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!

It’s Time For A Global ‘Lying Flat’ Movement

A wave of young people in China, driven to exhaustion by the relentless demands of their industrial culture, have launched what they call the ‘Lying flat’ movement. They protest their workplace pressures by doing the absolute minimum amount of work possible. This essay will suggest that it’s time to bring the lying flat movement to the world stage.

The lying flat movement is inspired by the idea that a chive lying flat cannot be reaped. In this context, to lie flat is to refuse to be exploited, to disengage from the rat race. The usual path involves moving to the countryside and living as cheaply as possible. Someone lying flat might still work, but they’ll do it for themselves or their family or village instead of some corporate.

The lying flat movement began in China as a reaction to their onerous 996 culture, which insists on a 9am to 9pm, six day workweek. These 72-hour workweeks are incredibly profitable for those who own and run the factories and offices, but, for those supplying the labour component, they’re brutal.

Such long hours are tough even when well-remunerated. A 72-hour workweek leaves very little time or energy left over for recreation. It’s an extreme grind, and will drive a worker to exhaustion in short order.

Unfortunately, the post-nationalist capitalist mentality is that workers are just replaceable parts, and if one breaks down it’s a simple matter of chucking it out and replacing it with a new one. The Chinese industrialists, like the Western industrialists, import outside cheap labour to replace the native labour that they drive into the ground, only theirs comes from rural China instead of everywhere in the world.

The net result is the same, however. An oversupply of labour can only lead to one thing, and that’s a discounted labour price, which itself leads to the impoverishment of the working class. The mass importation of cheap labour has such a destructive effect on native wages that the inevitable end result is a shit life for everyone except for the employers of that cheap labour.

The Chinese have figured out that there’s no winning for workers under these conditions – so why don’t we?

Why don’t we take the lying flat movement to the whole world?

A global lying flat movement would firstly recruit the already rapidly-growing legions of NEETs in the West, and the hikikomoris in Japan. These groups have already dropped out of the industrial profit machine, and are essentially part of a global lying flat movement already. They were the first to realise that the equation of how much was being asked of them to how much they were rewarded did not add up, and their example can inspire others.

The movement would next recruit anyone who works full-time but can’t buy a home or raise a family on their wage. The individuals in this group have not yet suffered psychological collapse, unlike those in the first group, and are still able to labour. However, the equation doesn’t add up for them either. The difference is that this second group is now close to 50% of the working-age population, and higher in the younger demographics.

Before either group can be recruited, a canon of high-quality propaganda must be developed. This propaganda must suggest persuasively that industrialised hyper-capitalist society is in fact evil, and that refusing to power it with one’s life energy is a moral imperative. One example of such propaganda argues that a life on welfare is morally superior to a life as a worker, because the welfare beneficiary uses fewer resources, and resource conservation is now more important than production.

This propaganda will be effective because many who hear it will already be receptive to it. Many are already tempted to drop out of the system, having long ago calculated that their wages will never allow them to save enough to own their own home and raise a family. If they see that other people achieve a higher standard of living by dropping out of the system, they’ll become motivated to drop out as well.

That people will drop out of the system is inevitable at this stage of the cycle. Working hard in the city only makes sense during the boom times, because in the boom times the workers have the leverage, and so they can get a fair share of their own productivity. But capital always outpaces labour (link goes to .pdf), so when the bust part of the cycle hits, the people who own everything will maintain their share by reducing the share of the workers.

If you’re a worker and not an owner, then, you want to be living cheaply in the countryside when the bust hits. This is what great numbers of young Chinese have already figured out. It’s harder to do in New Zealand, because we don’t have villages everywhere, but it’s still possible. The basic leverage equation makes city life less and less worthwhile with every year that passes.

A global return to cheap, low-stress country living would cripple the industrial capital juggernaut, and shift the balance of wage negotiation leverage back towards the worker. Starved of cheap labour, the ruling class would be forced to pay a fair wage or go without producers. It’s time to go tang ping, and bring the lying flat movement to every corner of the industrialised world.

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!

The South-Eastern Territorial Imperative

The South-Eastern Territorial Imperative is the name given to the strategy of protecting the high civilisation of the world from the coming catastrophe.

It’s apparent to all that the old order of the world is collapsing. After 20 years of disastrous Middle Eastern military adventurism and 40 years of equally disastrous neoliberalism, only a very few Westerners still have faith in their political rulers. The widespread despair felt today has caused many to drop out of society completely, a phenomenon akin to the behavioural sink of John Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia experiments.

Times like these often involve a massive loss of knowledge and culture. The great risk is of another Dark Age, when the forces of ignorance seize control, and the forces of science and wisdom are marginalised and silenced. Signs of this can already be seen in the New Authoritarianism that seeks to cancel or deplatform anyone who thinks wrongly, where wrongthink is anything that does not serve the interests of globohomo.

The proposal of the South-East Territorial Imperative is that all the K-selected peoples of the world pull back to the territories currently occupied by Australia and New Zealand, i.e. the Anzac Empire, in the Southeastern corner of the map. In practice, ‘K-selected’ refers to high-IQ people who have relatively few children and who look after them properly. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, Europeans and Far East Asians.

The South-East Territorial Imperative has a precedent in the settlement of America. The population of the United States in 1860 was around 30 million, or roughly the same as that of Australia and New Zealand combined in 2021. By 1890 this had expanded to 60 million, and by 1930 it had reached 120 million. These rates of growth were not surprising given the opportunities available in America compared to the moribund economies and cultures of Europe.

If the now-present peoples of the South-East would spend this decade winning the propaganda battle, we could spend the rest of the century fighting for the South-East Territorial Imperative. If we did so, then we could have as many K-selected people as Japan by the end of the century. With over 20 times as much land as Japan, our Anzac Empire could even potentially become a world force on the order of Russia by 2100.

There are two major advantages with calling the world’s K-selected peoples to gather in the Southeastern corner of the world.

The first is geographic. The Southeastern corner of the world is protected from the world’s r-selected hordes by vast distances. Whereas Europe and America have Africa and Latin America (respectively) on their doorsteps, the Anzac Empire shares no border with Asia or with anyone else. Europe and America appear to be getting slowly overrun by their rapidly-breeding Southern neighbours, but the Anzac Empire would have no border that could be crossed on foot or by dinghy.

Moreover, the geography encompassed by an Anzac Empire would be sufficient for future growth into a world superpower. Australia and New Zealand combined would already have the world’s 11th largest economy, the third largest amount of agricultural land, and the world’s single largest Exclusive Economic Zone. The only thing we’re missing, and which America, China, India, Japan and Russia possess, is 100 million or more K-selected individuals.

The second is pragmatic. The South-Eastern Territorial Imperative is inherently eugenic, and as such seeks to maximise the ratio of K-selected to r-selected people. There are very few r-selected people already in this Southeastern corner of the world. As such, it’s the closest that we can get to a blank canvas upon which to paint our high civilisation.

Our current rulers aren’t just going to step aside, though. They will have to be removed, and prevented from regaining power, by a concerted and determined effort of the Anzac nation.

A revolution that introduced an Anzac Empire to the world stage would inevitably take inspiration from the American Revolution. As such, it would be necessary for a hard-core of individuals, free from slave morality, to put forward a new and comprehensive system of human rights. The best candidate for any such system would be modelled on the Sevenfold Conception of Human Rights, which posits a spectrum of rights encompassing everything from the grossest aspect of life to the most subtle.

Now is the time to prepare for such a move. America was populated mostly by those who felt that Europe was lost; the Anzac Empire will be populated by those who feel that both America and Europe are lost. Any citizen of either civilisation, once they realise that the future of both places are grim, could be encouraged to pull back to the South-East. If we could attract enough high-quality people looking for a fair deal, we could become what America was 120 years ago.

The difference is that, with enough wit and will, we can prevent the mistakes the Americans made. The worst of their mistakes, and the most important for us to avoid, was the Hart-Celler Act, which opened American borders to the world’s r-selected. In the Anzac Empire of the future, it will be a crime punishable by 20 years imprisonment to agitate for the mass importation of r-selected cheap labour.

The ultimate goal of this nascent empire would be to terraform the Australian interior to the extent that a great inland sea occupied what is now empty desert. This would alter the climate of the desert such that it was habitable for modern Western civilisation. With this achieved, the population of an Anzac Empire could reach 500 million or more. And this would be 500 million of the world’s most K-selected people: the most intelligent, the most rectitudinous, the most industrious and long-sighted.

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!

VJMP Reads: Gaddafi’s Green Book II

This reading carries on from here.

Part II is titled ‘The Solution of the Economic Problem: Socialism’. This is divided into seven chapters.

In the first, ‘The Economic Basis Of The Third Universal Theory’, Gaddafi calls for the abolition of the wage system. He states that “Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them.” The producer has a right to that which they produce – a secondary benefit through the improvement of society or through wages is inadequate. Inequality cannot be tolerated as it leads to exploitation.

Gaddafi repeats Adam Smith’s rule that economic production is the result of raw materials, capital input and human labour. He claims that all three of these components are necessary to produce anything, and therefore all three should get an equal share. Gaddafi also notes that the working class is declining owing to scientific and technological advancement. People are, however, the basic component in any production process.

In the second, ‘Need’, Gaddafi notes that a person cannot be free if their needs are controlled by others. Need leads to the enslavement and exploitation of those who need. Conflict is caused by one group controlling the needs of a second, giving that second an incentive to rebel. Need is a problem inherent to life.

In the third, ‘Housing’, Gaddafi opens with “Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be owned by others”. A person cannot be free while living in a home owned by someone else, whether or not they’re paying rent. Fiddling with rents won’t help – the important thing is ownership. People won’t have the right to own multiple houses, because to do so is to control the needs of others, which is exploitation and cannot be permitted.

In the fourth, ‘Income’, Gaddafi declares that income is an imperative need. In a socialist system, there are no wage-earners, only partners in the production process. Income should not be a wage in exchange for having one’s production taken away.

In the fifth, ‘Means Of Transportation’, Gaddafi declares that transportation is also a necessity. Therefore, it’s subject to the same restrictions from being controlled as housing and income. Like housing, transportation may not be owned for the sake of renting it out.

In the sixth, ‘Land’, Gaddafi begins by stating that “Land is the private property of none.” He believes that the land ought to belong to whoever works it. Gaddafi’s aspiration is to create a society that is happy because it is free. This comes about via the liberation of people’s material and spiritual needs from the control of others.

Gaddafi is aware that wage-earners have little incentive to work. Neither do poeple who work for the common good. The self-employed, however, have plenty of incentive to do so. Gaddafi sees the economy as a zero-sum game, because, for him, there is no reason to produce beyond one’s needs. The industrious and skillful have no right to lever this advantage to take from the shares of others.

An especially diligent or intelligent person may meet their needs with less effort, but they may not acquire more than they need. Happiness is a matter of material and spiritual freedom. Profit itself must be eliminated, as it inevitably will be as the socialist process continues to evolve.

In the seventh, ‘Domestic Servants’, Gaddafi states that domestic servants are a type of slave. The Third Universal Theory offers freedom to both wage-earners and domestic servants. Household services should be carried out by employees, not by domestic servants. He concedes that it isn’t easy to assign a share of production to service workers.

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!