anarkiwi – Page 24

How to Deal With the Fact That We’re All Going to Die

Many psychologists and psychiatrists have noticed a sharp recent increase in the number of people who present to them with anxiety about ecological collapse. The proliferation of media relating to end-of-world environmental disaster scenarios has made many people fearful. This article will give some tips for dealing with the fact that we’re all going to die.

The phenomenon has been called climate despair. Fuelled by headlines about people dying in Japanese heatwaves, how last month was the hottest month in human history, or how humanity only has 18 months to act if catastrophe is to be averted, climate despair is when people give up on life on account of believing that humans have destroyed the climate of Earth, and thereby its capacity to support life.

It could be said to be a kind of existential horror, one that arises at the thought of a future Earth that is barren of life owing to Venus-like conditions. What is the point in doing anything, in struggling to achieve things, if we’ve just wrecked the planet and are all going to die?

Climate despair may not be irrational. Some climate models do indeed predict that we have cooked the planet beyond the point where human civilisation can continue to exist. Even though things are ticking along alright now, there may be several degrees of warming that are inescapable from this point owing to what has already been added to the atmosphere.

However, from an existential and spiritual point of view, climate despair is a needless suffering and therefore ought to be counteracted. The good news is that, in principle, climate despair is nothing more than bog-standard death anxiety wearing a new mask. Therefore, the old ways of dealing with death anxiety are applicable to dealing with climate despair.

The problem that we’re going to die is essentially two problems rolled into one.

The first is that it isn’t obvious, to many people, that consciousness survives the death of the physical body. In much the same way that the Earth intuitively feels flat, many people intuitively feel that the brain generates consciousness, and therefore the death of the brain with the death of the physical body means that consciousness ends.

The second is that it isn’t obvious, to many people, that anything we do here has any meaning. We’re all going to die, and even if consciousness survives this and goes through into the next world, we don’t appear to be able to take anything with us. We can’t take property with us, we can’t take family with us, we may not even be able to take memories with us. Therefore, no actions in this world have meaning, and despair must follow.

Solving the first problem isn’t too difficult. That’s a simple matter of refuting the common illusion that the brain generates consciousness.

If a person makes the argument that the life is meaningless because we all die, and with the death of the body goes our consciousness, therefore we are doomed to forget everything we have done and everything we are, they run into a problem. This problem is called the Argument from Biological Necessity.

Evolution is an extremely efficient process, and it only ever selects for traits that confer an immediate advantage in either survival or reproduction. But, as anyone who has read any Dostoevsky can tell you, being conscious confers no such advantage. The human animal could just as well fight and fuck without being aware of what it is doing.

If anything, consciousness is an impediment to survival, on account of that it leads to depression, anxiety and existential angst and horror. These emotions paralyse us and drive us to suicide. It would be much better to not be conscious – then one could simply do whatever was necessary to best further one’s genes.

If consciousness is not necessary, then it cannot have been selected for by natural or sexual selection, as all of the facets and qualities of the brain have been. Therefore, it cannot be generated by the brain, and therefore there’s no reason to assume that the death of the brain should affect the presence of it.

The second problem is much harder. Even if you can logically and convincingly argue that consciousness must survive the death of the physical body, is not clear that anything apart from consciousness survives with it. This raises the possibility that, after the death of the physical body, one has to start again, as if this life had never happened.

Broadly speaking, there are three ways to get life wrong as a result of all this, and one way to get it right.

One can become obsessed with breeding, and adopt the delusion that one has cheated death by producing offspring. People under this delusion know no greater pleasure than just to rut like animals, and seldom consider the stark fact that their offspring will also grow old and die, as will their offspring etc.

One can become obsessed with physical dominance, and adopt the delusion that just because one is hard to kill that one has cheated death. Even if a man is really big, strong, fit, trained in martial arts and carrying weapons, time will grind him down. Age will weaken his arms, and eventually a major organ will fail. This is no solution either.

One can become obsessed with intellectual dominance, or wealth and social status. Such a person adopts the delusion that one can live on in history if one achieves sufficiently great deeds. Of course, as the example of Ozymandias showed, even the greatest deeds are worn away by time. One can never be famous enough to overcome one’s own mortality because no-one can escape the fact that everyone dies alone.

The solution is to focus on refining one’s frequency of consciousness, because that is something that might well carry through into the next world. This means to use the power of will to work one’s consciousness into a state where it serves to bring peaceful and joyous order to the intellectual, emotional and physical environment.

The Law of Karma tells us that the energy we put out is the energy that we get back. Therefore, one ought to direct one’s will towards reducing the suffering of the conscious beings around you. If one does this correctly and of one’s true will, then chances are that one comes to be reincarnated in a place where beings with similar wills exist.

This act of changing the frequency of one’s consciousness is the only way that we can work to taking something with us into the next world. It’s therefore always possible to improve the quality of one’s spiritual position by working towards the cessation of the suffering of other sentient beings. This is true no matter what the current or future state of the world’s climate.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 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 2017 is also available.

New Zealand Can No Longer Look to Britain For Moral or Cultural Guidance

New Zealand is a small country of fewer than five million people, and we do not have a lot of intellectual depth, neither presently nor historically. For these reasons, it has been tempting, perhaps even necessary, to look for moral direction from overseas. All well and good, but this essay argues that New Zealand ought to immediately stop looking to Britain for it.

Our history of looking to Britain for guidance is a long one. After all, we’re a British colony.

The problem is that today’s Britain is fucked. It’s not even a shell of the great Empire it once was, the one that unified the trade routes of the whole world into a single maritime system and which did so much to diminish the practice of slavery in the world. The culture that produced great minds such as Watt, Hume, Smith, Faraday, Wilberforce, Darwin, Mill, Locke, Dickens, Whitehead, Orwell and Huxley has rotted away. Only a carcass remains.

One could argue (as we have done elsewhere) that the British exported most of their alpha males to the colonies, because only the hardiest and most adventurous preferred hewing a new life out of untouched wilderness to sitting comfortable in Europe. This had a heavily dysgenic effect for the remaining British population, which is now every bit the dystopia depicted as Airstrip One in 1984.

Jacinda Ardern spent several years serving as a senior policy adviser in Tony Blair’s Government. Incredibly, Ardern wasn’t put off by the fact that Blair had helped to orchestrate the invasion of Iraq – an event that killed over a million people. The War Criminal’s Apprentice was happy to work under this mass murdering psychopath and learn his, and the modern British, ways of governing.

Like so many Kiwis, Ardern has returned from Europe with the idea that New Zealand ought to do things a lot more like they do things. This was a great thing up until the turn of the century, because Europe was the result of thousands of years of great minds working to determine the best way to live. Ever since then, Europe has rapidly gone down the toilet. This process has intensified in recent years, and nowhere more so than Britain.

Scottish comedian Mark Meechan, stage name Count Dankula, was found guilty of a hate crime in 2018 and risked six months’ imprisonment for posting a YouTube video of his dog giving a Nazi salute. Despite that the video was clearly a joke, he was still put in a cage for his impudence. The country that produced comic luminaries like John Cleese, Rik Mayall and Rowan Atkinson now arrests people for making the wrong jokes.

Attracting Police attention from one’s social media posting has become an everyday occurrence in modern Britain.

Getting arrested for making an anti-Muslim post has been a fact of life for several years now, with thousands of people being charged with public order offences like “inciting religious hatred” for criticising Islam. Ardern seems more than happy to adopt this totalitarian mentality wholesale, instituting a mass harassment campaign of her critics.

Worst of all, however, are the numerous child rape gangs that have flourished in Britain because of a national unwillingness to investigate Muslim criminals, out of fear of being seen to be prejudiced (a form of dhimmitude). The most infamous of these was the Rotherham child exploitation scandal, which saw 1,400 British girls raped by a Muslim grooming gang over a period of 35 years.

Britain has completely lost its moral compass, and we should not be following them anymore. Better to take our lead from places in Far East Asia. 60 years ago, South Korea had near-African levels of poverty, and as recently as 1980 the GDP per capita was barely over USD2,000 per year.

As of 2017, their GDP per capita is now higher than New Zealand’s. This they achieved not by inflating the housing market through mass immigration but from adding value through improving human capital and investing in technology, research and development. They have done much that we could learn from.

Some will argue that these Far East Asian countries are doing well because of their high native IQs. But that’s precisely the point. South Korea, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan make high-IQ decisions, and because of those decisions their standard of living is now significantly higher than that of Western countries.

We need to stay a high-IQ people, and we can’t do that by following the British obsession with the mass importation of cheap labour. Therefore, it’s time to go it alone.

We Kiwis are the offspring of two of the most adventurous and masculine races in the history of the world. The Polynesians that rowed here from other Pacific islands, and the Northern Europeans who sailed here and provided the impetus to build New Zealand into a wealthy modern nation, comprise two of the hardiest and most alpha peoples .

The hybrid vigour of these two makes us something truly special – special enough that we can rely on our own abilities to navigate the world and to determine our path forwards. We can turn our backs on the soulless, materialistic greed and nihilistic apathy of modern Britain, while aspiring to maintain the spirit of adventure that made New Zealand into a First World country.

Fundamentally British we might still be, but we can no longer look to them for inspiration. Great Britain is no more; what remains is fit to be euthanised. We need to cut our cultural ties with Britain immediately, and decide for ourselves what the way forward is going to be. This will involve intelligent public discussions about political issues, instead of blindly following international trends in the hope of getting approval from someone in a big country.

Clown World Chronicles: What is A ‘Dhimmi’?

With a world being thrown into upheaval, many concepts once thought forgotten are making a resurgence. This is often a good thing, as VJM Publishing has tried to show with our work on alchemy, elementalism and esotericism, but it can also be a bad thing. As this essay will explain, one of the concepts we will again have to familiarise ourselves with is that of the dhimmi.

Growing up with stories about World War II, an idea of what constituted an awful person arose. It wasn’t good to be a coward, and it wasn’t good to be the sort of person who shot prisoners, but the worst sort of person was the kind that collaborated with the enemy. These collaborators were a particular kind of traitor, but of the lowest possible sort.

The actions of men such as Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian who collaborated willingly with the Nazis during the Norwegian Occupation, became infamous. When Germany invaded Norway in 1940, Quisling volunteered to lead a local version of the Nazi Party, with him as head. This was considered such an obscenity that Quisling was executed as soon as the Nazis were expelled.

Warfare has always had collaborators, a consequence of the depravities that it inflicts upon soldier and civilian alike. The first enemy of warfare may be the truth, but the second might be common decency, as people are flung into situations where they are forced to do terrible things or die. The conditions of warfare mean extreme shortages of food, medicine and safety, and that means desperation.

Sometimes there is so much warfare and so many collaborators that a specialist vocabulary arises to describe them. During the Islamic conquests, collaborators were so common that they were given the title dhimmis (“protected person”). A dhimmi was given certain rights, such as exemption from persecution, as long as they paid the jizyah, or special tax. This was a form of protection money and therefore a sign of submission.

A dhimmi, then, is one who collaborates with an invading Islamic force to secure personal benefits at the expense of their people as a whole. Because the Islamic conquests were so vast, there are many stories of dhimmis in different cultures, but all of them share the quality of being considered execrable cowards.

Becoming a dhimmi isn’t necessarily a dumb move, even if it’s a morally deficient one. As many of the Norwegian women who hooked up with Wehrmacht soldiers during the Norwegian Occupation discovered, collaboration can secure food and other resources if the enemy ends up being triumphant.

Dhimmitude could be considered a kind of prostitution. As can be seen by the image above, anyone who becomes a dhimmi can expect to be praised in the most effusive of terms. The most gratifying thing a jihadist can experience is to see an infidel submit to the will of Islam, whether that be conversion or paying tribute. It’s the same sort of gratification a man feels watching a woman suck his cock.

A lot of Westerners feel that they can already see the writing on the wall, and believe that some form of Islamic conquest is inevitable. It was being seriously asked 15 years ago if France was on its way to becoming a Islamic state; now people just shrug their shoulders and await the inevitable.

A dhimmi in a modern context would be someone who actively supports Islamic interests ahead of those of her own people, in exchange for the hope of goodwill from Muslims as a whole. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as votes from the Muslim voting bloc within the country or support from Muslim countries when it comes to fulfilling future United Nations ambitions.

British Member of Parliament Jo Cox was a classic example of a dhimmi. Elected to serve the Batley and Spen constituency of West Yorkshire, she instead spent most of her time campaigning for refugees and ethnic diversity. Many considered her assassination a predictable response to her support of foreigners over her own people.

Jacinda Ardern is another example of a dhimmi. Ardern could be said to be “The world’s favourite dhimmi” on account of her response to the Christchurch mosque shootings, which was to excoriate white men in general while opening the door to further Muslim immigration. Her crackdowns on the rights of New Zealanders to possess firearms and to free expression made every jihadist in the world grin from ear to ear.

These young women have calculated that Islam will be much more influential, perhaps even dominant, in a few decades, and therefore the time to ingratiate oneself with them is now. They want to show themselves to be great friends of Islam, in the hope that Muslims will treat them more favourably when they assume power. They have deeply internalised a sense of dhimmitude, the condition of accepting being a dhimmi.

The left-wingers who prioritise Muslim refugees over their own homeless are deep into dhimmitude. As is often the case with slaves, dhimmitude can become so deeply internalised that the dhimmi thinks their behaviour is natural, even admirable. But the actions of women like Cox and Ardern are little different to those of the women who prostituted themselves to the victorious Nazi armies. After all, human nature hasn’t changed in many thousands of years.

In any case, the West is likely to see a lot more dhimmitude in coming decades, as the Muslim population – and therefore their militancy – continues to increase. Soon it will become important to identify dhimmi politicians like Cox, Ardern and Angela Merkel, so that they can be counteracted before they destroy our societies from the inside.

Why The Left Doesn’t Give A Shit About Drug Law Reform, Gun Rights or Free Speech

For many of us in Generation X, it was easy enough to associate the right with authoritarianism. The association was so obvious that it was near enough to a universally held belief for those born between the mid 60s and early 80s. As this essay will describe, the sands have shifted under us, and the left is now the authoritarian side.

In the 1990s, Christian fundamentalism still had a powerful grip on the moral consciousness of the West, especially the Anglo part of it. Age restrictions on television and movie content were standard. Music was made to carry labels that warned of explicit lyrics. Purchasing restrictions on alcohol were commonplace.

All of these restrictions were driven by a religious fundamentalist sentiment that not only believed that pleasure was sinful, but that those same religious fundamentalists had the right to force laws restricting those pleasures on the population at large. This self-righteous indifference to the will of others engendered a great deal of hatred for the right among those who grew up at the end of the 20th century.

Generation X hit adulthood, therefore, with the near-universal belief that the right wing, and anything associated with the right wing, was the authoritarian side, and the path to liberty and freedom lay in opposing them.

This worked out pretty good for about a decade. It inspired Generation X to resist the Iraq War, in part by organising history’s largest ever protests. It also inspired them to resist the PATRIOT Act, the West’s first example of true mass surveillance. By the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, many had a sense that a golden age awaited the world once the Baby Boomers ceded power to the Gen Xers.

It wasn’t until Barack Obama was elected, ironically, that things really started to go to shit.

Obama was the first Generation X American President (more or less). He had taken office with a lot of fanfare about a new age of democratic politics, where Presidents listened to the people instead of mysterious, unelected advisers. Exemplifying this new era was a website where the American people could submit their concerns directly to the political class by way of Internet petition.

The most popular petitions on this site generally related to cannabis law reform, for the reason that cannabis prohibition is arguably the most egregious modern example of Western governments abusing the human rights of their people. To the surprise of many, Obama just completely ignored all of these pleas, and went about instituting the agenda that he had had long before running for the Presidency.

A recent mainstream media piece made an appeal to Helen Clark to intercede on the side of cannabis law reform. This appeal is misplaced, because the left hasn’t cared about freedoms for a long time. They didn’t have to, mostly because the right so conspicuously didn’t care for so long that the left won the libertarian vote by default.

The New Zealand Labour Party’s total refusal to campaign for the repeal of prohibition has astonished some and disappointed others. Many of us expected Clark to make a move on medicinal cannabis 20 years ago, when she was in power and had the chance. After all, California made medicinal cannabis legal in 1996 and the Fifth Labour Government came to power in 1999.

Their flat refusal to do is, however, just part of a wider pattern of leftist indifference to human rights. The left has now completely sold out to corporate interests, as evidenced by their support for the mass importation of cheap labour, by their working hand-in-glove with the corporate media and by their refusal to accept the result of the Brexit referendum.

When the Sixth Labour Government came to power, many had similar hopes for them to the ones they had for Obama. But like Obama, the Sixth Labour Government has done less than nothing to bring freedom to the people they represented. One can write ‘less than nothing’ because they have taken freedoms away.

Gun rights have been stripped, and the right to express political opinions without interference has been thrown out the window. Kiwis are now facing a protracted campaign of Police harassment for anti-Government posts on social media, so much so that one can now seriously ask if New Zealand is a police state.

The reason for all this is that the left, now being authoritarian, demands ideological purity with the same kind of bone-headed ruthlessness that the Nazis once demanded racial purity. Therefore, any and all measures that increase ideological diversity must be opposed. Anything that increases a person’s propensity to generate novel thoughts or ideas is right out.

They don’t want people using cannabis because then people come to think freely, and they want to be the ones dictating what people think (for the greater good, of course).

When the left champions diversity, they mean the sort of superficial diversity that makes a people easier to control. They mean the diversity that allows them to divide the population into numerous teams and to set those teams against each other through their control of the apparatus of propaganda, in particular the mainstream media.

They don’t mean ideological or intellectual diversity. This constitutes a threat, such that all ideological and intellectual diversity must be suppressed. This has reached its worst expression in countries such as Britain and New Zealand, where regular citizens face increasing Police harassment for the content of their social media posts.

In summary, the reason why the left doesn’t care about human rights any more is because they are now the authoritarians. One entire generation has passed since the right were the authoritarians, and now the political landscape is very different.

The right, for their part, have been extremely slow to capitalise on this by moving towards libertarianism. If the right would set its flag on the libertarian side of the fence, as a few politicians have done (David Seymour of the ACT Party being the most prominent), they could benefit heavily from it. If Donald Trump would call for legal cannabis, the right would achieve a masterstroke of propaganda.