How To Fix The Academy

400 years ago, the Academy went through a revolution. After Copernicus reminded the world that the Earth rotated around the Sun, and not the other way around, people realised that the truth about the nature of reality had been suppressed by religious forces. This led to a powerful anti-religious sentiment that later developed into The Enlightenment.

When the Christians burned Giordano Bruno to death, thereby destroying one of the finest minds of the Renaissance, freethinkers everywhere realised that they had to keep religious people out of their circles. Every person who desired the truth understood that Christians were willing to kill to prevent that truth from being known. Part of the Renaissance, then, was an anti-Christian revolution.

Ever since this revolution, the Academy has operated on one hard law of exclusion: religious zealots are out. Even if the zealots aren’t actively trying to kill anyone, they will still degrade the quality of the culture, especially the research culture.

It’s impossible to discuss biology with a person who thinks the Will of God, and not evolution, is the cause of the varying physical expressions among the world’s creatures. It’s impossible to discuss anthropology with someone who thinks that God created all the different races of the world at the same time with the same characteristics. It’s impossible to discuss mechnical engineering with someone who thinks that all machines are inventions of Satan.

Excluding the religious worked wonders for the university system. The centuries from 1700 to 2000 saw unparalleled advancement in human knowledge and understanding of the physical world. But this advancement peaked in the latter half of the 20th Century. Since then, the Academy has fallen victim to another form of zealotry: the political kind.

Political zealots are as dangerous to our current understanding of truth as religious zealots were to the ancient understanding. Marxists, in particular, have certain preconceptions about human nature, and will reject any science that conflicts with those preconceptions.

For instance, Marxists insist that the working-class is international. This insistence seems absurd in light of the fact that human population groups vary enormously by almost every measure, as does every species that has adapted to a wide range of environments. The great variation within the human species suggests that it makes more sense to organise on a local level, with smaller political units more closely aligned to local conditions. So the Marxists simply deny that variation.

This denial has severely impeded mainstream psychological research. Any researcher suggesting variation between sexes is howled down as a misogynistic bigot; any researcher suggesting variation between races is howled down as a racist bigot. Because human behaviour is heavily influenced by genes and because genes vary along all measurable dimensions, the Marxists find themselves effectively denying biology, which is itself the basis of psychology.

Psychological research has been forced to accord with Marxist dogma before it can safely be referenced by scientists (a topic covered in detail in the essay Science in Clown World). This neo-Lysenkoism has had the effect of making it impossible to survive as an honest researcher, as the examples of James Watson, Richard Lynn, Hans Eysenck, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux and a parade of others attest.

The Academy has to keep these political zealots out, and keep them out just as assiduously as it keeps out religious zealots. This means blacklisting anyone political, or with a particular axe to grind, and not just Marxists (who are merely the most egregious current example of political zealots destroying truth).

People with political interests are motivated to deny any biological, psychological or anthropological truth that, if widely accepted, would weaken their political position. As such, they cannot be considered objective and dispassionate observers of the human condition. They cannot be taken any more seriously than people with religious interests are.

For instance, globalists are strongly motivated to deny the truth about race and IQ. If they were to concede that intelligence is mostly genetic in adults, they would be forced to admit that the offspring of immigrants are unlikely to be significantly more intelligent than their parents. As such, low-IQ immigrants will spawn a low-IQ underclass that will inevitably have higher rates of violent and property crime, and therefore should not be let in.

Progressives are strongly motivated to deny the same truth. If they would admit that there’s a limit to how far low-IQ people can be educated, they’d have to admit that taxing the average person into the ground to pay for the education of the uneducable is pointless. They’d have to admit the wisdom in getting rid of much of the teachers’ corps – to which they often belong.

Denying scientific truths isn’t the preserve of left-wing zealots.

Conservatives are strongly motivated to deny other truths. They don’t like to admit how psychological science clearly shows that smacking is bad for a child’s healthy development. They also don’t like to admit how the same science clearly shows that the psychological dangers of cannabis use have been exaggerated. Although conservatives motivated to twist the truth on such issues are comparatively uncommon, the ultimate fact is that having any of these people in the Academy will weaken it.

To fix the Academy, there has to be a widespread agreement to ostracise political zealots the same way that religious zealots have been ostracised. Political zealots have to be removed from every level – not only from the faculty, but from the administration as well. The world’s universities need to become politics-free zones in the same way that they have become religion-free zones. Only then can the truth shine forth.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of 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, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant: Christian Terrorists

After both the Utoya massacre and the Christchurch mosque massacre, the mainstream media rushed to explain both deeds as white supremacist terror. But in their haste to push the narrative that Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant were neo-Nazis, the opinion-shapers (deliberately or otherwise) only misdirected people from an understanding of the true motives of the killers. The reality is that both attacks were acts of Christian terror.

Breivik didn’t even try to hide the fact that he was a Christian. The cover of his manifesto prominently featured a Christian cross, and the text repeatedly emphasised his adoration for the Christian military orders that fought against Muslims in the Crusades and in actions such as the Siege of Vienna. It is apparent from reading Breivik’s manifesto that he saw himself as a knight crusader in the defence of Christendom against her enemies, one of a long line.

Tarrant was obviously inspired by Breivik. He followed closely Breivik’s methodology for carrying out a terrorist attack. Like Breivik, he also left a manifesto detailing his motivations, intentions and aspirations, in which he concedes that he took most of his inspiration from the Norwegian Freemason (and therefore Christian, as only Christians are permitted entry to the Scandinavian Rite).

Tarrant wasn’t the scholar that Breivik was, and his manifesto was much briefer and much less formal. However, Tarrant’s manifesto also made clear his Christian motivations, not least of which was a fervent desire to retake Constantinople for Christendom.

Tarrant visited Europe in 2017, and was appalled by its advanced state of social decay. One of the things that upset him the most was seeing “empty churches and full mosques” in every country. No white supremacist would care about empty churches, because they consider Christianity to be a religion for subhumans that was forced on their ancestors by violence and deceit. Only a Christian would take an empty church as a loss.

The Drottninggatan terror attack of April 2017, taking place among several other Islamist attacks in those years, triggered dark emotions in Tarrant, by his own admission. He considered these attacks to be “attacks on my faith”. This makes it clear that defending Christendom was a motivation he shared with Breivik. Those feelings might explain why Tarrant’s manifesto contains an explicit and direct appeal to Christians, referencing the Pope who launched the Crusades.

Before carrying out his attack, Tarrant claims to have asked for – and received – a blessing from a reborn version of the Knights Templar, the Christian soldiers who fought in the Crusades. His choice of target was partially motivated by the “desecration” of a church in Ashburton that had been converted into a mosque. The most telling, however, is that he rhetorically asks himself if he is a Christian, and finds himself unable to deny it.

Brenton Tarrant was a Christian, and his attack was an act of Christian terrorism.

The Christchurch mosque shootings can best be understood as the actions of a religious supremacist, one who seeks to strike a blow against a rival religion that he fears is ascendant. In this context, Tarrant was simply another Christian soldier marching on his enemies, little different to the dozens of Abrahamists who commit terror attacks every month.

The history of the Middle East, the Near East and Europe is replete with Christian vs. Muslim struggles. Ever since Islam was founded 1,400 years ago, the Middle East has been a battlefield for an intra-Abrahamic civil war that has claimed the lives of hundreds of millions. This war has periodically raged through the Near East and into Europe, leading to the threat of Muslim control of Europe on at least two occasions.

Breivik was aware of the Battle of Tours and of the Siege of Vienna, so he was aware of how close Muslims have come to conquering Europe in the past. The mass Muslim immigration to Europe of recent decades must have seemed to him like another conquest attempt. No doubt it fed into the persecution mania that he shared with Christians in general.

Breivik conceived of his action in the context of Islamic expansion into Christian territory. Norwegian socialists were holding the borders open for Islamic invaders in the same way that the Jews of Toledo had done for the Saracen invaders. They were therefore responsible for the loss of Christian territory and influence.

Tarrant followed a similar logic. The only major difference is that, instead of shooting up a Green or Labour Party gathering, Tarrant targeted Muslims directly. It seems that he could quite easily have chosen a Green or Labour Party gathering with little change of mindset. The only major difference, if he had done so, would be less appeal for the white supremacist narrative.

In reality, a white supremacist has no reason to target Muslims any more than to target Christians. White supremacist rage is usually directed at those who let the invaders in, on the principle that traitors should be dealt with before enemies. Examples of the usual white supremacist modus operandi are the assassination of Jo Cox in 2016 and the assassination of Walter Luebcke in 2019, both targets being pro-refugee globalist politicians.

A Christian, on the other hand, has plenty of justification to target Muslims. Like Muslims, Christians believe that Yahweh has commanded the whole world to submit to their cult, and therefore any action taken to induce that submission is divine will. Christians have murdered non-Christians everywhere the two have met – that one might do so in New Zealand would be nothing out of the ordinary.

Muslims want everyone in the world to be Muslim; Christians want everyone in the world to be Christian. It’s inevitable that two ideologies of that level of arrogance will clash. The motivations of Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant are not easily understood in this age of pacified, infantilised and stupefied media consoomers. But their motivations were Christian, and shared with two millennia of Christian murderers before them.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

If Anyone Deserves Reparations, It’s Working-Class People

A lot of noise is currently devoted to the question of reparations. Most of the talk is about reparations to American blacks, with the remainder to homosexuals or mental health patients. However, as this essay will examine, there’s one group of people whose claim to deserve reparations is stronger than that of anyone else: working-class people.

The working class has effectively been enslaved for millennia – and still is. In, fact, the entire societal infrastructure upon which all wealth rests has been built on the backs of the working class, and continues to be maintained by the working class. Without the efforts of people in this class, no-one else would live any higher than barbarians.

The entire essence of being a working-class person is that you don’t own land, and therefore cannot earn a living or an income from your own property. That means that you have to labour on someone else’s property, and that means you’re forced to accept whatever terms they lay down. As there are no commons to hunt anymore, the alternative is starvation.

Our entire economic system is built on the idea that the owners of the land also own all the productivity that takes place on it. Those who do the producing have no say, because the landowners employ police and security services who will use force to destroy the workers if they try to keep their productivity. The end consequence of all this: the workers are dependent on those owners for a wage.

This wage is the only difference between the worker and a slave. In theory, the worker gets enough of a wage so that, if they save diligently, they too can become a landowner one day. A slave, by contrast, is incapable of improving his position. In practice, the modern Western worker cannot improve his position either, as his wage only covers tax, rent/mortgage, food and a few other necessities.

So even though the worker is given a wage in lieu of being left to starve, his savings are so low that there’s little practical difference between him and a slave. The three lions of profits, taxes and rents take away the vast majority of his productivity, leaving him with only just enough money to keep him alive.

Even worse than the loss of productivity has been centuries of anti-working class prejudice that has seen countless people driven to the wall.

This prejudice continues today. In Britain, some 19,000 girls are raped every year by foreign grooming gangs. But because the vast majority of those girls are working-class, their suffering is ignored by the authorities. In Rotherham, official contempt for the suffering of the working class was so great that the Police covered up grooming gang rapes of working-class girls so as to keep racial tensions down.

This transparently unjust state of affairs has existed for centuries already, in some form or other. Because slavery is more profitable than paying a fair wage, the landowners have always sought to reduce the working class to a state as close to slavery as possible. And they’ve always succeeded to some extent. The working class has never, at any point in history, got a fair deal.

Perhaps the worst deal the working class ever got was to be forced wholesale into the slaughterpits of World War I and World War II. Working-class men comprised the vast majority of the soldiery in both wars, suffering most of the trauma, both physical and mental. The intergenerational consequences of this trauma persists today in a higher-than-baseline level of most mental illnesses among working-class people.

All this historical exploitation explains why landowners are so wealthy today, and workers so poor.

This reduction to penury has only been possible because of power differentials. As mentioned above, owning land makes it possible to own an enforcer class, which can then be used to take all the productivity away from the working class. If the working class tries to get a better deal through e.g. strike action, the enforcer class will break the strike up. Effectively, then, the working class has been robbed of most of its productivity for centuries.

If anyone deserves reparations, it’s the people who have had most of their productivity taken off them under threat of starvation for hundreds of years. The same group who has performed most of the hard labour but which has the least of the wealth.

The majority of the world’s wealth has either been produced by, or made possible by, the labours of the working classes. Despite that fact, the working classes of the West continue to languish in poverty. The average Western working-class person today, not having middle-class parents to inherit from, has almost no chance of gaining enough money on his wage to buy a home and raise a family.

If reparations are to be handed out, it should not be on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation but on the basis of need. This means that reparations ought to target working-class people.

The ideal reparations would come in the form of a universal basic income funded by a land tax. The land tax would hardly impact the working class, who can’t afford property on their wages anyway, while the univeral basic income would make it possible to both heal intergenerational trauma and to negotiate wages from a fair position.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

How The Mainstream Media Stifles Dissent

Many regular followers of the mainstream media have noticed a pattern: every time any opposition to globohomo stands up, the media immediately rips into them. This is the result of a deliberate propaganda strategy, carried out by the ruling class, to stifle dissent by using the mainstream media as the gatekeepers of which ideas are allowed to be normalised. This essay explains how they do it.

The general rule is that anyone who stands up to represent their people, but without the approval of the owners of the mainstream media, will be smeared by that media as either insane or evil.

Noam Chomsky likes to point out that the mainstream media normalises opinions by limiting the opinions expressed, but allowing vigorous debate within those limitations. They do this by platforming people who have similar opinions, and then exaggerating the import of any differences. The impression created is that the true, reasonable position is between these two apparent poles.

The use of this strategy meant that dissenters could simply be ignored. Anyone outside the narrow window of acceptable opinion never had their voices heard, so their ideas never entered the mainstream consciousness. This strategy worked excellently until the rise of the alternative media, particularly the Internet-based alternative media, which allowed people to share content without corporate or governmental oversight.

Power is control of the minds of the masses. However, before one can gain that control, one must first gain the attention of the masses. The main power of the mainstream media is to gatekeep that attention. Alternative media, such as VJM Publishing, might produce higher-quality content, but we are not yet in a position to broadcast it to the masses. Despite this limitation, we can reach enough of them to force the mainstream media to adapt their strategy.

Their new strategy is simple: everyone who opposes the owners of the mainstream media is labelled insane or evil. Those are the two labels that get placed on every single free thinker, without exception. If they are incompetent, like most people are, they are labelled insane. Only the competent – and therefore, truly dangerous – are labelled evil.

The standard tactic is to find the most influential authority figure who is willing to smear the target as insane or evil, and then to give that figure a platform. An example is given in the image at the top of this article. The Groundswell protests do not have the approval of the globalists who own the media (unlike the Black Lives Matter protests), so the organisers of those get smeared as “crazy”.

The natural reaction of the average credulous pleb is to assume that the Groundswell organisers must actually be crazy, for, if that wasn’t true, an authority such as the leader of Federated Farmers would not have been allowed media space to make the claim. Surely such a bold statement, if false, would have been denounced by some other authority figure. It must therefore be true.

By featuring a cavalcade of authority figures disparaging the target, the media reduces the standing of the target in the mainstream consciousness. This reduces their influence, as people become shy to be associated with the next nutjob or the next Hitler. This makes it hard to get any resistance movement going.

Examples abound.

Sue Grey of the Outdoors Party regularly gets disparaged as insane, and has done ever since she came out in favour of cannabis law reform. Being female, and being associated with cannabis, she’s a prime target for accusations of mental illness. Reddit provides several examples of her being called a “wingnut” and multiple calls for her to be silenced or fined into oblivion.

Paddy Gower tried to smear Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern as evil, but he only succeeded in making himself look like a clown. That didn’t stop the rest of the mainstream media from referring to the Canadians as “far-right”. Anyone questioning the foremost addiction of the Western ruling classes – the addiction to cheap labour – is tarred with the Nazi brush.

The mainstream media has brought out the big guns for the ongoing protests by Australian tradesmen in Melbourne and other places – these protesters have been dismissed as both “conspiracy theorists” and “far-right”. The tradesmen are too obviously masculine and based to get dismissed as crackpots, so they get compared to Nazis. It’s an absurd comparison on the face of it, because the tradies are protesting for freedoms and the government is trying to impose authoritarianism. But not too absurd for Clown World.

In short, if a person is feminine or does drugs they’re written off as schizophrenic; if they are masculine or oppose the mass importation of cheap labour they’re written off as Nazis. Insane or evil – that’s how every alternative to the Establishment is smeared by their lackeys in the mainstream media.

The truth is that the dissenters are much less insane or evil than the current ruling class. Not only has the current Western ruling class built an economic system that is destroying the planet, but they’re happy to destroy any of us in order to keep that system running full speed. The mainstream media, and their owners, are more insane and evil than their targets.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!