control system

In Defence Of Mike King, And Of Alcohol

New Zealand mental health awareness campaigner Mike King copped mountains of abuse for saying that “alcohol has prevented more young people from taking their own lives than it makes them take their own lives.” This provoked outrage from the usual wowsers, psychopaths and control freaks. But there is great truth behind this hard-earned wisdom.

I worked as a bartender for eight years. In that time I saw alcohol ruin many people. I was assaulted several times and no doubt the alcohol I sold contributed to countless acts of domestic violence. It might have caused a million dollars of physical health damage, and a million dollars of lost productivity from hangovers or absentee days.

It also had some great effects.

In those eight years I saw a lot of people who were barely hanging on come through the doors. People who were deeply depressed, stressed, anxious, even despairing. And I saw that, for a lot of these people, the promise of getting a buzz from alcohol was helping to keep them going. The daily life was unpleasant, but it could be endured because, after it, a good time could be had with a few drinks.

Some of the patrons would even admit as such. For them, a drink was the finish line of the day, time to celebrate and say Yes to life again. I am certain that the alcohol I sold prevented several million dollars’ worth of depression thanks to providing the sociability that led to great mirth and great memories for hordes of people. The average bartender, in my experience, does as much good for mental health as the average psychiatrist.

Mike King has been close enough to suicide to know that, when you’re on the edge, it’s often small things holding you back, like an occasional moment of mirth.

This might be impossible to understand for anyone who has never been mentally ill. But if you have ever felt enduring suicidal ideation, you may have also discovered that getting drunk can stop those thoughts for a while. I have broken multiple bones, and the suffering of suicidal ideation tops them all. It doesn’t take much of it before one starts thinking about a permanent solution. Alcohol can provide blessed relief from such thoughts.

Sometimes, when your mental health is so low that you know you can’t endure the suffering forever, the promise of the next drink can be what’s stopping you ending your life. Just the simple knowledge that solace can eventually be had, in the form of a pint, can be enough to keep taking one step after the next. Drinking alcohol can reclaim enough power over your own mental health to make you say Yes to life again.

Mike King understands this, because he’s been low enough to need to find reasons to stay alive. He ought to be respected for the insight that he has brought back from the psychiatric underworld. Instead of ripping down someone who has stood so close to the edge, we ought to listen (if with scepticism). This is especially true for people with no personal experience of depression.

This defence is not intended to excuse my own conduct. For many years now, I have hardly used alcohol at all – only for celebrations once every few months, and even then in moderation. I am therefore not a drinker but neither am I an abstainer. I argue that this middle way, plus my bartending experience, makes my opinions more objective.

I also have extensive experience with antidepressant use – I have taken five different ones, off and on, for 30 years. What people need to realise about antidepressants is that they, at best, only mildly alleviate depression, and even then they work as a background substance. You can’t take an antidepressant as an emergency fix for an acute suicidal mood. If you’re going to attempt suicide in the next half an hour, and only an antidepressant or alcohol can save you, alcohol will be by far the most effective short-term fix.

That’s not to say alcohol is a long-term fix; in the long term, drinking alcohol will make you more depressed. Not only is it an actual depressant, but it causes an astonishing range of physical health ailments (see Prof. David Nutt’s Drink? for more).

Alcohol is definitely a second-rate drug. But the popular claim (often repeated in the mainstream media) that it only causes harms, and has no benefits, is ridiculous. In any case, most people who chimp out on it could have been encouraged to use weed or MDMA, if only either were legal. Most of the harms of alcohol would be ameliorated if people had access to less harmful recreational drugs, because those would serve as exit drugs for alcohol users to transition away. It’s hypocritical to complain about alcohol harms while also criminalising all the exit drugs from alcohol.

The ideal arrangement would be a properly-funded mental health system, which would include training people in trauma-based therapy and de-emphasising the biomedical model, and a sensible drug policy based on scientific evidence of relative drug harms.

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!

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!

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!

Don’t Throw The Spiritual Baby Out With The Abrahamic Bathwater!

The Western World is atheist today. This is presented as a natural development, religion being considered a remnant of a by-gone age. But the development of religious belief in the West is anything but natural.

It’s not natural for anyone to be atheist. Atheism is, in fact, a degeneracy. Plato, in Laws, prescribed the death penalty for atheism, reasoning that it was a form of spiritual corruption that threatened to rot society. The more corrupt a nation’s spiritual practice is, the more atheists it has. In ancient Athens, there were so few atheists they could be put to death with little disruption. In the West of 2026, there are so many atheists that anyone who expresses a genuine belief in God is diagnosed with schizophrenia and medicated.

Historically considered, this is a highly unnatural situation. It has come about because atheism is a natural reaction to having spiritual lies forced on a people. If people grow up being told spiritual lies, a certain proportion of them will instinctively reject those lies, and, without finding spiritual fulfillment in something else, will regress into atheism.

The Western World had its own native religions before Christianity. The Greek, the Roman and the Nordic pantheons were the natural expressions of European spirituality for millennia. These pantheons served us well during the ages of Alexander and Trajan. Unfortunately, because of the degeneracy that inevitably follows success, Rome submitted to Abrahamic religion in the form of Christianity. The Dark Ages ensued.

After the Dark Ages, it proved impossible to shake off the remnants of Christianity. Superstition ensured that the cult survived and maintained its death grip over Europe. Eventually, with the Renaissance, Christianity began to weaken. People started to question it.

The horrors of Christianity led to an over-reaction against anything perceived to be religious. As the image at the top of this article suggests, many people are so disgusted by the violence and lying of Abrahamic religions that they have been turned off spirituality altogether. Many have concluded, understandably but in haste, that if Abrahamism is what religion is, then religion is evil.

The truth is that proper religion is a great and wonderful thing. It liberates beings from their suffering by returning them to God, the only true source of happiness. As such, it often makes life bearable in cases where it would not have been. It’s only the Abrahamic religions that have perverted this beauty, turning religion into a vehicle for political control.

Growing up in the West, people are presented with Christianity as if it were “their” religion. Then they grow up a bit more, and read about the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years’ War, then learn about Christian support for circumcision, the War on Drugs, endless Middle Eastern wars, and realise that Christianity is evil. Some people realise before then, as an instinctive reaction against the brainwashing and sadistic pressure to submit and conform. It’s true that Christianity is evil. But the problem is, when people realise this, they often reject spirituality full stop, and become atheists.

Many people in the West today are unable to think about morality or ethics at all, because they associate such things with Christian hectoring and badgering (not to mention Christian hypocrisy and lying). Having been told that all morality comes from Rabbi Yeshua, the tendency is for people, when they reject the Magic Rabbi, to reject morality also. The end result: they follow animal impulses instead. The societal consequences of throwing the spiritual baby out with the Abrahamic bathwater are obvious.

Abrahamism is evil, and must be eradicated for the human race to thrive. But, before this can be possible, people must understand that the Abrahamisms are political religions and not spiritual ones. Spiritual religions cannot be judged on the flaws of political religions. Spirituality existed before the Abrahamisms and will exist afterwards. It stands alone, sufficient.

The Abrahamisms may have conquered a large proportion of the world, and in doing so normalised themselves to billions of people, but that doesn’t make them honest depictions of spiritual truth. They are dying, all around the world, as the Internet has made truth freely available. As they disappear, and get replaced by atheism and other beliefs, the Dharmic religions will return.

The Dharmic religions include Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Elementalism and many others. These religions are variations on what Aldous Huxley called the perennial philosophy: the eternal spiritual truth that has been passed down throughout history in many forms. In the future, the world will see the return of these religions. This is as inevitable as night turning back to day.

The most important lesson Westerners need to learn right now: spirituality is real, Abrahamism is false, and true spirituality will return as Abrahamism dies.

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!