Signs That You're Not Gonna Make It

Signs That You’re Not Gonna Make It

Life in the West is getting tougher and tougher. The more perceptive of us are now aware that the whole system is unravelling, and that it may soon become extremely challenging to continue surviving. The grim reality is that not all of us are gonna make it. This article describes some ways that a person can tell if they themselves are not gonna make it.

You believe that the authorities are altruistic.

If you had shitty parents, you will have one advantage in the coming age of the world: you will have already lost faith in authority. Most people who grew up with decent parents blindly trust what they’re told by authority figures, and this makes them vulnerable to demagogues. Those people feel that the government is just like another set of parents: powerful, and willing to use that power in the service of justice.

Anyone who still believes, since the transition to Clown World some two decades ago, that the authorities are altruistic will be lining up for experimental vaccines like the citizens of Jonestown lined up for the Koolaid. The truth is that the authorities value your life as much as they valued the lives of the soldiers they sent charging into German machinegun fire – i.e. not at all. If you still trust the authorities to be looking out for your best interests, you’re not gonna make it.

You don’t understand that conspiracies are always happening.

‘Conspiracy theorist’ is an insult nowadays, used to smear someone as a paranoid schizophrenic who sees dangers where they don’t exist. As far as the Establishment is concerned, anyone who doesn’t trust them is a conspiracy theorist. The mainstream narrative today is that anyone who questions the mainstream media is by default a conspiracy theorist, and therefore mentally ill.

The truth is that conspiracy theories are happening everywhere and at all times. Read any history book, and it will recount numerous conspiracies by various groups of actors against other groups. Adam Smith once observed that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public,” and this is just as true today as it was of his time.

If you don’t realise that conspiracies are being hatched almost every time there’s an incentive for any group of people to do so, you’re not gonna make it.

You can’t sit still in peace.

The entertainment industry makes hundreds of millions of dollars every year in America alone. This industry exists because of boredom. Ideally, a person could sit down for an entire evening and read a book, not needing external input. In practice, most people need to spend money on Netflix, OnlyFans and similar shit. Such people are dependent on the matrix.

The sort of person who needs constant thrills will be at an extreme disadvantage in the coming age of the world. Being dependent on the corporate media for entertainment means that the Establishment can shit directly into your skull during the ad breaks, and you’ll accept it as normal. If you can’t meditate in silence for at least ten minutes, you’re not gonna make it.

You believe that the Justice System is there to protect and serve the citizenry.

Young children are taught that the police are there to defend them from criminals and other bad guys. Television shows like Cops paint a picture of a world of violent criminals held in check by a thin blue line. In reality, the police are the army of the rich, and were raised to defend the property claims of the rich. They’re often as bad as the criminal gangs.

The difference between a prostitute and a police officer is that the prostitute will let you do things to her for money, whereas the police officer will do things to other people for money. If you have never reflected upon the fact that almost every human rights abuse in history has been carried out by the local security services, and that the police of your country would load you into cattlecarts as soon as they were given the order, you’re not gonna make it.

You believe that “If it wasn’t true, they couldn’t say it on the news”.

It’s possible that, in some halcyon former time, the news was compiled by honest people who wanted to inform their nation about relevant issues. That was a long time ago. Today’s mainstream media is a propaganda outlet for the Establishment. That became clear to everyone when they did the cheerleading for the Iraq War, and they’ve only become worse since then.

Every mainstream media enterprise has an owner and, today, that owner is likely to be a multinational asset management firm. They can say whatever they like on the news, because the people who own the news companies also own the politicians, and those people want to keep their dirty dealings secret. So the reality is closer to “If it was true, they couldn’t say it on the news.” Anyone who still gets their information from the mainstream television news is not gonna make it.

You think the brain generates consciousness.

The entire mainstream academic establishment will tell you that the brain generates consciousness, and therefore the death of the physical body entails the extinction of consciousness, and therefore life is meaningless. This is despite the fact that the greatest of all scientists, such as Plato, Newton, Schroedinger, Bruno and Planck, believed the exact opposite.

The truth is that our great war is a spiritual war. The idea that the brain generates consciousness is otherwise known as the big lie of our age, because it enslaves people with the despair of nihilism. This is why people who believe the brain generates consciousness so often die deaths of despair – if life is meaningless, why engage with it? The divine is completely absent from the lives of such people.

Anyone who thinks the brain generates consciousness is simply not gonna make it.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of 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, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Most Terrifying Statistics You’ve Ever Seen About New Zealand

As a previous essay here has discussed, demography is destiny. The future belongs to those who show up for it. Unfortunately for us, it looks like the future will belong to the stupid. Dan McGlashan, demographer and author of Understanding New Zealand 3, explains the grim details.

The terrifying reality revealed within the correlation matrix above is that dumb people are massively outbreeding smart ones.

There is a very strong positive correlation between having any of the university degrees and having no children – at least 0.69. This means that the best-educated segment of the population and the childless segment of the population overlap to a major extent.

By contrast, the correlation between being in any of the three least-educated groups and having no children was -0.72 or even more strongly negative. This means that it’s very rare for someone with little education to abstain from reproduction. And when people with little education breed, they tend to do so without restraint.

Having no qualifications at all is significantly positively correlated with having three or more children. The strongest correlation in this table is between having no qualifications and having four children – this was a whopping 0.94. The correlations between having no qualifications and having five children (0.87) and between having no qualifications and having six children (0.72) were also very strong.

Having university qualifications is significantly negatively correlated with having three or more children. The strongest correlation in this regard was the -0.92 between having a Bachelor’s degree and having four children. The correlations between having an Honours or a Master’s degree and having four children were almost as strongly negative. Smart people simply aren’t breeding in New Zealand today.

Over the course of two or three generations, these trends will lead to significantly fewer people capable of completing higher education, and significantly more people incapable of doing so. On current demographic trends, therefore, it looks like New Zealand will become dumber and dumber. As it does, it will become poorer and poorer, and consequently more shitty and violent in most aspects.

The reasons why this is happening can be understood if one considers the schedule of social incentives that exist in the various classes.

In upper-class families, females are considered children until they are old enough to handle small responsibilities, at which point they’re given increasingly adult responsibilities, until such a point when they’re responsible enough to parent. Someone raised to think like this will have fewer children and will invest heavily into each one.

Females in lower-class families are considered children until they themselves have children, at which point they are accorded the respect due to an adult. It doesn’t matter if a female is 25 years old with a degree and a full-time job – they are children until they breed. Females without children get no respect, because they don’t know anything about anything important.

Mothers, on the other hand, are part of the inner circle. As soon as you’ve given birth, you’re on equal terms with every other woman who has. This encourages women to aspire to becoming mothers, and very little else. Someone raised to think like this will have more children, and sooner, and will invest less heavily into each one.

This distinction reflects the great division in the human species: between groups whose breeding strategy is to prepare the environment for the success of their offspring before reproducing, and groups whose breeding strategy is to shit out as many offspring as they can as quickly as possible and worry about the details later. These two strategies are known as the K-selected strategy and the r-selected strategy, respectively.

In a natural environment, the greater trust and solidarity of the K-selected allows their families and communities to survive and thrive. The co-operative networks that farsighted people build are more resilient than the “every man for himself” communities of the r-selected. As such, in a state of Nature, the populations of the K-selected tend to increase over time.

Unfortunately for the K-selected, today’s industrial society is one where farsighted hard workers are taxed into the ground to buy off the r-selected before they turn to crime. Anyone with the industriousness to become properly educated will then get taxed so heavily that they only have enough spare resources for a few children.

Meanwhile, the parents who don’t care about the poverty their children are forced to endure just keep shitting them out, knowing that the productive will pay for their survival.

A society with these demographic trends cannot escape going down the toilet. The inevitable long-term consequence of dumb people outbreeding smart ones is a reduction in overall intelligence. The inevitable consequence of that is more stupidity, violence, recklessness and crime.

Society has gone through times like these before. There is a point in every economic cycle when the productive are taxed to the maximum in order to provide bread and circuses for the hordes of unproductive. These productive are much like the character Boxer the horse in Animal Farm. Once they collapse from exhaustion from providing the labour needed to keep the whole system running, that system begins to fall apart.

The next step is for the K-selected to withdraw to easily-defendable fortresses, such as gated communities or island nations. From there it will be easier to weather the storm caused by the collapse of r-selected society, which will be a deluge of chaos that heralds a new age of the world.

All this might sound drastic, but it’s inevitable given the demographic trends outlined in this article.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

How A Person From A Gang Family Would Deal With The Gang Problem

I come from a very rough family. At various points in my life, I have been the son of a gang member, the nephew of a gang member, the brother of a gang member and the cousin of a gang member. Both of my brothers have spent time in prison, both of my mother’s brothers have spent time in prison, and I had been struck in the head or face by four different adults by the time I was five years old. Despite all this, I managed to get a research degree in psychology. This is how I would deal with the gang problem.

Any effective program of behavioural modification has to have two elements: reinforcement of desired behaviours and punishment of undesired behaviours. This is popularly known as “the carrot and the stick approach”. Solving our gang problem requires such an approach.

My proposal for the carrot is universal basic income.

People in the upper and middle classes have great difficulty imagining what life is like in the bottom 5%. Only very rarely do they have the life experience to understand how being raised in an environment of abuse and fear causes a person’s brain to develop differently to normal. As such, they have great difficulty understanding why some people can’t hold down a full-time job.

Being raised in an abusive environment causes the brain to develop in a way that is highly optimised for war, and poorly optimised for peace. One consequence is that mild levels of stress can push a person so damaged into homicide mode. If a person’s brain is wired to react with instant and overwhelming aggression to threatening stimuli, they are very unlikely to be able to deal with the daily challenges of the workplace.

The solution to such mental problems isn’t being stuffed full of sedatives and told to get the fuck back to work, as per standard mental healthcare practice in New Zealand. The only effective treatment for the damaged person is to allow them to rest until they grow out of their condition. This requires time, and that’s where a universal basic income can play a role.

A small but guaranteed income would not only help practically by removing an enormous amount of financial stress, it would help morally by removing resentment. Many young people from difficult family environments deeply resent the fact that work is demanded of them before they’ve had a chance to develop a fully functioning brain. A UBI would take away one of the major reasons for people born into disadvantaged families to rage against the system.

My proposal for the stick is crating.

Psychopaths consider all kindness to be weakness. All. As such, lenient sentencing and political engagement merely encourages them to commit more crimes. Not all gang members are psychopaths, but the gang environment provides an excellent environment for them to hide. With the exception of entering Parliament, joining a gang is the optimal path for a psychopath who wants opportunities to abuse people and get away with it.

The key to solving the gang problem lies in accurately being able to distinguish psychopaths from non-psychopaths. The single biggest flaw of the entire “Justice” system is that it makes no effort to distinguish between sadists and psychotics. As such, the former are penalised too lightly and the latter too harshly.

The non-psychopaths should be treated with patience. If someone is from a gang environment and isn’t a psychopath, despite having ample motive to become one, they must possess some measure of spiritual gold. They must possess the capacity to say ‘No’ to evil. People like this need to be cherished. Mental illness is not a reason to punish someone, as it’s often a good thing, because it’s often an alternative to psychopathy.

The psychopaths should be crated. The first step here is to introduce a new category of crime: those committed with malicious indifference to human suffering. A typical example of such crimes are coward punches like the recent ones in Auckland. Most murders and rapes will naturally fall into this category.

The second step is to subject every convicted criminal to a full psychological examination, with the goal of determining whether they have irreparable brain damage making them sadistic.

Modern psychological science can make such a distinction. The amygdalas of such people are less likely to activate in response to observing human suffering, making them callous, and their pre-frontal cortexes contain less grey matter, making them impulsive. Such unusual brain structures reveal that those people are dangerous.

If a person is found to have irreparable brain damage of the kind characteristic of psychopaths, and is later found guilty of a crime committed with malicious indifference to human suffering, then, upon being found guilty, they are immediately nailed into a crate instead of being taken back to the cells. This crate is then loaded into a helicopter, flown 20 kilometers out over the ocean, and jettisoned from a great height.

This carrot-and-stick approach will succeed because of the twofold benefits it offers.

The first benefit is that a more compassionate approach will neutralise resentment. Most young men who join gangs do so because they learn early in life that society hates them, and they reason that they might as well hate society back. A UBI would take away the most of the financial incentive to join a gang (this incentive is much bigger than most people realise). This will mean fewer gang members.

The second benefit is that, on account of the more compassionate approach, it’s justified to be extremely firm against the intractable criminal elements that remain in the population. People would no longer be forced by economic necessity to join gangs, so those who do can be assumed malicious. The widespread crating of known psychopaths will spread fear among the remainder.

The combination of these two effects would be a drastic reduction in both the number of gang members and the amount of suffering caused by gang activity.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why Banning Social Media Won’t Fix Anything

Many of the world’s current social ills are blamed on social media. Some have the idea that FaceBook, Reddit, YouTube and similar websites are responsible for an increase in psychological abuse and a decrease in mental health. This has brought calls to ban them – but, as this essay will argue, banning social media won’t work out any better than banning anything else has.

With the hysteria around the killing of George Floyd, many have realised that social media found Derek Chauvin guilty before the trial. The pressure to convict Chauvin was so great that, had he been found innocent, riots were likely. U.S. Representative Maxine Waters even took to social media to call for a confrontation in case of acquittal.

Government representatives elsewhere are also using social media to destroy their own citizens. In New Zealand, Member of Parliament Debbie Ngarewa-Packer launched an online petition to ruin the life of podcaster Lee Williams, smearing him as a white supremacist and evil wrongthinker. This quickly received several thousand signatures after being shared by Maori supremacists.

That government representatives use social media to stir up hate against private citizens is deeply concerning. Lynchings are the obvious next step. In countries with weak rule of law, influential people regularly call for their followers to murder their political enemies. It isn’t hard to imagine a Maori Party MP using social media to form a physical mob that kills someone.

However, the idea of banning social media is a neo-Luddite delusion. It’s the same knee-jerk retardation that inspired alcohol and cannabis prohibition, both of which failed. Proof? Before social media, it was even worse than this.

The newspapers spread just as much fake news a century ago as they do now. But it was worse then, because there was no alternative media to ask questions. If the newspapers said that Germans were bayoneting Belgian babies, that was the truth and no discussion about it could be had. Everyone had to believe it or be shunned from society.

The radio and the television are just as bad as the newspapers. Like the newspapers, the radio and television dictate the truth to a passive audience, with no dissenting voice allowed. Although they claim to be objective speakers of fact, the reality is that each of these media has an owner, and that owner ultimately decides what gets said and how.

Newspapers, radio and television are all one-way media. None of them are superior to social media, which, despite its crapness, at least allows for a discussion. But it is precisely the possibility for discussion that has the ruling class upset about social media.

The ultimate reason why social media is now so heavily opposed by the Establishment, and its lackeys in the mainstream media, is that it allows for an alternative narrative. As Josef Goebbels outlined in his Principles of Propaganda, propaganda is most effective if it is executed by only one authority. As was true in Nazi times, the greatest enemy of the ruling class is the alternative media.

It’s imperative that we, the people, develop a better way to manage social media, lest our rulers find an excuse to ban it. The correct way to deal with the problems caused by social media is to ensure that its use does not lead to hysterical chimpouts, i.e. that its agitprop potential is neutralised.

This will involve a twofold process.

The first step is to educate people to reflexively disbelieve everything they’re told. Currently, our education system is set up in such a way that the most credulous students get the highest grades. This is a consequence of the fact that, when our education system was invented, information was extremely scarce.

But the information environment of today is much different to the past. Information is no longer scarce; in fact, we have far too much low-quality information. Our education system, therefore, needs to be re-tooled, so that students are taught to question everything – literally everything – that is said by an authority figure.

A properly sceptical culture would have no need to fear social media, because sceptical people don’t share news articles or videos unless they’re confident the information in them is accurate. Even if they did, any sceptical people reading or viewing that information wouldn’t chimp out like they do in today’s Clown World.

The second step is to run society in a way so that people have hope. Right now, the atmosphere of the Western World is thick with despair. This despair encourages people to spread hate and madness on social media. A great many people are in a great deal of pain, and this encourages them to share garbage.

A society with rectitude, one which the average person felt proud to belong to, would naturally encourage its members to share higher quality information. The main reason people are so drawn to conspiracy today is because they know something’s seriously wrong with our social environment. The quality of social media will always reflect the quality of the social environment, and improving the latter is the easiest way to improve the former.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!