Why People Aren't Willing To Fight

Why People Aren’t Willing To Fight

The war drums are beating, and everyone can hear them. The Western powers are arraying themselves for a cataclysmic showdown with the Eurasian axis of Russia, Iran and China. This means they’re going to be looking for cannon fodder to help them kill Russians, Iranians and Chinese people. But it won’t be as simple as previous times.

The glib assumption made by the Western ruling class is that they can declare an eternal war against their Russian, Iranian and Chinese foes, and simply draft young Westerners to fight it. This is what they have done in previous wars, and it worked out great for them. Today’s ruling class, however, have lost touch with reality somewhat: they don’t realise that many of the old rules of mass manipulation no longer apply.

Recent mainstream media propaganda has pushed the concept of conscription on us. This has been especially true in Britain and in Australia. But the Establishment was not prepared for the reaction from the populace. Many young people (not just VJM Publishing) have expressed an extreme unwillingness to allow themselves to get conscripted to fight for the West.

Why?

Most young people today feel like the social contract has been broken. The intergenerational social contract, as has been understood for centuries, was that each generation leaves the following generation a better society, in return for getting a decent pension from that society. The elders were respected and given a cut of society’s proceeds because they had left a quality standard of living to the next generation.

Today’s young people aren’t getting a better society. By most honest measures of wealth and well-being, young people today are doing much worse than the Boomers did, sometimes several times worse. This is especially true when it comes to housing: young people today have to put in about four times as much effort to own a house. The Boomers are now extorting the younger generations to the maximum.

On top of that, the Boomers are mass importing cheap labour to compete with the Boomers’ own descendants on housing and wages. So those descendants are finding themselves having to scrap with half of the Third World just to get a quarter of what their parents had. It’s a rotten deal by any fair analysis.

So now many young people are saying to themselves: if the social contract was never upheld for us, why should we uphold it for anyone else? Why fight for an arrangement where we’re little better than slaves, sentenced to pay off mortgage debts to Boomers until we’re decrepit ourselves?

Why fight for a system that’s rigged against us? Young people in the trenches against China wouldn’t be fighting for a system that gave them a better chance of owning a house and raising a family than the Chinese system, but the opposite (the homeownership rate in China is close to 90%). They’d be fighting for a system of usurious enslavement that sought to suck the life energy not only from them but from their descendants for generations to come.

No young Westerner can, with a clean conscience, support the system that has enslaved them. It follows that they would only fight for it under the most extreme form of duress. Given the extent of the fragging that existed near the end of the Vietnam War, the ruling class could rightly be concerned that something similar would happen again if they brought conscription back, only on a bigger scale.

Moreover, some are asking: Fight for what?

It’s no longer clear that we even have nations anymore, at least not in the way that we’re used to thinking about them. The advent of multiculturalism has meant that the old in-group boundaries are now very fluid. The countries our ancestors fought for are now very different – some would argue categorically different.

Most young Westerners now understand that they’re being replaced by Third World cheap labour, and that this replacement is not a natural phenomenon. Rather, it is deliberately being orchestrated by the Western ruling class for profit. So what would we be fighting for in the case of getting conscripted to kill Russians? A McNation of cheap labour imports? An economic zone ruled by an ideology of “every man for himself” economics?

Our families would be better off if we didn’t go to war. The only beneficiaries of war today are the globalists who would not only get to destroy their rivals, but who would also profiteer from the killing. Realising this en masse, young people are no longer willing to fight as previous generations had been.

Some of the unwillingness to fight can be attributed to the influence of alternative media. For decades now, alternative media outlets devoted to the fight against evil have served to educate the public about the workings of the ruling class, and how they manipulate the rest of us into doing their bidding. VJM Publishing has been among those, and we will continue to do what we can to enlighten people about how the warmongers manipulate them into battle.

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!

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!

The Great Resistance, Fully Realised

The Great Awakening appears to be going very slowly. The control system is very clever, and it knows that there are various ways to keep a population submissive. One of the tried-and-true methods is to work the population so hard that it doesn’t have time to organise an awakening or revolution. So before there can be a Great Awakening, there has to be a Great Resistance.

The Great Resistance has been described as a pushback from workers who want to keep working at home. The Coronavirus lockdowns led to a large number of workers working from home, and most of those workers decided that they preferred that to the daily grind of commuting for hours on top of a full day of work.

Many workers have been confused by their bosses’ demands for them to come back to the office post-Covid. It’s hard to see what, apart from a sadistic need for control, would motivate them to demand their workers commute when it isn’t necessary. This has led to some resentment, and that resentment has led to resistance.

Some have taken the Great Resistance concept further, to the point where it has become a Western version of the Chinese “lying flat movement“. After all, the reasoning goes, if you want to save on your commuting time because it’s wasted, why not save on other forms of wasted time as well? Such as working for a wage that you can never own a home and raise a family on?

There’s potentially much more to it than even that.

The Great Resistance has the potential to become an entirely new social movement towards resisting tyranny. If it can combine the right-wingers concerned about losing free speech and other freedoms, and the left-wingers concerned about unaffordable rents and housing, such a movement could have a major societal impact.

The Great Resistance could be a resistance of many things – not just of our material exploitation but also our spiritual exploitation.

Perhaps the most obvious and immediate cause for the Great Resistance relates to the share of wealth accrued by the bottom 99% of society. At the end of 2023, young and working-class people all over the West are in a state of deep malaise. The chance of owning a home that a family can be raised in seems remote for most of those people.

The first cause, then, is liberating wealth from the top 1%. Housing, especially, must be liberated so that people at an age to start families can afford it. This will involve shifting the entire balance of power back from the hoarders of land to the workers of it. Immigration must be stopped so that employers are forced to pay fair wages to locals.

The workday must be reduced so that Westerners have time for something other than work. Everything that sucks time from people unnecessarily, whether commuting, bullshit jobs, unpaid overtime, being always-on-call etc. must be abolished, by law. If the average worker today has become twice as productive as the average worker in the 1970s, they should see at least half of that benefit.

Resisting corporate propaganda is part of this. If any revolutionary social movement is to be successful, its members have to be ideologically clear. This means that they will have to resist the messaging of the mainstream media, the television in particular. Resist the corporate media’s tireless attempts to insert its advertising into your brain. Consume clean information.

Another part of the Great Resistance must also involve resisting shit food and drugs. Some Clown Worlders have coined the term ‘goyslop’ to describe the low-quality garbage food that pervades Western culture. The high goyslop consumption rates are partially because all the energy and time that would have been used for cooking is stolen by the employer. This must be resisted.

Naturally, this also involves getting fit. It’s not just about resisting slop but also resisting laziness. The Great Resistance will involve resistance training. Physical strength is a tangible sign of one’s refusal to collapse into the dirt. The attempts by the ruling class to drive the rest of us into the ground must be resisted.

Also, if any success is to be had, the members of the revolutionary social movement must resist spiritual lies intended to induce submission. The Great Resistance must continue the work and sacrifice made by those throughout history who have battled spiritual terrorism, in whichever form it has arisen. Death narratives must be rejected, and life narratives must be emphasised.

Fully realising the Great Resistance, then, will go far beyond merely working from home. It will involve a complete rebalancing of the relative powers of workers and capital owners, in both physical and metaphysical spheres. Previous attempts to achieve this rebalance have failed, mostly because working-class leaders were replaced by ruling-class lackeys. It’s time to try from a different angle.

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!