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

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 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!

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!

Why I’m Voting New Zealand Loyal This Saturday

I’m voting for New Zealand Loyal this Saturday. I make a point of never voting for the same party two elections in a row, because I don’t want to feel like I can ever trust one of the bastards. I voted ALCP in 2020, so can’t vote for them again this year, and don’t want to abstain again like I did in 2017.

The mainstream parties, however, don’t appeal. National and ACT seem like nasty money-worshippers. Labour and Greens hate me because I have white skin. All four are globalists who want more cheap labour imports, leading to lower wages and higher rents, the last thing my working-class family needs. I cannot, with good sense, vote for any of them.

New Zealand First is not really an alternative. They might be nationalist instead of globalist, which is a big plus. But they are still opportunist liars. Their refusal to support cannabis law reform demonstrated to me that they’re not really interested in freedom. As such, I could not support them with a clean conscience.

As existing followers of my work will know, I am an alternative centrist. This means that I oppose the political establishment (alternative), but consider the alternative left and the alternative right both dangerous extremists (centrist). I believe the American Revolutionaries came closer than anyone else to getting it right.

So when I went to see Liz Gunn and Peter Vaughan of New Zealand Loyal speak in Nelson on the 5th October, I went expecting to not vote in this year’s election. None of the other parties, I already knew, were alternative centrists. The closest was the Hamas-supporting Greens on the alternative left and the soulless ACT Party on the alternative right. Neither were good enough.

At the Nelson meeting, Gunn put forward what I felt to be a nationalist alternative centrist narrative, one that I have long argued for myself.

It was nationalist. Gunn’s refusal to work with globalists particularly appealed (the globalists are the ‘them’ of “Loyal to you. Not to them”). One of the messages that I endeavour to push is that globalists are the natural enemy of every single national group that wants to live in peace. Unfortunately, few New Zealand politicians accurately perceive the globalist menace (Peters is perhaps the only other).

It was alternative. Gunn excoriated the political establishment and their various freedom-thieving schemes, and showed interest in a number of issues that the mainstream media would dismiss as “conspiracy theory”. Among these were water fluoridation, Marsden Point, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum.

It was also centrist. To win the right-wing voters, there were the obligatory spiels about the 1% tax and the evils of Labour’s abortion law. But it wasn’t all right-wing. Gunn also expressed her support for the Portuguese model of ending the War on Drugs, and suggested that, if a NZ Loyal supporter didn’t have an NZ Loyal candidate in their electorate, they should vote for the ALCP one (which I will do, being in the Te Tai Tonga electorate).

I’m appalled by leftists. I hate it how they have completely abandoned the New Zealand working-class in favour of fashionable issues coming out of American universities. Workers can’t own homes but they expect me to care about trans rights? I hate it how I can’t talk to them about how working-class Kiwis would benefit from less immigration, lest they sneer at me and call me a racist.

I’m even more appalled by the right-wing attitude to life. The snivelling, moralising, cowardly forces that wanted to ban Mortal Kombat video games and ban Eminem CDs and ban cannabis and ban everything that anyone might enjoy in life, lest one displease some sadistic patriarch in the clouds, are not friends of mine either. To deny life is a slave’s mindset.

I’m most appalled by the New Zealand political establishment. It is sadistic to sit and support the status quo while so many Kiwis are suffering from homelessness, inaccessible mental healthcare, poverty wages and traumatic stress disorders. If the left wing and the right wing are misguided, the political establishment is cruel.

So I’m an alternative centrist. I was already convinced of New Zealand Loyal’s alternative credentials, thus the support for ending the Drug War sealed the deal for me.

The fact that many of the influencers in the so-called “freedom movement” take the authoritarian side when it comes to the Drug War had already ruled out that I would ever support them. Those who took the authoritarian side on vaccine mandates aren’t allowed to be prominent in the freedom movement, so why should those who take the authoritarian side on the War on Drugs?

Liz Gunn stands out to me, among all the others, as a genuine supporter of freedom.

That Liz Gunn and NZ Loyal take good ideas from both extremes of the alternative spectrum is why I am voting for them on Saturday. They might not get 5%, and, if they do, they might not be any good. But I will still support them on the grounds that they appear to be the closest there is to the nationalist alternative centre.

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!

Charlie Mitchell: Mainstream Media Maggot

Imagine making a living finding justifications to silence freethinkers. This is what mainstream media scumbag Charlie Mitchell does, as evidenced by his recent efforts to have VJM cancelled from Reality Check Radio.

According to Mitchell the Maggot, if you have “offensive” opinions you need to be silenced.

When I was a child, journalists were the good guys who platformed people who the control system wanted silenced. Now journalists deplatform people on behalf of the control system. Mainstream journalists really are maggots.