Low-IQ Morality Vs. High-IQ Morality

All of the debates around morality can be summarised by reference to one of two schools of thought. There is a low-IQ morality, and a high-IQ morality.

Low-IQ morality is binary. It is “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not”. No thought is required to follow it – children and slaves could both easily understand. The essence of low-IQ morality is simplicity. The fear is that, if morality was too complicated, it would just be ignored.

Those following low-IQ morality speak as if life was a battle between their morality and evil. Everything outside of themselves and their mindset is evil. They even consider high-IQ morality evil, on the grounds that the nuance of high-IQ morality fails to provide a sufficiently firm defence against the dark forces of the world.

High-IQ morality is ternary, with an extra dimension compared to binary morality. High-IQ morality is “deficiency”, “mean” and “excess”. This is the morality of Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius: the Doctrine of the Mean or the Middle Way. It is moral philosophy for adults.

Those following high-IQ morality understand that life is more subtle than low-IQ people can appreciate, and that black-and-white thinking is usually low-resolution and inaccurate. Worse, the us-and-them mentality inherent to binary morality leads to vendettas, bloodfeuds and all-out wars as people hunker down against the out-group.

Despite this, high-IQ morality doesn’t see low-IQ morality as necessarily evil. Socrates, for example, argued that human misdeeds were the result of ignorance rather than evil. The low-IQ are considered more in need of guidance than punishment.

The most common low-IQ moralities in the world are the Abrahamic religions. These are the archetype of “thou shalt” mentality. They threaten eternal hellfire and brimstone, in contrast to the subtle punishments of the high-IQ moralities, which warn of less happiness. There are billions of followers of Abrahamic religions, mostly in low-IQ scumholes.

Wokism is also a form of low-IQ morality, in that it has an endless list of things that people aren’t allowed to do or say (or even think). The exaggerated sense of caution that people are forced to adopt today is common to both the wokist regime and the Soviet Union. One must live in constant fear of moral judgment, for the slightest error might see one, like Solzhenitsyn, sent to the gulag (the wokist equivalent being cancellation).

Atheist materialism is also a binary morality, because it amounts to following the herd. The morality can be summed up as “The herd is natural, and therefore the herd is good”. Atheists consider themselves to have transcended low-IQ morality, but in reality they have just exchanged one form of it for another: the “thou shalt” comes from groupthink instead of a priest.

High-IQ moralities are rare in the West. Very few people have read the Nicomachean Ethics, much less applied it. Many high-IQ people are aware that Buddha promoted a philosophy called the Middle Way, but not many have tried meditating every day for a month. Those who do apply a high-IQ morality to their lives, however, are the world’s true master race.

The West generally acts as if “more is always better”, which is, in fact, a low-IQ morality. It’s presented to us as masculine and assertive, but is really the mentality of a baby grasping for the tit. A high-IQ morality would resist mindless consumption while still saying Yes to life. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to see the rise of a movement that can achieve this before the system collapses.

Many people stumble upon something like the doctrine of the mean, but make little use of it. After all, children often learn with their first bee sting that too much bravery is as bad as too little. But high-IQ morality will never become popular, because the masses are low IQ. Perhaps 5% of the population can fully apply high-IQ morality under normal circumstances. This may have been as high as 25% in Aristotle’s time and might be as low as 1% in today’s Clown World.

Binary morality is better for low-IQ people because it’s simpler to apply. The difficulty with ternary morality is that it requires a lot of thought to know where the right middle ground is (as Aristotle wrote in Nicomachean Ethics, the correct middle ground is sometimes closer to one extreme than to the other). Trying to teach ternary morality to low-IQ people would just confuse them.

Perhaps the best approach is to teach binary morality to children, and then teach ternary morality once the children hit about 15 years of age. If a person isn’t smart enough to understand ternary morality, they can be taught a binary form until the end of their schooling. The difficulty is that existing low-IQ moralities (e.g. Christianity) are no longer persuasive, so a new one will have to be invented.

People ought to adopt a high-IQ morality if they can, but there are so many low-IQ people that humanity has to make do.

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 2024-25
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 Alt Centrist Approach To Religion

In the West, religion and Christianity are closely intertwined. The Establishment Right, for instance, are heavily Christian. Much of the recent history of politics in the West is defined by the need to deal with the power of Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. To a major extent, the freedom desired by the Second Acceptance is freedom from religious dogma and strictures.

The Establishment Right’s obsession with order, at the expense of everything else, is the ultimate cause of hundreds of millions of deaths from religious terrorism throughout history. The belief that there is only one way to God, and that everyone rejecting that path is evil and God wants them destroyed, is psychopathic. There is no difference between Muslim jihadists, Christians demanding that “every knee shall bow” and Jews trying to subjugate humanity through tikkun olam. All are monsters.

If anything exemplified the excessive order of the First Rejection it is Abrahamism with its absolute refusal to tolerate other religions.

The Western World has not known a destroyer of freedom like Abrahamism. In the ancient European world, all manner of different cults to different gods existed. When the Christians came, they destroyed everything spiritual they could. The Eleusinian Mysteries, which Cicero called the greatest of all of Athens’s gifts to civilisation, were broken up by Christian fanatics over 1,600 years ago.

Atheism, however, is no solution.

Absent purpose, materialism has given us today’s mental health epidemic. The mainstream materialist narrative suggests that happiness comes from consumption. Television advertising shows us happy people buying alcohol, buying travel, buying fashion, buying, buying, buying.

The problem, as Buddha taught long ago, is that desire leads to misery. All the television advertising just implants desire that wouldn’t otherwise exist, thereby creating misery that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Mindless consumption, removed from existential meaning, doesn’t lead to anything close to happiness.

The truth is that people need religion. Materialists deny this, claiming that as long as people have food, shelter and work they will be satisfied. In reality, people have souls and those souls need purpose. Religion provides that. So people need religion to be happy.

For a religion to make someone happy, however, it needs to be true. The drawback of false religions, like the Abrahamic cults, is that people can intuitively sense they’re not true. People can tell, in their hearts, that it doesn’t matter if some rabbi claimed to have died for their sins or not. They can sense that God will judge them for their own karmic debt, not for what someone else may have done. Only the hopelessly degenerate are committed to a belief in no God. So people will always find their way back to religion in some form.

This yearning for religion can be seen everywhere in youth culture. The wokists and SJWs are really just another form of Abrahamist, as has been described at length elsewhere. These people are desperate for the order that true religion provides, and the reason why so many of them are going insane is because they’re not getting it from Marxism. It’s remarkable how similar woke culture, with its hundreds of unwritten rules about what opinions are permissible, is to the Abrahamic cults, which are also totalitarianisms.

A powerful desire for spiritual order can also be seen on the right, most obviously in the TradCath fad. It manifests in a variety of subtler forms also, such as Esoteric Hitlerism, which is everywhere on the non-mainstream Internet. The rising neopagan movement is a kind of European ghar wapsi, as white people seek to rediscover the beliefs and practices of their pre-Christian ancestors.

In the centre are practices such as Elementalism, which takes traditional spiritual practices like psychedelic sacrament use – something both left and right are generally indifferent towards – and blends it with a hierarchical priesthood and an admonition to overcome bestial impulses.

If the entire left-right spectrum exhibits religious or pseudo-religious behaviour, we can conclude that the religious impulse is universal, even if suppressed in some. Thus we can see that the order provided by religion is necessary. The Roman Empire was famous for its piety; heroic figures like Aeneas made a point of pious behaviour. The writings of the Greek Golden Age were replete with references to the gods. So it seems that civilisations wax and wane in correspondence with the strength of their religious belief.

Religion is therefore too precious to be left up to cowboys and clowns, as is the case in today’s West. The obvious solution is for the state to run its own religion, but for there to also be religious freedom, as per ancient Greece and Rome.

This means the state needs to promote a national religion. The precise form of these religions will vary from place to place. In New Zealand, for instance, there would be cults of Woden, Maui and Zealandia, reflecting British heritage, Maori heritage and the modern synthesis, respectively. Northern Europe could adopt elements of the Norse pantheon; Southern Europe could adopt elements of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

This solution has one major drawback: if you allow religious freedom for certain religions, as the Romans discovered, they will use that freedom to destroy the others.

The Theodosian Code records that, as soon as Christians took power in Rome, they worked to annihilate the European religions. Followers of these traditions were increasingly ostracised until the religions themselves were made illegal. Islam, also, has been responsible for the destruction of Buddhist and Hindu communities in countless places. The Mughal invasion of India is probably the single most murderous action in history (if measured by total body count). Neither have the Jews been much better. These three Abrahamic religions are characterised by their unceasing struggle for political power and control at the expense of truth, justice, freedom, peace and basic human decency.

The optimal solution, then, is a state religion plus freedom for all non-political religions. For maximum acceptance, this freedom ought to be extended as broadly as possible; only the Abrahamic religions are truly political enough to be worth of proscription. This could be taken even further, with a declaration that true justice would be the active destruction of the political religions, using all the powers of the state.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the upcoming masterwork of political philosophy that offers the answers to the political problems of the West.

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 Alt Centrist Approach To Immigration

In a state of Nature, immigration is inherently a violent process. No organism in a comfortable niche will give that niche up to intruders without a fight. In ancient human societies, immigration was similar. Ancient history is replete with examples of one group trying to enter the territory of another with bloodshed resulting.

In modern human societies, however, immigration is a much smoother process. Thanks to modern transportation and neoliberalism, it has never been easier for a person to move across the world for work, for asylum or even just to go on the dole. Immigration is now so common that it has become normalised.

Despite this, immigration remains controversial. In fact, it’s possibly the most controversial political issue as we approach the end of the Trump Era.

The reason why immigration is so common today is that the Left and the Establishment Centre have come together in a globalist alliance against the other positions. The Left wants freedom for labour to move: the Establishment Left on the belief that the greater the choice labour has, the greater the leverage, and therefore the higher the wage; the Alternative Left because Marx has prophecised that the working class will unite across national borders. The Establishment Centre, representing capitalism, also wants freedom for labour to move, the logic being that the greater the supply of labour, the cheaper it is.

This means the Establishment Left and the Establishment Centre both support immigration, but for totally different reasons. Further complicating matters is that elements of the Right also support immigration because of religion (in particular the universalism promoted by Christian Bible passages like Galatians 3:28, Acts 17:26 or Isaiah 60:12).

As has been covered extensively in other works (viz. Clown World Chronicles), the current rulers of the world are the winners of the previous great war, i.e. capitalists and communists. These two forces have joined together on the basis of their common globalist interests – an alliance known as globohomo. As such, the world has been pushed in a globalist direction for almost a century now. This has meant mass immigration, hence why mass immigration is so normalised today.

Freedom and peace seemed to work together on the immigration issue for a long time. GDP does seem to have gone up a great deal since 1945. Which leads to the inevitable question: what’s the problem?

The lazy globalist assumption is that all races are the same IQ, therefore human beings are fungible units. Immigration has no impact other than boosting the size of the economy, which makes everyone richer. Only a stupid bigot would object to this free money.

In actuality, not every person is a net positive contributor to the finances of their host countries.

The first truth is that any person or group’s net contribution to their host society is highly correlated with that person or group’s IQ. Low-IQ people are far more likely to commit crimes and to use welfare. They are much less likely to complete a professional education and to work an important job. They are far, far less likely to produce an innovation that will improve the lives of many. They are far more likely to destroy their bodies early and require expensive medical care.

The second truth is that the various races differ on their natural IQs, from IQs of 65 (Australian Aborigines) to 105 (North-East Asians). This makes things far more complicated than they otherwise would have been.

For instance, Dutch and Danish studies have found that immigrants from low-IQ countries have a massively negative impact on the finances of their hosts. As it turns out, 85 IQ browns are at least as shitty to live around as 85 IQ whites. They have the same lack of consideration, lack of forethought, lack of insight, the same aggression, resentment, obnoxiousness.

The major difference is that, being of a different race, they have even less solidarity with normal people than working-class whites do. Thus they have weaker inhibitions against murdering, raping, robbing the locals.

When this is pointed out, the globalist apologist will counter that children from lower-IQ races can simply be educated to have high IQ.

In actuality, they can’t. The heritability of intelligence is between 0.5 and 0.8, which tells us there’s only so much education can do. The high heritability of intelligence is the reason for the discovery, in the Dutch and Danish studies linked above, that second-generation immigrants are about as financially net negative as the first generation.

The negative impacts of low-IQ immigration are not distributed evenly. Because the cheap labour is usually dumped in cheap housing, it’s the local working classes who suffer the most from their presence. The rich people who control immigration policy, insulated in their expensive neighbourhoods, don’t need to worry.

Neither are the positive impacts of immigration distributed evenly. The rich get a wider choice of tenants to bid the rents on their investment properties up. They also get a wider choice of employees to bid the wages they pay down. The rich win it all.

True justice must consider justice to the locals as well as the immigrants, and to the poor as well as the rich.

The alternative centrist approach to immigration involves a complete and total stop to all immigration from low-IQ countries. Letting low-IQ people immigrate destroys everyone’s order and peace as they commit murders, rapes and robberies, and then destroys everyone’s freedom as the government cracks down on crime. It’s a great deal of destruction for very little benefit.

In fact, the alternative centrist approach demands restitution for the crime of allowing mass immigration in the first place. It is exceptionally disorderly and unjust to open borders to hordes of cheap labour and then to dump the consequences of it onto one’s grandchildren. In fact, it’s despicable. It could fairly be considered treason, and fair justice would be for those responsible to meet traitor’s fates.

Freedom can apply to those who appreciate it, i.e. people from high-IQ countries who don’t commit crimes. Even in the case of people from high-IQ countries, order must take priority to their freedom to immigrate. Thus, citizenship would not be handed out easily, unless an immigrant had married in to the nation, and had children with heritage from that nation.

In summary, the alternative centrist approach to immigration is much more selective than the globohomo approach. The emphasis is on freedom for high-quality people, and order for low-quality ones.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the upcoming masterwork of political philosophy that offers the answers to the political problems of the West.

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!

How White People Could Get Kicked Out Of Aus/NZ Like They’re Getting Kicked Out Of Southern Africa

It’s not easy to believe that white people might get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand. White people have been in charge of this part of the world for 250 years now, and only the Imperial Japanese have ever looked like breaking that dominance. If anyone suggests that white people could get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand, Rhodesia-style, the usual response is “It couldn’t happen here.” But everyone says this just before disaster strikes.

White people could start getting kicked out of Australia and New Zealand in about 25/30 years, and a simple analysis shows it.

It is unarguably true that many of the peoples of the world consider the presence of whites in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. Decolonisation movements have expelled white people in many places. Beginning in Haiti, white people have been pushed out of Kenya, Algeria and Rhodesia and are now getting pushed out of South Africa. There is a fanatical decolonisation movement here in New Zealand, as evidenced by the image below, from a Police report on Uruwera terrorist Rangi Kemara.

Well-travelled Kiwis will be aware that Chinese, Indian and African peoples are not fond of colonialism. The 4.5 billion people in this group generally feel that colonialism is one of the worst crimes ever committed in human history. Arabs feel similarly, despite being colonialists themselves. The five billion people in these categories generally feel that white people have stolen Australia and New Zealand and have no moral right to their possession. These people feel, at least, that power should be stripped from white people, if not that white people should be expelled.

It’s possible that a majority of the world’s population considers white presence in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. The question then becomes: can the will of the global majority be thwarted indefinitely?

In theory, all it would take for the global majority to get into a position to expel whites from Australia and New Zealand would be continued immigration from non-white countries. This would eventually lead to white people becoming a minority, at which point they could be kicked out democratically, as they were in Rhodesia and as they are being in South Africa.

This might sound unlikely right now, but it sounded extremely unlikely in Rhodesia and South Africa once too. Power is fickle.

According to the 2023 Census, 67.8% of New Zealand is white. This is roughly 3.4 million out of five million people. New Zealand is currently taking in 100,000 or so non-white immigrants per year. The ruling class appears to believe, with good reason, that Kiwis won’t fight back against this immigration no matter how high it is. So they might even open up the immigration floodgates further.

If New Zealand took in 120,000 non-white immigrants a year, and only 30,000 white ones, the total population would be close to eight million within 20 years (i.e. by 2046), with about four million whites and four million others. Under this scenario, whites would already be a minority within 20 years.

From there, it’s just a matter of exactly what “kicked out” means. It’s not necessary for whites to be forcibly deported. A non-white majority will be able to vote the white minority into an ever-worsening state of subjugation until white people start leaving on their own free will. This can be done fully legally and cannot be stopped without overthrowing the democratic system.

For example, the non-white global majority, upon becoming the majority in New Zealand, could simply vote themselves more government largesse at the expense of whites. They could vote themselves more diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives such as non-white scholarships, preferential housing for non-whites, increased welfare access for non-whites, increased healthcare for non-whites, mandated non-white quotas on boardrooms etc. They could vote, as in South Africa, for economic empowerment initiatives that forced whites to hire non-whites and appoint them as owners and leaders. They could influence the Police, as in Britain, to focus on crimes with white perpetrators and non-white victims, and ignore crimes with non-white perpetrators and white victims.

After becoming the demographic majority, non-whites could just keep ratcheting up the pressure in this manner until whites were slowly destroyed.

It might be countered here that whites could flee the cities and return to countryside villages. But even this would not be enough. As the examples of France and England prove, the ruling class will force non-whites into the remotest village. Whites in Australia and New Zealand will not be able to escape by going innawoods.

Eventually the white population will tire of the burden and seek better opportunities in other countries, as the Southern Africans did. As whites continue to get pushed out of the more recent colonies, they will withdraw to North America and then to Europe, if there is anything left of either place by then. Thus, it won’t be necessary to pass a law deporting white people or anything similar. South Africa proved that non-whites can simply take power through demographics, pass laws favouring themselves, and then the whites will just leave.

In fact, white people have already been kicked out of parts of Australia and New Zealand. South Auckland, in the 1950s, was a thriving working-class white community. Lakemba in Sydney is another example, but there are dozens. Then mass immigration started, and the whites were slowly driven out by crime and obnoxious, hostile behaviour. If this exact process was replicated nationwide, the ethnic cleansing of whites could be easily accomplished over the next few decades.

I concede that this analysis lazily dumps Maori people into the non-white team. In actuality, the vast majority of Maori people would take the side of white Kiwis over random brown or black foreigners. But the proportion that wouldn’t is ever-increasing, thanks to Communist and anti-white propaganda. And in any case, that could only delay things. As long as mass immigration exists, a Third World alliance will eventually come to power that could simply dispossess both white Kiwis and Maoris alike. The laws of democracy, in fact, make this outcome unavoidable.

In any case, nothing about the Maori factor changes the basic analysis. Democracy plus mass immigration will mean that white people eventually lose Australia and New Zealand the same way they lost Rhodesia and South Africa. It’s simply the will of the global majority. The faster the immigration, the sooner this happens.

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!