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!

Making Sense Of Abrahamic Morality

There are some 3 billion Abrahamists in the world, most of them Christians, Muslims and Jews. As such, understanding the human race requires that we understand the mindset of Abrahamists. It’s impossible to ask the Abrahamists about themselves, because they always lie to make their cults look good. So it’s necessary to take a non-Abrahamic perspective.

The most difficult thing to understand about Abrahamists is their contradictory nature. On the one hand, they all claim to have the blueprint for peace on Earth, if only more people would follow them. On the other, their history is littered with murders, tortures, witch burnings, rapes and massacres.

Elementalism provides the answers to the Abrahamic paradox.

In Elementalism, it is understood that Yahweh, the God of Abraham, is none other than the Principle of Evil. As a consequence, the religions that worship this god are evil ones. The followers of those religions are some degree of evil as well. Some are merely deluded, but the majority have wilfully chosen to promulgate evil, on account of that their souls are rotten.

Genuine spiritual traditions have always laboured the need to change oneself if one wishes to change the world, a mindset Gandhi summarised as “Be the change you want to see in the world.” As an anti-spirituality, Abrahamism seeks to change the world rather than change oneself. This is why Abrahamists are always on a moral crusade.

Whether it’s Jews with their tikkun olam or Christians and Muslims with their degeneracy, Abrahamists are obsessed with setting other people to rights, and ignoring their own flaws. Abrahamists have been instructed to go to war with the world for one ultimate, underlying purpose: to do evil.

Elemental Elementalism states: the true will of Abrahamists is “to cause as much harm and misery as they can, whether physical, emotional, mental or spiritual” (46:28). This line is the key to understanding Abrahamic morality.

Physical harm is shown by the Abrahamist’s love of child abuse. When New Zealand banned hitting children, it was mostly Christian pressure groups that came out in opposition. Even today, Christian fascists like Bob McCoskrie propagandise in favour of hitting children.

If Abrahamists aren’t bashing their kids they’re raping them. The extent of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church is legendary. The extent to which the Catholic Church covers up for child abusers among them is also legendary. But all Abrahamics abuse children.

Muslims have the concept of bacha bazi, in which young boys are bought and sold for dancing and sex. Jews practice metzitzah b’peh, in which a mohel sucks the blood from a freshly mutilated boy’s penis. Any normal, mentally healthy person who reads about metzitzah b’peh will understand intuitively that the people performing it are demons.

That the Abrahamist is constantly at war is also evidence of his sadism. Christians like to claim that the coming of their cult was the coming of an age of peace, as if the Thirty Years’ War never happened. There’s always an excuse for all the wars started by Christians. When Orthodox Russia invades Ukraine, and kills hundreds of thousands in the name of “desatanisation”, it somehow isn’t Christianity’s fault. Same as when George W Bush invades Iraq because he thought he heard the voice of Yahweh telling him to do so.

Muslims and Jews are no different. Muslims will claim that they only ever fight defensive wars, as if it were possible to conquer from Spain to Indonesia though only defensive warfare. Jews deny the existence of their mass murderers: they will tell you that Yagoda and Kaganovich were Russian, and that Kissinger was German.

The Abrahamist’s opposition to abortion also reveals his will to increase the suffering in the world. There are few ways to cause greater suffering than to force a mother to birth and raise a child she doesn’t want. But this is exactly why Abrahamists support forced births. They know that the psychological damage that tends to be inflicted on unwanted children creates a wave of misery that ripples through the whole society.

Emotional abuse is demonstrated by the Abrahamist’s love of ostracisation. Any cult member who starts asking questions is at risk of being expelled and never spoken to again by the others. The Abrahamic cults aren’t like normal religions, in that people are encouraged to explore a diversity of schools of thought. In Abrahamism, you’re given one truth, and everyone else is the enemy.

Out-group antipathy is so strong in Abrahamism that those suffering ostracisation often end up with Religious Trauma Syndrome. “You are not okay” and “you are not safe” are the two characteristic narratives of traumatic religion-based upbringings. They’re also characteristic narratives of Abrahamism.

This form of abuse is particularly vicious in Islam, where people leaving the cult are routinely murdered. Thirteen countries currently have the death penalty for apostasy, all of them Islamic shitholes. Seven of these also have the death penalty for blasphemy. One of easily imagine the type of person that this kind of emotional abuse tends to create.

Intellectual suffering is caused mostly by the Abrahamist’s opposition to education and learning.

Christians have always suppressed the educated. Celsus wrote of them in the second century “This is one of their rules. Let no man that is learned, wise, or prudent come among us: but if they be unlearned, or a child, or an idiot, let him freely come. So they openly declare that none but the ignorant, and those devoid of understanding, slaves, women, and children, are fit disciples for the God they worship.”

Such a mindset led to the murder of Hypatia, the murder of Giordano Bruno, and the 1,200 years of murder inbetween, known today as the Dark Ages. During this time, Christians destroyed so much of the ancient European knowledge that people forgot that the Earth went around the Sun (common knowledge in ancient Europe since the time of Aristarchus).

Today’s Christians now pretend they have always been in favour of science and learning (the Christians with the most chutzpah even claim their cult invented science). Muslims, on the other hand, don’t even pretend. They generally don’t care for reading, whether original works or in translation.

The greatest suffering caused by the Abrahamist is spiritual.

Firstly, they repress genuine spirituality. When Christians invaded Europe, they did not seek co-existence with the European religions, but rather sought to destroy them. The Massacre of Verden, in which 4,500 Saxon nobles were murdered for refusing to abandon the European religions, is probably the most famous example of the lengths to which they were willing to go to achieve this goal.

The War on Drugs is not usually understood as a Christian attempt to suppress genuine spirituality, but it is. The reason why Christians oppose the legalisation of cannabis, psilocybin and other spiritual sacraments is that they know these substances are spiritual sacraments. Therefore, they know that to prohibit them is to force people to suffer in spiritual darkness.

Secondly, Abrahamists promote lies in place of spirituality. The narrative that anyone who doesn’t follow the same religion as the Abrahamist is going to Hell is a psychological crime. It denies the fundamental spiritual truths of reincarnation and karma. So, too, Abrahamic narratives that the world is evil and that pleasure is evil.

The narrative that you can skip out on your karmic debt by pledging your soul to Rabbi Yeshua or to Muhammad is lunacy, a sop to the egos of the wilfully delusional. Hence the Abrahamists push it. Another lunacy is pushing an End Times narrative instead of the truth about the cyclical nature of history and of reality. The more lies, the more confusion; the more confusion, the more suffering.

In summary, Abrahamic morality can be simply understood as doing evil and attempts to justify doing evil. Abrahamists seek to maximise the suffering in the world so as to please their god Yahweh, the Principle of Evil. All of their moral actions follow logically from this.

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!

Notes From The Second Intifada

I lived in Europe during the Second Intifada, which took place from 2000-2005. Although the Intifada did not take place in Europe it nonetheless had a major effect. This was partly because of the large numbers of Palestinian refugees in Sweden, where I lived. It was also because of the deep interest in foreign affairs that my then-acquaintances possessed.

Being a double outsider – someone who was not only outside the Israel-Palestine conflict but also outside Europe – I had an unusual vantage point. Few people in Sweden were familiar with New Zealanders, and so people were more open with me than they would have been with most other nationalities. This meant that people told me all sorts of things they would normally have kept secret.

Not having ever been to the Middle East, I didn’t have any direct knowledge of the conflict. Therefore, it was impossible for me to take a side in it. But I was able to glean direct knowledge of the psychology of the participants through meeting so many of them in Europe.

What Westerners usually don’t understand is that Muslims believe, with absolute certainty, that their religion is destined to rule over the entire world one day. They believe this like Westerners believe that the Sun will one day swallow the Earth, or in the Heat Death of the Universe, i.e. it’s essentially never questioned.

The difference is that Muslims also believe that this conquest is a moral imperative that outweighs all others. Any action taken to further the Islamic conquest of the world is morally acceptable. Any action taken to hinder the Islamic conquest of the world is morally unacceptable. All other moral beliefs are secondary.

Therefore, all Muslims supported all actions against the “Zionist entity”. Any amount of murder, rape or mutilation was acceptable as long as it was directed against that enemy. No act of cruelty against that enemy was even a crime. For the Muslims in Europe, news that some Israelis had been killed was like for a New Zealander to hear that the All Blacks had won. It represented a triumph in the great battle.

None of this is to say that the Israelis are any better.

The Israelis have entirely internalised Rabbi Yaacov Perrin’s notion that “A million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” For them, only other Jews have value. Everyone else is at best a tool, at worst an enemy. Understanding this extreme hostility to outsiders is necessary to understand the Palestine-Israel issue.

In 2001, when I first came to Europe, the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre was still fresh in the minds of many. People knew how the massacre was celebrated in Israel. Thus, any talk of the Israelis being blameless was nonsense. In contrast to the Anglo world, where Jews are considered morally perfect, in Europe they’re generally considered imperialist invaders.

This extreme xenophobia on the part of the Jews means their behaviour is almost identical to that of their enemy, despite the Jews’ higher IQs. Just as with the Muslims, the Jews completely ignore any atrocities committed by their own side. The killing of any Palestinians is forgotten before the bodies are even cold. Also just as with the Muslims, the Jews expect you to take their side and will hate your guts if you don’t.

Jews believe they are the teachers of mankind. The concept of tikkun olam means that they consider humanity a wretched mass of brainless animals until perfected by Jewish domination. Again as with the Muslims, and their beliefs in their own superiority, this idea is never questioned. If you, as an outsider, disagree with it, you are either stupid or evil.

To not be a Jewish supremacist is to be a Nazi. In the Jewish mind there are only those two categories. Either you worship Jews as divine and perfect educators of the sinful human race, or you’re a Nazi that demands their total destruction. Yet again as with the Muslims, there is no middle ground. George W Bush’s dictum that “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” applies to both sides.

Having observed such attitudes, I knew by the end of 2003 that there is zero hope of any peaceful settlement between the two sides. One will eventually wipe the other out. Any talk of peace merely delays this inevitability.

Many Westerners have been surprised by all of the pro-Palestine/Hamas protests in recent weeks. Evidently there exists a widespread delusion that the Islamic refugees the West has let in over the past 20 years must feel an obligation to integrate, and to leave the petty squabbles of their homelands behind. In reality, they (like the Israelis) are doing everything they can to drag the entire rest of the world into the conflict. Both sides are masters of propaganda, and shamelessly pump it into the collective consciousness.

In summary, the Second Intifada taught me that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a problem that can never be peacefully solved. Both sides are full of hate to a degree that is incomprehensible to any normal Westerner. Neither side has enough basic humanity to even desire peace, let alone achieve it. And consequently they will kill each other until only one side is left.

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!

A Paean To Springbok Rugby

I have always felt, from the perspective of the whole world, that rugby was the greatest sport of all. My personal favourite sport is Test match cricket, but that’s a peculiar taste, off-limits to most. The great masses of plebs prefer soccer, but, of those, the majority can be persuaded to understand rugby if given the chance. When they are, many prefer rugby to soccer.

Within rugby there are many great rivalries. All Blacks vs. Wallabies is a common favourite, as are England vs. France and England vs. Wales. The best, however, is All Blacks vs. Springboks. This rivalry has most consistently produced close contents exhibiting high skill levels. Therefore, if rugby is the greatest sport of all, the All Blacks vs.Springbok rivalry is the greatest sporting rivalry of all.

The basis of this rivalry is not merely quantitative: it’s not merely because the Springboks beat the All Blacks more than any other team does, nor is it merely because the Boks and ABs win the most Rugby World Cups. Many have claimed this, but are wrong.

The basis of the All Blacks-Springboks rivalry is qualitative: it’s because these are the only two sides who would rather die on the field than lose.

If my love of cricket really began with the 1992 Cricket World Cup, then my love of rugby really began with the 1995 Rugby World Cup. I stayed over at a friend’s place to watch the final and he, his family and I woke up in the middle of the night for it. The whole saga around Jonah Lomu, Sean Fitzpatrick, Jeff Wilson, Nelson Mandela, Joel Stransky, Francois Pienaar and the food poisoning was fantastic drama.

I have followed most All Blacks matches since then. I have observed many patterns in these matches. One of these patterns is that All Blacks vs. Springboks games are regularly the best theatre in world rugby, and, therefore, in world sport.

The reason why the All Blacks routinely beat the Northern Hemisphere teams, I have always reasoned, was because they wanted it more. The All Blacks were more committed to tackles, more committed to diving on the loose ball, more committed in the air, at scrumtime, all across the park. This was typified by the example of Buck Shelford getting his scrotum torn open during a match against France, getting it stitched up again and then playing to the end.

The Springboks want it just as much. Defence, for them, appears to be a matter of life or death. Springbok players seemed happy to launch themselves like human missiles at players about to score in the corner. Ball in hand, their favourite thing was to run it up the middle like something out of the Iliad. All this was first-rate entertainment, and why many of my favourite non-All Black players, over the years, have been Boks.

Gary Teichmann was for many years the archetypal Springbok player. Big, fast and skilled, he was the first Springbok who I observed to be a truly dangerous opponent. The 17-win streak under his captaincy etched permanently into my mind the perception of Springbok excellence.

Joost van der Westhuizen was in a similar category thanks to his intensity. A 90s journalist in New Zealand described him as possessing a “Man from Blood River Stare”. In his mind, he was at war. To me, van der Westhuizen embodied the spirit of rugby.

I believe that no rugby player has ever played with less regard for his own physical safety than Corne Krige. Watching Krige clatter into rucks like a runaway train was premium entertainment. That his Super Rugby career ended with an eight-week ban for headbutting is comedy gold.

John Smit was the most respected captain of any All Black opponent, even more so than Eales, Johnson or Dusautoir. He understood that you can’t outpassion a team that does hakas before the match. So you have to coldly dismantle them. Winning 3-0 against the All Blacks was a feat I’ve never seen repeated.

Victor Matfield was always my personal favourite. Because he was the same height as me, I imagined that Matfield was what I would be like if I played international rugby. The matches he played with a forearm brace were great theatre.

Schalk Burger was maximum entertainment, as he appeared to be completely insane, like a Viking beserker. Second only to Krige in terms of total disregard for his own safety.

Jean de Villiers marked the beginning of a new era of Springbok rugby – that of using brains. The Boks before then were as tough as anyone, but they made a lot of mistakes in the top two inches. After de Villiers captained the side, the Boks became much less predictable.

Pieter-Steph du Toit perhaps best typifies the modern Springbok approach. He is capable of exerting ruthless defensive pressure while maintaining a low error rate. Like Gary Teichmann but somehow even bigger, faster and more skilled.

Some have accused the Springboks of playing one-dimensional rugby, of being “bosh merchants”. I have always disagreed. Rugby is fundamentally a battle of possession. The Springboks have never forgotten this. Therefore, I consider their style pure, unconcerned with the fashions of the day.

It’s true, however, that there has always been an element of villainy in the Sprinboks’ contribution to rugby culture. Like the rest of New Zealand, I was appalled when Johan le Roux bit Sean Fitzpatrick’s ear, when Matfield cracked Byron Kelleher in the head with his forearm brace, when Bakkies Botha headbutted Jimmy Cowan.

Ultimately, despite the thuggery, Springbok vs. All Black rugby is the best sporting theatre on earth. As such, I don’t mind losing to the Springboks in the final this year as much as I would have minded losing to England, Ireland or France. The Boks want it more, so fair enough.

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!