The Cruelty Is The Point

Many have been surprised by the decisions made by the Sixth National Government. Taking food away from hungry children and giving the money to landlords seems pointlessly cruel. So does ticking up an eleven-figure debt that our grandchildren will labour to settle, just for tax cuts. Perhaps the most egregious is maintaining cannabis prohibition in the face of the mountain of international evidence that it doesn’t work.

What motivates these decisions?

A cursory examination of New Zealand political history shows that previous National governments have also been motivated by cruelty. The Fifth National Government slashed the mental health system and continued to withhold medicinal cannabis. The Fourth National Government slashed the welfare system and destroyed unions. All of these measures were blamed on Labour at the time, but in reality were motivated by simple cruelty.

Cruelty is, in fact, one of the major human motivations. The rush of sadism can be one of the most powerful of all. Ted Bundy once said “When you feel the last bit of breath leaving their body, you’re looking into their eyes. A person in that situation is God!” Similar feelings of grandeur flow through the National MP who cuts food programs for children.

It can be seen from the way that bullies abuse each other at school, psychopathic bosses abuse workers in the office and spouses abuse each other behind closed doors, cruelty and sadism are powerful motivators for action in many different times and places. People wired up this way readily find an outlet in National and ACT party politics.

Once the central motivating role of cruelty in National party psychology is realised, it’s much easier to understand National party policy.

This was seen most evidently during the cannabis referendum. National party supporters, who generally opposed law reform in this area, were not moved by arguments around the immense alleviation of human suffering that easy access to cannabis would allow. To the contrary – National voters, who seldom use cannabis themselves (preferring booze, painkillers and television), understood that cannabis prohibition usually destroyed Other People.

This also explains why National party voters were seldom moved by appeals to the fact that Maoris suffer more heavily than other races from cannabis prohibition. Given that National voters hate Maori people and want them to suffer, why would they then care about Maoris getting locked up because of cannabis prohibition? To the National mindset, that’s more of an argument to support prohibition.

John Ehrlichmann, Presidential Advisor under Richard Nixon, once said: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Same deal in New Zealand. Of course the National party and their lackeys like Mike Hosking and Bob McCoskrie know the science. The science has been established for decades: cannabis is medicinal, and any amount of misuse is less harmful than misuse of alcohol. But by lying about it, the National party can target their enemies. Not hippies and blacks, but hippies and Maoris.

National party policy cannot be understood unless it is appreciated that the intent of such policy is to destroy people the National party hates. This is primarily the poor. National hates Maori people more because they are poor than because they are Maori – proof for this assertion comes from the fact that National voters don’t seem to hate Asians.

The central motivating role of cruelty in National party policy can be seen in this year’s benefit cuts. The indexing of benefit increases to inflation instead of wages has cost the average beneficiary $6 per week, which saves the Government a pittance in comparison to what they’re paying out in landlord tax cuts. But it’s not the saving money that motivates such cuts – it’s tightening the stranglehold on beneficiaries.

Nietzsche wrote, in Thus Spake Zarathustra, to “distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful”. There was excellent reason for this. The impulse to punish is fuelled by resentment, which is the basis of slave morality. This impulse is referred to as a “justice boner” in modern Internet parlance, reflecting the fact that its ultimately motivated by pre-human, even reptilian, brain structure.

Unfortunately, the stupidity of Labour and the Greens means that the cruelty of National and ACT is something the rest of us must endure for as long as the two-party democratic system exists.

As long as democracy exists, it will appeal primarily to the lowest common denominator and thereby enable the most bestial and sadistic impulses of humanity. This is why the National and ACT parties have produced, and continue to produce, a parade of sadistic beasts: Shipley, Richardson, Prebble, Key, Brownlee, Bennett, Collins, van Velden et al., ad infinitum.

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 piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Working-Class White Question

Conventional political understanding is that the left wing is for the working class and the right wing is for the ruling class. But conventional understanding is in the process of being replaced by an alternative politics. In the politics of the 21st Century, the left wing is for browns and blacks. This has raised a number of, until now, unanswered questions.

Perhaps the foremost of those questions is: what is the position of working-class whites in the new paradigm?

The labour movements that formed in the West in the 19th and early 20th Centuries were almost entirely white. They formed in opposition to the capitalist interests that were also almost entirely white. But when globalists won World War Two, and began the mass importation of cheap Third World labour to the West, the white working class were put in a bind.

According to the Marxists, the white working class were obliged to embrace their replacements. The world’s working class were prophecised by Marx to come together across international borders, and so the destruction of national consciousness through mass cheap labour imports was a good thing. The white working class would have to recognise that they and the newcomers were of a shared mission: to destroy the capitalist system.

Working-class whites, however, didn’t feel like they had much in common with the newcomers. For one thing, the vast majority of working-class whites have at least some middle-class people in their extended family. For another, the newcomers usually hated the working-class whites and made that hatred obvious.

This caused working-class white sentiments to split: some embraced working-class culture, some embraced white culture, and others bunked down into an exclusivist working-class white culture that was hostile to outsiders. The net result was the shattering of working-class white solidarity and the neutralisation of working-class whites as a political force.

Today, we see working-class whites, on account of being white, forced to take a back seat to everyone else, even when those others are wealthier. Working-class whites are excluded from racial scholarships just as much as Bill Gates’s kids are. Working-class whites can also be, and often are, excluded from certain jobs under Diversity, Inclusion and Equity initiatives.

Naturally, this has led to immense resentment among working-class whites towards the Western political establishment. This resentment is strongest for those leftists who claim to be fighting for the white working class, but who in reality are fighting for an ideology that doesn’t care at all about working-class whites.

The working-class white question, then, is a way of distinguishing sane leftists from insane wokists.

If a person truly supports the underdog, they will support the working-class whites upon whose backs industrial civilisation was built, and who still bear the majority of the intergenerational trauma incurred through the various wars of the past 100 years: the same working-class whites who are currently getting squeezed out of housing all over the West.

If they are an insane wokist, by contrast, they might consider working-class whites traitors for their refusal to support the globalist revolution. Thus they will not care about the suffering of working-class whites from the mass importation of Third World cheap labour. That suffering is just a means to the end of globalist revolution.

Thus sane leftists can be distinguished from insane ones, simply by asking them what they think about working-class whites.

A leftist might make the argument that some particular racial group is disadvantaged because of colonisation, and therefore deserves special treatment by way of compensation. Very well. But what, then, explains the disadvantage of working-class whites?

If a left-wing politician makes the argument that browns and blacks are disadvantaged by colonisation, but working-class whites, who may be poorer than those browns and blacks, are advantaged by that same colonisation, and therefore are obliged to pay some of the reparations that are due from the whites to the browns and blacks, that politician is the enemy.

Likewise if a politician says that browns and blacks are poor because they have not had a chance yet, but working-class whites are poor because they have had a chance and have already blown it, that politician is the enemy. This is akin to saying that working-class whites are the only truly low-IQ faction of society, and therefore deserve a place at the very bottom of the ladder.

Working-class whites need to realise that, if a left-wing politician doesn’t support working-class whites explicitly, they will not support working-class whites at all. The fact that they are on the left cannot be taken to mean that they implicitly support working-class whites.

The working-class white question is a way for working-class whites to determine if a given leftist is a friend or a foe.

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why Mainstream Conservatives Support Homosexuality But Not Cannabis Law Reform

Forty years ago, mainstream conservatives believed that both cannabis and homosexuality ought to be criminalised. Today, they still believe that cannabis use should be illegal – but they celebrate homosexuality, as shown by their attendance at the various pride parades. What is the reason for supporting the status quo on one moral issue, but making a complete flip on another? This article explains.

What it comes down to is a war on consciousness.

Homosexuality might be a threat to a certain kind of moral order, one based around the family and raising children. But it isn’t a threat to capitalism. In fact, the logic of nihilistic consumption is common to both homosexuals and capitalists. Both tend to live for today and for the pleasures of today, with little thought to posterity or to their legacy.

American marketers believe the “pink dollar” – the total consumption of LGBTQ people – to be worth over one trillion dollars per year in the United States. Yahoo Finance states: “there is a correlation between the growth of the pink economy and the increase in demand for luxury products and premium services, since it is estimated that this community spends 15% more than heterosexuals.”

This is the reason for the right-wing about-face on homosexuality over recent decades. By encouraging homosexuality, the conservatives encourage people onto a path of hedonistic, spendthrift materialism. Today’s conservatives no longer care about conserving anything, they only care about money. So for them, the ideal citizen is someone who just spends, spends and spends.

Cannabis is a different matter.

Cannabis has been used for thousands of years as a spiritual sacrament. As with other spiritual sacraments (such as psilocybin), cannabis inspires people to do things that our corporate overlords don’t like. Such as recycle, minimalise consumption and even drop out of capitalist society completely to devote one’s life to higher pursuits.

Unlike homosexuality, then, spirituality is a direct threat to the capitalist paradigm. Spirituality induces people to find pleasure in everyday things, such as the rise and fall of the Sun, the glow of the Moon, the caress of the wind. It causes people to assign merit to the good, not to those with the most expensive car or shoes.

Spirituality also causes people to take extreme long-term viewpoints. Because it inclines people to think about reincarnation and karma, it also inclines people to think about their wider family, clan, nation, race and species, and justice for those groups. This kind of thinking comes into direct conflict with the capitalist imperative to atomise every individual into a consumerist silo.

The National party’s biggest concern is keeping people on the employment-rent treadmill, whereupon they can be plundered for maximum profits. To this end, they want people taking the most short-term possible view. They want people obsessed with the crudest, most bestial pleasures. Understanding this, one can also understand how Judith Collins can march in a pride parade while campaigning to have cannabis users locked up.

In esoteric terms, the situation can (as so often) be best understood with an appeal to the Mithraic Ladder.

The mentality, and the spiritual frequency, of homosexuality is something that belongs to the lowest levels of the Mithraic Ladder. The energy of Saturn, or of lead, is an energy not concerned with reproduction. Saturn consumed his offspring, and, in the same way, homosexuals do not create a next generation. Homosexuality is the frequency of death, where pleasure is raised higher than life itself.

People on those low levels are not thinking about a revolution of philosopher-kings. As such, cocks going up arses are not, in any sense, a threat to the Government or to conservatism. In fact, in so far as it serves as a distraction from the development of the political consciousness necessary to challenge the ruling class, sodomy is a benefit to the Government and to conservatism.

The same phenomenon can be seen on /pol/, where the catalog is regularly flooded with porn and sex threads, distracting from the development of political consciousness. This is the result of a deliberate effort to destroy a space in which free political thought takes place.

The spiritual frequency of cannabis use, by contrast, is about higher vistas. Cannabis users tend to think about things like justice, God and their own karmic debts. This naturally leads them to think about political questions. A person whose mind is fixed on the eternal is the ultimate threat to tyrannical rulers. Such a person, like the Terminator, cannot be distracted by mere pleasures and they’re much harder to intimidate into submission.

Mainstream conservatives, in summary, support homosexuality and not cannabis law reform because homosexuality has the ultimate effect of upholding the status quo, whereas cannabis use does not.

Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World about a society in which no-one participated in intellectual pursuits, but were obsessed with sex. This culture was of great benefit to the rulers of that world, who thereby went unchallenged. Huxley was aware in the 1930s of that venal, money-grubbing tendency among conservatives. In our time, that tendency has fully bloomed.

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 piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Case For Rejecting The Consensus

Here, I would like to suggest some reasons why someone might be justified in questioning their tacit, unswerving allegiance to the consensus.

Firstly, did you realise you were in an ongoing agreement? Because you may not have realised this, and you may not have already decided to say ‘no’ and walk away. What would that take? Simply that. Your refusal to continually go into agreement to that which no longer serves you – in your outer life, as well as your inner life. One produces a reflection of the other.

We have wars started by greedy idiots, bloodthirsty zealots and control-hungry ideological fundamentalists. We are brought to question whether we might abstractly agree or disagree that a given group of people could justifiably be blown to pieces, as though this were somehow our call. Your agreement or disagreement here doesn’t matter in order to qualify as insanity; what matters is that you are demanded to be on beck and call to participate in the insanity served up to you by a mentally diseased consensus.

The consensus wants to force your hand into playing the game to power the illusion that you were the one choosing it. Your choice to bear witness to all of this is your agreement to it. This happens in the same way a hostage might be forced to dictate the methods of his own torture – as though being invited to weigh your opinion on this narrative represents some kind of fairness, or democracy of mind.

We have political systems which are presented on the presumption of self-evidential necessity. You may choose this stream of madness, or the other – but you must choose. Remember that you tacitly agreed to this system, because you were born into it? At least, this is the narrative, as fragile as it is. Even the most benignant and equitable of these are a travesty – you are presented with an ultimate option of choosing one terrible option over another, as though there was no alternative.

This is in the service of democracy, the abstract notion that what is best for you lies in the appearance of having the ‘freedom’ to choose what is best for your region or your nation, when all of the information you are being fed derives from a source with an agenda to exert influence and control. Everything that was ever claimed to go to work on your behalf was an empty promise, a sham.

We are the inheritors of a scientific materialism, which against all true scientific spirit, presumes to dictate the total conditions of the universe at the level of human meaning. Specifically, that there is no possibility of individual or collective human participation in divinity, because we are all simply evolutionary automatons.

Science is far from objective or disinterested – there is a wider agenda to uphold. Detraction from the mainstream narrative is punished through control of funding and decisions about how much influence you will continue to exert in academia. This is how public talks can justifiably be banned without red faces.

The new paradigm of the evil is named ‘pseudoscience’, although it has born different names as were suitable to the era or context, such as ‘witchcraft’, ‘atheism’, ‘socialism’ – essentially though, all it consists in is ‘the other’. It is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss because it would undermine the authority of the institution in question.

All that this ‘other’ is ever reminding you of is the simple fact that you can’t ever know for certainty what you think you know – that is all it is, and yet this represents the vital human umbilical connection into the wider spiritual universe.

Our various cultural institutions’ insistence on the rigidity and finality of the knowledge they produce is leading us to squander our multidimensional heritage, our imagination, our shared godhood. What appears to be the groundlessness of epistemic uncertainty is far too subversive to those who pretend to this authority. So, the label ‘pseudoscience ‘is the new brush you will be tarred with if you dare detract from this reactive and emotionally fragile scientific consensus.

These are churches, if you haven’t noticed – there are priests, altars and rules to be followed. Dissent is not appreciated, and while we may no longer burn people at the stake physically, the same consequences can now be effected ruthlessly via social media. Technology has ironically permitted the expansion of ostracism to the digital realms, which are the foreshore of our mental meeting grounds as human collectives.

To adhere to a mindset whereby the majority of people in your culture will turn their backs on a person and say ‘we don’t acknowledge this person anymore’ is not only merely unhealthy, it indicates a collective personality disorder. Refusing to acknowledge a person whom the mainstream collective disapproves of is one of the tallest, broadest and brightest of red flags. It happens in small groups such as family groups and office environments, and it happens in nations – as above, so below. And yet, we retain the freedom to decide as the inheritors of the totality of human culture as to whether such behaviour is worthy to be kept.

The catch is, anything we sleep on is kept automatically. All it takes for the majority to continue to harbour such systemic insanity is to pretend that we don’t suffer from it, thereby immunising it from scrutiny. Staying asleep then becomes akin to alcohol as the ’cause of’ and ‘solution to’ all of life’s various social ills.

We have a culture in which religious institutions are offered as fictitious oases from an insane materialism, only to discover that you are being thrown out of the frying pan and into the fire. The desire to save your soul and claim you for the eternal turns out to be yet another tentacle operating on the behalf of control and delusion, though flown under the banner of spirituality. The grandiose fantasies of the worldly ego are here offered in the spiritual realm, success, being chosen, included, and living forever as the personal self you know and love. The monotheistic religions reflect all the ego’s madness and self-importance back to it in an imaginary monarchy, which consists in a personal being at the top who variously approves, disapproves, judges, or becomes pleased or angry with you as the mood takes him. Your virtue and worth will be decided by how close you can get to the feet of the king at the expense of others through your various deeds, devotions and cringing prostrations. This is all for your group, the blessed and chosen, while those who have chosen incorrectly, believed wrongly, or failed to meet the standard within your group will be expelled like refuse through a cosmic garbage-chute.

The false promise propping up all of these religious institutions is this one delusional creed: unity through separation. Be better than the others, be better than the other groups. Then you will earn favour, then you will be united, so you had better make sure you beat down all the others. In other words, the spirit realm, as contextualised by the consensus ideocracy, is that if you are well-behaved, then you will be rewarded, but if you are poorly behaved or you have believed incorrectly, you will be punished.

You are either in line, or out of line.

Can you see how the cultural influence from the consensus reveals itself in the projection of the religious? It promises you the favour of an authority who is responsive to your own animal needs, wants and desires, and unresponsive of those whom you deem unworthy or inferior. Could there be a more tantalising ego-trip on offer for the disturbed human animal?

We have a media which enjoys success on the basis of how accurately the content resembles juicy gossip. We are offered these hints of what those individuals who are implied to be far more important than us are doing with their lives such as celebrities, including those we imagine to have sufficient fame and money to have earned freedom and happiness. The more important a person is deemed to be, the less significant the news about them need be in order to warrant publication.

For example, it is more important whether members of royalty are having a minor spat or social disagreement about wearing a certain hat in public than any question of whether you have any personal freedom or satisfaction in your life, from birth to death. Most of what we call ‘news’ is presented as a drama triangle in which you are framed as the victim, in the hope of inflaming your censure toward those framed as the perpetrators.

When slaves were kept, it was a common practice to lure them with the possibility that one day they might be freed by their own efforts. This ensured that they kept up the good work and didn’t lapse into despondency which might eventually collapse into such dense suffering as to spark an inner or outer revolution.

If you want to see how it is the consensus would prefer you to keep acting and thinking, take a look at how they medicate you with empty promises of your eventual success and freedom. These empty promises are on offer at every street corner, in every wing of human society. They are all clamouring for your investment of attention.

Does this sound like a balanced, sane society? Does this sound like a valuable investment of your ongoing input as a free being? What would it take to simply say ‘no’, and walk away from all of this idiocy once and for all – even if this only happened within your own most private inner sanctum?

Perhaps Aristotle was correct in his analysis of man as a political animal, and that humankind will always be bound by social conventions and the need for society in general. The big question however is: are you human? If not, what are you? Because if you are not what you think you are, what makes us think it is sensible to reduce our deepest needs to humankind’s needs, to the needs of the animal?

What are the requirements of the soul, what are the values of the true self? Maybe there are none, perhaps consciousness is just a temporary phantom. But how would you ever know unless you first cleared the table before you of all of the clutter?

There may not be very much time left to decide, as the human animal is now engineering intelligences capable of outsmarting itself. Consider the simplicity of the parlour tricks that have led man down the garden path over ages past. What is to come will likely consist in even more powerful demonstrations of illusion and persuasion.

What better time than now to inquire into the truth of who you are?

Simon P Murphy is a Nelson-based esotericist and philosopher, and author of His Master’s Wretched Organ, an astonishing and surreal collection of weird fiction stories.

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!