insanity – Page 36

The Western Centre-Left Have Now Fully Betrayed the Working Class

The Marxists have made it clear: white people are the enemy, even if they’re working-class

Imagine being a working-class Englishman of a line of working-class Englishmen, knowing that it was your hands and the hands of your ancestors that built this country, and then being charged £10 more to enter a Labour Party gathering because you were white. No-one in that situation could help but to feel insulted, if not completely betrayed, by the Labour Party in that situation. After all, it’s supposed to represent the labouring class!

Western political parties that used to represent the working class have now been completely taken over by middle-class Marxists who despise the workers. This was never more evident than this week, when the British Labour Party made the decision to charge white people £10 more to attend a Jeremy Corbyn rally compared to non-whites.

The sense of betrayal among the white working class is total. Imagine knowing that one of the millions of wealthy black or Asian people out there are privileged to pay a lower price for the same service than you, even though they have more money, just because the social democrats have abandoned you.

Unfortunately for those in the working class, the young middle-class Marxists who run most of the centre-left parties of the West have declared them the enemy. The white man is the enemy, and white skin is the enemy uniform. It doesn’t matter if you are poor, if you are descended from poor people, or if your white ancestors have been exploited their whole lives going all the way back to medieval times. Possession of white skin is sufficient for guilt.

This is not a phenomenon confined to Britain. The DACA shutdown in America represents a similar betrayal of the native working class by the major centre-left party. Here, the Marxists are willing to go as far as shutting the Government down (meaning that many poor Americans are forced to miss out on services) for the sake of protecting illegal immigrants. It’s hard to imagine such a thing being possible at an earlier time in history.

Even in New Zealand, the Sixth Labour Govt. went back on its promise to legalise medicinal cannabis, instead using its sparse political capital to agitate for the importation of “refugees” from Manus Island. It doesn’t matter that the working class has been crying out for a recreational alternative to tobacco and alcohol for decades – the blood debt of white people necessitates that they go to the back of the queue.

Western centre-left parties have started to put people from foreign cultures ahead of the people from the cultures that they originally represented. This is an incredible development if one considers that it was the white working class that founded and built all of the Western centre-left parties. These movements have now been totally co-opted.

There is historical precedent for this sort of thing, and it’s not promising: the rise of Adolf Hitler was mostly fuelled by playing on the discontent of the German working class, who felt themselves abandoned and humiliated by the Weimar Republic and by the Marxists responsible for the German Revolution of 1918-19, a majority of whom were Jews.

In the Internet age, we don’t need a megalomaniacal genius totalitarian dictator to arise for problems to hit the streets. All that’s necessary is an economic downturn of sufficient magnitude – and the mainstream media was warning just this week that the extra time bought by quantitative easing is just about to run out, with the fundamentals looking even worse than before the Global Financial Crisis.

A sharp downturn in economic fortunes could see the European perception of their Muslim and African populations to shift from disadvantaged to burdensome to parasitic, and then the world will be in a state of extreme danger.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

Sweden Met With Catastrophe Because of Arrogance

I arrived in Sweden for the first time in December of 2001. Within weeks, before I even had the chance to adjust my sleep schedule to the 11-hour time difference, the country was rocked by the murder of Fadime Sahindal. I didn’t understand it at the time, but this incident – and Swedes’ reaction to it – could explain the disaster that has now befallen the nation a generation later.

Sahindal was a Turkish refugee, and had moved to Sweden with her family at the age of seven. She was evidently a high-spirited woman because she refused to accede to her father’s demands that she abstain from dating any Swedish men. This refusal, to to horrified astonishment of the Swedish population, was enough to provoke her own father into shooting her in the head to absolve the perceived shame Fadime had brought upon the family – a so called honour killing.

I had never, ever heard of such a thing as an honour killing in New Zealand, because our Muslim population is too low. So I had to look to Swedish people, as fellow Westerners, to suggest a reasonable reaction. The reaction to this was, at first, utter shock, mostly because murders were shocking enough by themselves in the Sweden of 2002, and to my surprise people got over it very quickly, appearing to reason that the problem would be sorted out soon enough.

But on the fringes on Swedish society, a plaintive voice sounded in the dark forests. It said, calmly and logically, that if women are being murdered for going out with young Swedish men, then the nation’s efforts to integrate these people – now arriving in their tens of thousands – were going to be extremely difficult. If the immigrants hate us so badly that they’d rather kill their own children than have them go out with ours, how will they ever have the will to integrate?

Many Swedish people appeared to have followed that line of reasoning to the obvious, and unremarkable conclusion that if they hate us that badly then we ought not to let them into the country, at least not in any large number. These people had learned, however, that they could not articulate these thoughts without being socially executed, because the consensus was that Sweden would do an excellent job of integrating these immigrants, and anyone going against this consensus was ostracised without mercy.

The intellectual class of Sweden appeared to be obsessed with becoming an “ideologiskt stormakt” (ideological superpower). The reasoning was that Sweden was too small to be a superpower in any military or economic sense, so she could only find satisfaction for her ambitions to be recognised as the best in the world through ideology. She would have to set some kind of Christ-like moral example for the world to follow.

Swedes strongly disagreed with me when I claimed that this desire, borne of a self-righteous and narcissistic need to be recognised as the best in the world at everything, was likely to backfire. Sweden had proven itself the best in world at solving any and all social issues – this was the constant refrain that I could not escape during my time here. Vi är stolt men inte nojd – we are proud but not satisfied – was the campaign slogan.

Therefore, Sweden would inevitably prove itself better than every other country in the world at solving the issue of how to integrate masses of angry, psychologically crippled men of fighting age from cultures rotten with hatred for outsiders. I realised this from talking to a Swedish friend of mine who was a member of the ruling Social Democrat party.

I tried to explain the mathematics of open borders to him. I used the metaphor of two bank accounts, one containing $100 and growing at 5% interest, the other containing $1,000 and growing at 2% interest. No matter how small the initial principal in the first bank account, as long as it grew at a higher percentage it would eventually become the larger of the two.

Therefore, I explained, if you allow mass and unending chain migration from a foreign population into your country, and those foreigners breed at higher rates than you, those foreigners will eventually outnumber you in your own country. Then you are forced to either get rid of democracy or be ruled by them.

He shrugged his shoulders. It was evidently not considered a big deal. “Dom försvenskar sig” (they will become/make themselves Swedish) was heard everywhere. The underlying belief appeared to be that, out of sheer gratitude, the refugees would cast aside all of their previous culture and immediately adopt Swedish norms, having finally come to the conclusion (self-evident to Swedes) that Swedish culture is the best in the world.

None of this is to disparage Swedish culture – to the contrary. Aside from the problems mentioned in this essay, I was deeply impressed with the national character of the Swedish people. In all regards I found them exceptionally competent, thoughtful, industrious, honest, organised and compassionate. They had clearly succeeded in building a society with very few problems.

Unfortunately for them, this success also contained the seed for their demise.

A foreign visitor to Sweden (at least 16 years ago) quickly noticed that it was an unusually high-trust society. People generally believed what you told them. This high trust allowed for an exceptional level of efficiency, because it meant that business could be conducted with very little suspicion.

It also led to Swedish people forgetting, over time, that not everyone else in the world was like that. The level of trust in Swedish society at the turn of the century was so high, and so taken for granted, that it was assumed that everyone else in the world was capable of behaving like that if they were just given a chance.

And so, the failure of other countries to successfully integrate large numbers of Africans or Muslims and turn them into productive members of society was blamed on the moral failings of those countries – those populations were simply too racist or unwilling to pay the high levels of welfare necessary. Sweden would be different because of the unique foresight and generosity of these people.

The psychological origin of the disaster currently befalling Sweden is nothing more than the very same hubris that great writers and playwrights have been warning us about since the time of Homer. It lies in the narcissistic, arrogant belief that Sweden is the best in the world as if by God’s Will and therefore can effortlessly solve the social problems that other nations had struggled with.

Sweden has to accept that it’s impossible to make gold out of shit, no matter how skilled and intelligent one is.

The Three Definitions of ‘Racist’

The word ‘racist’ has a variety of meanings depending on the political goals of the person using it

The word ‘racist’ has been overused so badly in 21st century discourse that it no longer has any real meaning. Originally used to describe a person who held unfair prejudices against a group of people on the basis of their skin colour, it now has a wide range of meanings depending on the political motivations of the person pointing the finger.

The first definition is what can be called the “supremacist” orientation. This is the attitude a person has if they believe that their race is the greatest one of all and everyone else is naturally inferior. It is also the “classical” racism that was espoused by Adolf Hitler, and is the real type of racism that everyone is afraid of.

The problem with a supremacist orientation of racism is that it obligates the holder to be fighting all the time. As the alpha male in any dominance hierarchy soon learns, claiming to be the top dog means you’re always fighting off challengers. This is great in a “live fast, die young” sense, but it doesn’t make for peace or order.

In an effort to bring peace on Earth, The Powers That Be have made immense efforts to discourage this sort of racism since the end of World War II, in which this sort of racism was directly responsible for the deaths of 50,000,000 people.

The second definition is specific, and could be termed the “experiential” version of racism. People in this category are not supremacists because they do not believe that their own specific race is generally superior, so they are not racists in the first sense. In this category are people who have learned to not like members of specific races through adverse life experiences.

People in this category can, in fact, can be the opposite of supremacists, as they often are in the case of white people who happily concede that the average IQ of a Far East Asian is higher than that of a white person, or in the case of Far East Asians who happily concede that white people are much less corrupt when in government than Far East Asians.

They often get accused of being racists, though, because their experience has caused them to hold unflattering opinions of some races and these opinions are often considered supremacist by social justice warriors looking for someone to freak out at. The truth prevails, however, because these people tend to find each other and reinforce each others’ experiences.

The third is the “Marxist” definition of racism, which is the weaponised version. Here the concern is with how to use guilt about racism as a tool for browbeating those perceived to be bourgeoisie. Anywhere you hear the ludicrous assertion that racism isn’t real racism unless the person doing it is part of the bourgeoisie, you know you’re in Marxist territory.

This weaponised version of racism is used to manipulate people, usually white people, into believing that they have inherited racial debts from the age of colonialism, and can only clear these racial debts by supporting Marxist policies like mass Muslim immigration. This is why it is so frequently brought out when someone criticises the practices of the religion of Islam, which is not a race.

Unfortunately for the Marxists, their attempts to guilt-trip people into supporting their policies has backfired, because no-one knows which of these definitions is being used at any one time. Manipulating people through dishonest use of language is typical for people with totalitarian mindsets, but overuse of it causes the populace to become aware.

The Philosophy of Materialism is The Memetic Cancer of Our Age

The brain generates consciousness and therefore the death of the physical body means the extinction of all awareness – so buy buy buy!

Materialism – what is it good for? To give it its due, it’s a very useful paradigm to adopt if one wants to conduct an experiment in any of the physical sciences. The monkey who first realised that fire could be started from the friction of a hard wood on a soft one derived an enormous advantage over the monkeys who were still doing dances to try to please the lightning gods.

More recently, materialist science such as physics and chemistry led to Anglo-American dominance of the sea trade routes, as the adoption of first coal, then oil, then uranium allowed these powers to keep a naval force in operation that was orders of magnitude more powerful than what was possible under sail. Mastery of these sciences also allowed these same powers a decisive military advantage in terms of weaponry.

All well and good – but what is materialism bad for? Many, many, many things. Unfortunately, materialism has strengthened beyond being a mere scientific approach. It’s not even a worldview anymore. In our blind 21st century, materialism must be accorded the status of a legitimate religion. This has had profound effects on the political, scientific and intellectual discourse of all nations.

Like any dominant religion, the presuppositions of materialism can no longer be questioned in polite society. It’s possible to talk about “the” biological basis of consciousness as if it were already an established fact that consciousness has a biological basis. Asking how it is that it’s known that consciousness has a biological basis elicits, in materialist circles, a similar response to going into a church and demanding the priest prove his contention that the Bible is the Word of God.

It’s just not the done thing.

And so it’s possible for one of the world’s most prominent intellectuals, Sam Harris, to discuss consciousness with a supposed expert on the subject for over an hour without either of them questioning the dogma of the “biological basis of consciousness”. That the brain generates consciousness and not the other way around is assumed from the beginning, and all subsequent data has to be shoehorned into this framework or discarded.

Ironically, the podcast mentions that consciousness had hitherto been the purview of philosophers, in a passage exclaiming how good it was that other disciplines are now considering it. The reason why this had been the case is now obvious – because physicists, chemists and neurobiologists are incapable of the logical reasoning necessary to truly consider the question. This logical failure leads to errors like assuming right off the bat that the brain generates consciousness, the type of error that philosophers generally don’t make.

Listening to a supposed expert in neuroscience ramble on about the biological substrates of consciousness is every bit as depressing as listening to some old priest ramble on about whether or not we’re allowed to drink wine on Sundays. Both charades are dependent on one gimmick: take for granted the biological basis of consciousness and we can explain everything (says the neuroscientist), take for granted the eternal truth of the Bible and we can explain everything (says the theologian).

The worst part of it is that – just like Abrahamism, Nazism, Communism and Marxism – materialism has also rotted the minds of the people who have come to believe in it. Like a cancer, it has given rise to a number of bad things, all of them ultimately caused by the belief of materialist individuals that the death of their brain inevitably means the extinguishing of their consciousness.

Materialists are generally indifferent to the condition of the world after they die. Let’s just rape it now is their motto. After all, if their consciousness is extinguished upon the death of the brain, there is no logical reason to act in a manner custodial to the life that comes after you. There won’t be any way it affects you, so why bother?

Materialists are also easily manipulated by death anxiety. People who know that the consciousness survives the death of the physical body can laugh in the face of death, because they know that death will not occasion a traumatically significant change from the state of existence that pertained before death.

This latter point is why materialist cultures like the British fight wars all over the world while non-materialist ones such as the Indians do not. A Brit can easily be terrified into doing what you tell him because of the fear of invasion or economic disaster or God’s judgment or some other catastrophe; the Indian will just laugh.

For Western culture to survive, we have to cast off the spiritual sickness that we inherited even as we assumed scientific and military dominance. We have to move past materialism and the ludicrous contortions of reasoning that it forces people to undergo.

Psychedelic drugs and meditation are the cures for the memetic cancer that has been growing in the West for a few centuries.