The Politics Of The 21st Century Have To Be Grounded In Known Psychological Science

Politics has been, since the beginning, a seat-of-the-pants enterprise. Although the West has produced Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli and others, the modern Western leader reads nothing of these men, preferring to just make everything up as they go along. But in the age of advanced science, it’s possible to have a political philosophy grounded in empirical observation.

More specifically, it has to be grounded in known psychological science. Modern psychological science gives us insights into human nature that were completely unavailable to philosophers in times past. Aristotle knew nothing of sociobiology. A sociobiologist standing on Aristotle’s shoulders could give us a vision of our own nature that was broader and deeper than ever before.

A failure to understand human nature is the common theme running through all failed political ideologies.

Communism failed because its architects failed to understand that people are always at least a little bit selfish, and cannot simply be conditioned to behave otherwise by propaganda. A system set up on the basis that people are perfectly altruistic will inevitably collapse into corruption and widespread distrust when rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

Capitalism is failing because its architects failed to understand that people would rather drop out of the system than get worked to death paying for rents and taxes. A system set up on the basis that workers can be employed for 50 hour weeks without the ability to own homes, yet will still have the motivation to work, also doesn’t match reality.

Historically, political philosophy has not been grounded on an accurate view of human nature, because there was no formalised science of understanding human nature. Machiavelli might have been correct when he said that human nature doesn’t change from time to place, but not enough people listen to Machiavelli.

Today’s psychological science, however, can predict human behaviour with frightening accuracy. The Amazon, Google and FaceBook algorithms can predict your next purchase before you even think about it. They can tell you who you’re going to vote for before you’ve even decided. It’s a thousand times more advanced than the knowledge Karl Marx would have had access to.

A modern political philosophy must be grounded in what we now know about human nature. This means: grounded in a psychological science that has a particular emphasis on man’s origin as a naked ape (hat tip to Desmond Morris).

Fundamentally, such an approach understands that the human animal evolved social structures as part of the battle for resources that all animals must engage in. It has to be made explicit that political questions are usually just questions of resource distribution, the same questions that man-ape chieftains would have wrestled with even before civilisation. Unfair resource distribution stirs up very deep, primal instincts that can rapidly become destructive. Therefore it’s important to get politics right.

It has to be taken seriously, and that means scientifically.

The curious thing is that a properly scientific approach appears to favour neither the left nor the right.

Developmental psychology tells us that hitting children, and most other forms of corporal punishment, have extremely bad outcomes for those children. There are strong correlations between getting hit as a child and ending up with antisocial personality disorders or suicidal depression. Hitting kids is right up there with fucking them as one of the worst things you can do. Therefore it ought not to be legal.

Developmental psychology also suggests that societies would benefit from making life less financially stressful for mothers of newborns. In America, where it’s sink or swim, mothers of newborns are often put under extreme financial stress. This leads to much higher rates of child abuse and neglect in comparison to, say, the Scandinavian countries, where mothers of newborns receive adequate financial aid. The end result is more mentally damaged people. So a slight tax increase, with the money invested into early child care, is likely to pay for itself many times over.

Such findings might favour leftist policies, but other findings don’t.

Psychometrics tell us that intelligence is about 80% genetic, and therefore education can only raise it to a limited degree. So importing people from countries where the average IQ is 85, and expecting their kids to turn out the same as ours just because we put them in the same schools, is a recipe for national suicide.

Western immigration politics since World War II has been based on the assumption that all human groups are genetically the same, therefore can be exchanged for each other like so many replaceable parts. Psychometrics has given us a blackpill that we need to swallow: many populations with average IQs under 100 are never going to adjust to modern Western life. We have to stop importing them.

Evolutionary psychology says that multiculturalism is bound to fail because people stop co-operating once they no longer have meaningful bonds of kinship with their surrounding population. So large, multicultural cities like New York, Los Angeles or London could have been predicted to have ended up soulless free-for-alls, as they did.

Evolutionary psychology also tells us that individuals within the same family can vary greatly in IQ thanks to genetic recombination. Even if a group of parents all had IQs of 100, some 2% of their offspring would have IQs above 130, and a similar number would have IQs below 70. Their children might have a mean IQ of 100, but individuals will vary a lot from this average.

This natural variation in individual intelligence means that we cannot have, for instance, families in which every member was expected to become a doctor. Neither can we have racial exclusions such that members of certain races were banned from, or restricted to, certain professions. Such arrangements would be monstrously inefficient given natural variation in intelligence.

Ethology shows us that many different animals use drugs to get high, therefore a War on Drugs is unnatural. Altering the contents of consciousness through the use of psychoactives seems to be as natural as anything else is, perhaps reflecting the Elementalist belief that the world was dreamed up to entertain the gods in the first place. Banning the use of drugs, then, is as futile as banning sex. People will do it anyway.

Grounding a new vision of politics in psychological science could solve many problems. First and foremost it would solve the problems arising from basing a political philosophy on an inaccurate conception of human nature.

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!

The Great Replacement And New Zealand

In France, 60% of the population believes that white French people are systematically being erased by mass immigration. This is the belief known as The Great Replacement. The theory that whites are purposefully getting erased is one of the most controversial in the politics of today, not least because Christchurch mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant named his manifesto after the concept.

Great Replacement Theory was initially developed by a French author and philosopher named Renaud Camus. He extrapolated known immigration and demographic data into the medium-term future and realised that French people would soon become a minority in their own country. Camus coined the term “genocide by substitution” for the phenomenon.

Predictably, this analysis provoked a shitstorm on the part of the French ruling class, who colluded to give Camus a two-month suspended prison sentence contingent on paying a fine. This followed a charge of “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion” in reponse to Camus’s statement that “immigration has become an invasion”.

Ruling class mouthpieces such as Wikipedia claim that Great Replacement Theory is a baseless conspiracy theory, apparently pushed by far-right-wing extremists in a bid to panic the masses. But, as with many other theories that the ruling class claims to be false, the facts and evidence backs it up. The numbers show, unequivocally, that white people are getting replaced.

Statistics show that 44,735 New Zealand citizens left the country in the year ended September 2023. That’s about how many New Zealand citizens live in a medium-sized city like Nelson or Invercargill.

In return, New Zealand received over 110,000 cheap labour units from Third World shitholes. These people tend to be desperate, and thereby willing to work for minimum wage (cha-ching!). Often they end up replicating Third World conditions in their housing or workplace safety. Import the Third World, become the Third World goes the classic Internet refrain.

Note that these numbers are for a 12-month period only. The trend need only continue as far as 2030 for New Zealand to lose some 300,000 Kiwis, and for those to be replaced with some 700,000 Third Worlders. This replacement is so vast, so sudden, so total, and so apparently irreversible, that it merits the term Great Replacement.

The benefits of this situation to the New Zealand ruling class are obvious. Getting rid of a Christchurch-sized cohort of uppity Kiwis, who expect wages they can own homes and raise families with, and replacing them with a multitude of cheap labour units, happy to live 20 to a house if it means they can send remittances home, is a recipe for colossal profits.

Various sinister conspiracy theories exist to explain the Great Replacement. Some of them have some truth to them. The fact remains, however, that the major motivation behind it is profit. Jews and the Kalergi plan are unnecessary; white ruling-class capitalists are perfectly happy to destroy their own working classes for profit, and always have been.

The Great Replacement has already happened in New Zealand in microcosm. As recently as 60 years ago, South and West Auckland were the homes of several thriving working-class white communities. Those have all since been replaced by cheap labour imports, mostly from the Pacific Islands.

If white people can be ethnically cleansed from South Auckland, and if most people respond by acting as if the replacements had always been there (and if they haven’t been, it’s not a big deal anyway), why couldn’t that also happen for New Zealand as a whole?

It’s worthwhile noting here that Australia and Canada, also ruled by international banking and finance interests, are following the same path. Net overseas migration to Australia is currently running at 300,000-400,000 per year. In Canada it’s closer to 500,000 per year. Both countries, like New Zealand, already have record housing crises.

Importing record numbers of immigrants, to compete for housing against a native population suffering a record housing crisis, is an act of evil. The Western ruling class is evil, and they are destroying us via genocide by substitution. We have a moral imperative to rise up and stop them. But we have to act fast.

The more immigrants our rulers import, the harder it becomes for us to resist.

Aristotle wrote in Politics that tyrannies prefer to be multicultural, because that makes it harder for the people to come together against their oppressors. Multicultural societies come with built-in fracture lines that the tyrants can use to divide and conquer the masses, thereby keeping them incapable of rising up to resist oppression.

If those of us in the West, therefore, wish to stop the Great Replacement, we have to act before our replacements reach a critical mass. Young Westerners are already priced out of housing in our own countries. If it gets any worse we will be replaced entirely.

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!