by mindlessly aping authority figures.

Humans are not only social animals, we’re also herd animals. Like other herd animals, consensus is valued higher than truth. The consensus-setters are those who rule. In a state of Nature, that’s the strongest alpha male. In the modern West, it’s the invisible goverment that regiments the opinions of the masses through media control.

Media control allows the ruling class to shape the prevailing social narratives. Then, as per human nature, anyone going against any of those narratives is shunned, ridiculed and ostracised. Then the rest fall in line. In practice, it doesn’t actually matter what those narratives are. The vast majority of people will go along with any common narrative, no matter how ridiculous.

It’s an egoic delusion, Peterson loves to remind us, to think that we would have been immune to the propaganda of the 1930s, had we lived then. We are not immune to propaganda. Neither are we immune to social pressure. As such, we would have goose-stepped along with the rest of them.

Peterson is right to labour the point that the vast majority of 1930s Germans were not political philosophers, but rather just ordinary people, getting dragged along by the social currents of their time. Just like us! But then Peterson, happy to have delivered his sermon, ends it there.

The only problem with Peterson’s line of thought is that it doesn’t go far enough. There is a corollary to Peterson’s argument, one that Peterson dares not think about.

Namely: if the NSDAP had won the war, then according to Peterson’s own logic, we’d all be sitting here praising them today. If the NSDAP, and not Anglo-American capitalists, had won World War II, it would be the NSDAP setting the official moral agenda. They would control all of the world’s media. Thus, they would comprise the invisible government that shaped the world’s opinions.

If the NSDAP had won World War II and wiped the Jews out, then according to Peterson’s own logic, he himself would be telling people right now how that was the right thing to do. He himself would be lecturing people about how Nazi morality was self-evidently true as per the Will of God, and that the swastika represented order in contrast to the chaos of Marxism and Bolshevism.

Peterson might even be telling us that Hitler was the second coming of Rabbi Yeshua, the proof being that both Hitler and Rabbi Yeshua were opposed by the Jewish establishment of their time. If he did, he would be acting entirely consistently with his own admonition that, if modern people were transported back to 1930s Germany, they would be Nazis.

For him to deny this would be for him to contradict himself. It would mean that he had fallen prey to the same egoic delusion that he has been lecturing others about. In fact, psychological science tells us that had the Nazis won World War II, we would all be Nazis today. And just as globalist logic is self-evident to us today, so would Nazi logic be self-evident to us had they won.

In the same way that anyone wanting to become an academic today must deny the science of race and IQ so as to appease the globalist victors of World War II, anyone wanting to become an academic in the Nazi victory timeline would not be allowed to deny it. They would have to be a eugenicist, whether they liked it or not.

Most people, upon hearing this argument, will deny it stenuously (our morals in 2023, of course, don’t come from an invisible government but from pure reason). Hence it is described as an unthinkable corollary.

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!