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!

What Lee Kwan Yew Might Have Said To Bronze Age Pervert (And To Us)

A recent tweet from Bronze Age Pervert has caused a shitstorm on Twitter. BAP wrote that “Only a myth of race blindness is workable.” The accompanying tweet thread (highly recommended reading) contains much controversy.

The logic that Bronze Age Pervert is describing is the logic that has ruled the West since World War II. It’s very close to the idea of Plato’s Noble Lie, in the sense that many understand it to be false, but it’s supported anyway for moral reasons (BAP states that supporting it is not his own preference but that avoiding this is politically impossible).

This logic claims that social harmony in the West depends on everyone believing in the myth that all races are equal. If certain races are told that their adverse collective outcomes are the result of their inferiority, they will get angry and destructive. It’s a matter of survival, therefore, that human biodiversity is denied, even as a concept.

If denying racial differences is the Anglo-Judaic approach post World War Two, Lee Kwan Yew supported a different approach.

Lee Kwan Yew was perhaps the most famous proponent of the race realist position. Being Chinese, he mostly managed to avoid accusations of being a Nazi. Lee was happy to state that different races had different average intellectual potentials, and that these different potentials were the reason for their different economic and academic outcomes.

Not only was Lee happy to state this, he was unrepentant. He had very good reason to be so.

Lee Kwan Yew pointed out, quite reasonably, that there were many great pitfalls to the race blindness approach. First and foremost, if we assume that all races are equal, then it logically follows that the lower economic and academic achievement of the less successful races is due to racist discrimination.

If a recipe for inter-racial resentment could be written, it would consist of claiming that wealth gaps cannot be explained by natural wealth-creating aptitude, and that they must be explained by structural discrimination, and that anyone who denies this is a racist. As Ibram X. Kendi’s writing reveals, raceblindness axiomatically assumes that if you aren’t raceblind, you’re a racist bigot.

Lee also pointed out, correctly, that if racist discrimination is widely believed to be the reason for the underperformance of certain races, then demands for quotas and affirmative action would inevitably follow. And then if those quotas and affirmative action programs did not result in equal outcomes, more demands for more of them would come.

The end result of “race blindness” is a never-ending cycle of increasing demands of equal treatment.

The resentment caused by this cycle is, as Lee realised, a major threat to social cohesion. When you have a large proportion of the population believing that the rest of the population has stolen something from them, social cohesion disintegrates. But this is the inevitable result of pushing the race blindness myth.

In the New Zealand mainstream media, one often sees articles decrying a supposed Pacific pay gap. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission’s “Pacific Pay Gap Inquiry” is ostensibly intended to discover the reasons for the fact that Pacific Islanders get paid less than white and Asian people. In reality, the reason for the inquiry is to fearmonger about white supremacism.

The reason for the Pacific pay gap is the same reason as for the working-class vs. middle-class pay gap: intelligence. It’s known that the average Pacific Islander IQ is considerably lower than the average white/North Asian IQ (see: Samoa 88, Tonga 86, Fiji 85). This is as predicted by Cold Winters Theory. So the pay gap simply reflects the gap in cognitive resources bestowed by Nature. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

The narrative that the pay gap necessarily implies structural discrimination, and that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi who sees others as racially inferior, is a narrative of pure resentment. It’s a slave mentality, designed to rabble-rouse and to destroy.

As Lee was aware, racial equality narratives are often pushed by Communists in particular, who push any and all anti-nationalist narratives. This is one of the reasons why he had to oppose them so hard. He knew that if a Communist narrative of Malays getting exploited by Chinese took hold, Singaporean society was liable to disintegrate.

If Lee Kwan Yew could give advice to those of us in the modern West, he would likely tell us to abandon the myth of racial equality. Promulgating it might make certain white people feel morally superior, and it might placate the egos of browns and blacks, but it creates a massive resentment that itself leads to an explosive social tension. He might argue that the “every man for himself” nihilism of the modern West was an inevitable consequence of this resentment.

Finally – and Lee made this same argument many times – races do not have to be intellectually equal for individuals from those races to be equally worthy of respect. There is no reason to disrespect an individual just because his race might have a lower IQ, not any more than there is to disrespect someone because his family is lower class. To do so is vulgar, a sign of low frequency.

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!

VJMP Predicts 2024

Predicting 2023 at the end of 2022 was fun (you can see how well we did here), so now, at the end of 2023, we will predict 2024.

We predict with great confidence that the general economic position of the average Western worker will continue to decline. This will probably be the major story of 2024 in hindsight. Already Canada, Australia and New Zealand are facing housing crises of unprecedented severity, and record immigration intakes on top of that.

In many places in the Anglosphere, the average worker went backwards in 2023, as 2%+ immigration plus 6%+ inflation minus 3% wage growth (if you’re lucky) means a 5% decrease in per capita income. We predict something similar for 2024 (perhaps with less inflation), i.e. the living standards of the average Anglo to decline by about 5%.

The housing crises in the Anglosphere will lead to the formation of genuine alternative political movements. Already some two-thirds of Canadians have given up on ever owning a home. Until recently, angry sentiments were contained by a belief that the difficulty of buying a first home would eventually return to 1990s levels. That belief is disintegrating, and we predict that this will lead to the appearance of a true alternative to globohomo.

As with previous years, dissent will be kept low by deplatforming anyone who speaks out about the ruling class (we can predict that we won’t be unshadowbanned from Google or FaceBook any time soon). However, in private, people will be seething. Anger at Boomers, in particular, will reach record heights.

We can comfortably predict more cracking down on nationalists in the West, under a variety of pretexts. The firebombing of Tim Lutze’s car on Christmas Eve 2023 presages what’s to come. Anyone dissenting against the globalist narrative will face social and legal pressure and even extra-judicial violence to shut them up. This pressure and violence will become better organised and better funded as time passes.

The quality of popular culture will also decline. The music of 2024 will be best represented by Lizzo. Popular films will mostly be remakes, sequels and adaptations of existing intellectual property. Book readers will become more and more occultist and detached from the wider screen culture. Book reading itself will become a counter-cultural activity.

We will continue to see the alternative media supplant the mainstream. This will be truer of podcasting than of anywhere else. This is where VJM Publishing will be putting much of our effort in 2024. Podcasts will continue to supplant television, especially among younger viewers. The Establishment will keep trying to ban podcasts to protect the mainstream media narratives.

Wars could intensify. We don’t expect China to go for Taiwan yet. But further naval buildup in the South China Sea is all but guaranteed, especially if China doesn’t get their way in the Taiwanese election on January. The alarming rate of Chinese naval production means that they will soon be able to swamp the South China Sea with naval assets.

If Russia defeats Ukraine on the battlefield, which is starting to look likely on account of Ukraine’s resource exhaustion, European countries might make massive investments into the war effort, motivated by the belief that Russia intends to attack further West. While we don’t predict that Russia will go into Poland, an arms buildup in Europe seems very likely.

Gender relations in the West will continue to become more hypergamous. As a result of this, and the economy, more men than ever will drop out of society. Male workplace participation rates will hit all-time lows in Western countries. The “No pussy, no work” phenomenon will become mainstream, even if people aren’t aware of the slogan.

In America, it’s easy to predict the return to power of Donald Trump. The American presidential election will be the high tension point of 2024. If Trump wins, expect widespread rioting from Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, who will be primed to chimp out. Trump may very well get taken out by legal challenges before then.

If the election is disputed to any major extent, we could see the lines of a new American Civil War start to form.

In Europe, it seems like the shift towards nationalism will continue. The Alternativ fuer Deutschland might get banned. If it does, Sahra Wagenknecht’s left-wing nationalist movement will fill much of the gap. This will not solve the problem from the Establishment’s point of view. In fact, the Buendnis Sahra Wagenknecht might have an even higher ceiling than the AfD.

In New Zealand, Chris Luxon and the Sixth National Government will plunge to record approval lows, as the New Zealand electorate slowly awakens from its delusion that Jacinda Ardern was responsible for the world economy going down the toilet. Luxon will spend the whole year selling bits of New Zealand off to his mates. Anyone who complains will be dismissed as ‘envious’.

In summary, things are set to get broadly worse, but there are still plenty of opportunities to succeed for those with the right grit.

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 Spectrum Of Slavery

This essay claims that all people can be placed on a spectrum, wherein their point on that spectrum reflects how much of a slave they are. The totally enslaved are at the top, whereas the truly free are at the bottom. The exact position of any given person is primarily a matter of how much economic duress they are under.

Economic duress is a legal term, defined in such a way that the ruling class is almost never guilty of it. But, in practice, everyone not born into property ownership is subject to a kind of economic duress. The more extreme forms of it are slavery by another name – the term ‘wage slavery’ is not a complete exaggeration.

“Do this or I kill you” is maximum duress. This is the mainstream conception of slavery, inherited from the American plantation experience. It’s true that being forced to obey orders on pain of death is as extreme as duress can get. Someone at this level is at the very top of the spectrum of slavery.

Unbeknownst to many, slavery in other times and places wasn’t quite as awful thanks to the absence of the chattel aspect. There were often rules limiting the extent to which a slave owner could abuse their slaves (n.b. this is not a defence of slavery but an explication of the degrees of it).

“Do this or you will miss your rent, get kicked out into the street and die” is a high level of duress. Getting kicked out of your apartment is better than being killed, but it’s still a deeply unpleasant and stressful experience. If you have to keep working otherwise you get evicted, you don’t have a strong negotiating position.

Same with “Do this or I’ll replace you with some cheap labour”. The position of the employer in the West of 2023 might not be quite as strong as that of the plantation owner in the American South of 1850, but it’s almost as strong, for supply-side reasons. The Western worker of 2023 knows that he better not ask for raises to match inflation when there are a thousand Third Worlders lined up to replace him.

“Do this or you’ll have to look for another job” is no threat when the economy is humming and there are plenty of good employers willing to pay decent wages. When the economy is doing badly, it’s a significant level of duress. In a good economy looking for a new job is a mere hassle. In a bad economy, it raises the spectre of homelessness.

An actual free person, under no economic duress, can meet their needs for food, shelter and clothing without needing to obey an employer for money. This is the bottom of the spectrum of slavery, and surprisingly few people are here.

The simple rule is that anything improving the negotiating position of the worker decreases the extent of duress they are under, and moves them down the slavery spectrum towards free people.

Note that the more duress the worker is under, the greater the profits. This is why there is never a free market for labour. The ruling class will always try to put the working class under as much duress as possible, because this will suboptimalise the working class’s negotating position and optimalise the employer class’s negotiating position, thereby maximising ruling class profit and control.

If the worker needs the job or they will starve, it’s possible to negotiate them down to a minimum. Similar if they need to feed a family or pay a mortgage. Imagine, by contrast, that the worker wins $10 million in the lottery. Do they still need your job? Maybe not. If someone has $10 million sitting in the bank you can be sure that they only work because they want to.

Increasing the supply of labour weakens the negotiating position of the worker and thereby drives them towards slavery. Likewise, decreasing demand for labour (through e.g. raising interest rates) also drives the worker towards slavery.

Decreasing the supply of labour strengthens the negotiating position of the worker and thereby aids them towards freedom. Likewise, increasing demand for labour (through e.g. raising wages) also drives the worker towards freedom.

A sharp decrease in the supply of labour, such as through the Black Death or World War II, leads to unprecedented prosperity for the remaining workers. Employers are forced to pay a high wage because they have so few options.

Thus it can be seen that the intent of allowing mass immigration is not to create freedom for foreign workers but to deny it to domestic ones. It was to push the workers back down that Western countries opened their borders to cheap labour imports in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The end result, by 2023, is that workers in Western countries can’t own homes – slaves by any other name.

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!