Freethinkers! It’s Time to Pull Back to the Secret Societies Again…
Every honest person in the Western World is right now suffering from a profound sense of unease. With another Cultural Revolution sweeping the West, it seems like the barbarian hordes are about to win their ultimate victory of destroying all order in the world. Fret not! There is historical precedent to guide us out of this turmoil – but it’s not going to be easy.
This profound sense of unease is easy to explain. Our cultural and political elites – rotten with corruption, bloated by the easiest life of any generation in history and blinded by ideology – have simply lost control. There is no longer a coherent shared sentiment that holds us together, and, without this, we have lost all solidarity.
In order to be a people, and not just a mess of randoms, we have to have solidarity. In order to have solidarity, a people needs to have a common ground.
The fashionable attitude of our time is the Orwellian “Diversity is Solidarity.” The contradiction here is obvious – the more diversity there is, the less we have in common with each other, and therefore the more diversity there is the less solidarity.
The rot has started at the top. We have an utterly corrupt political class. They inherited the highest standard of living in history after World War II and, bereft of historical awareness, have come to think it natural, and are interested in nothing beyond maintaining this comfortable lifestyle into senescence.
What happens to the generations that come after them is of no concern – as long as there are workers to sweep their streets and to wipe their arses, the Baby Boomers are happy enough. Because there naturally aren’t enough low-paid workers to maintain this lifestyle, the Boomers have chosen to simply import them, and have left us with the impossible task of maintaining a coherent culture in this maelstrom.
In recent centuries, anyone wishing to educate themselves into the nature of reality was able to do so at a university. The word ‘university’ means community, in the sense of a community of teachers and scholars. The idea is that, as a result of the collective effort of intelligent, honest truth-seekers, the true nature of reality will become apparent to the seeker.
This was true up until fairly recently. The New Zealand university system was able to produce a Rutherford a little more than a century ago.
Over the past twenty years, however, the university system has fallen into decline, and is no longer fit for purpose. Instead of honest, unconditioned freethinkers, the Western university system has become a production line of sheep-like drones, conditioned to be terrified of original thought by the ever-present threat of merciless social disapproval.
So, instead of being a community where seekers of wisdom can come together and share knowledge about the nature of reality, debating it and refining it, most of the products of this system are just pure cancer. University graduates are now more interested in virtue signalling than in the truth; indeed, the entire concept of ‘truth’ has been destroyed in the confusion wrought by postmodernism.
There’s only one solution, and history tells us what it is. In an age where the rights to free speech and free association have been lost (to both direct and indirect attacks), it’s necessary to once again meet in secret. Behind closed doors. Entry only by an invitation that is jealously withheld until proof that one is made of the right stuff has been given.
In other words, it’s necessary to fall back to the network of secret societies inspired by the Mystery Schools of ancient Egypt and Greece. The public ground has been lost to the barbarians – it’s time this was admitted by men of truth and the appropriate measures taken.
Indeed, this was where the original university system originated from – this is why people are not awarded Master’s Degrees but are rather “Admitted to the Degree of Master.”
This company has already begun work to source a kykeon capable of inspiring the spiritual insight that formed the basis of the Eleusinian Mysteries. At some point in the near future we will reinstate these mysteries in Sun City, New Zealand.
Things That Will Stop Happening With A Universal Basic Income
Many people have come to believe that the advent of a universal basic income is necessary to solve the social problems of the medium-term future. The received wisdom has it that increasing automation will soon make the majority of working-class professions obsolete, as they will be replaced with robots. This article looks at the social consequences of instituting a universal basic income.
Conservative interests are dead against the idea of UBI. The reason for this is the entirely reasonable belief that it will be expensive.
If one calculates the cost of a UBI in a country as small as New Zealand, with an adult population of just over 3 million, the cost becomes clear. Assuming that the current unemployment benefit is an amount of money that corresponds to the absolute minimum that a person could live on, 3 million multiplied by $250 per week equals three-quarters of a billion dollars every week.
3 million x $250 x 52 weeks = $39 billion dollars per year. This sounds like a tremendous amount of money – and it is – but according to the NZ Treasury, the cost of social welfare in New Zealand is already $29.8 billion every year. So our current welfare expenditure is already 75% of what it would be with a UBI.
What has to be borne in mind is that this money will not be wasted; indeed, virtually all of it will be funnelled straight back into the economy as it is spent on essential goods and services. Poor people don’t save money, as a general rule, because in order to save one needs a surplus and there is not likely to be a surplus on $250 per week. So the $250 they are given will be immediately put to use in lubricating the economy.
This is in stark contrast to the current system, in which almost the entirely of the operating budget of WINZ is completely wasted. The entire point of WINZ officers is essentially to decide which of their clients to deny an income to, and this role will be completely obsolete with a universal basic income – all of the money currently wasted on employing these gatekeepers will be saved.
The real effect of a UBI will come in the transformations it will make to the work force. Currently, a lot of jobs that are morally questionable or undesirable are done because the person needs to earn money. The threat of homelessness or starvation forces people to take jobs that might be soulless or immoral – and the people who control the money supply know this (and have always known it).
Journalists, for example, mostly produce absolute shit because of the desperate desire to sell advertising. A UBI would mean that instead of writing about sensationalised rubbish (or simply just making things up), journalists could go back to being the Fourth Estate.
Police officers find themselves tasked with enforcing laws that they know are immoral. A large proportion of the Police understand that it’s completely immoral for them to wage a War on Drugs against their own people, but there’s nothing they can do about it if they want to keep food on the table. A UBI would mean that prospective Police officers would be able to say no to enforcing immoral laws.
There are also a lot of people who work in advertising and finance who derive no satisfaction from their work because they know that it’s either completely meaningless or that it actually makes the world a worse place to live in for everyone, but these jobs pay. A UBI would provide an alternative for these soulless jobs.
There is also a belief that a UBI would make people ‘lazy’ and unwilling to work. This is a long way from the truth. In practice, a UBI would make it possible for people to refuse to work jobs with shit pay, shit conditions and shit bosses, which would force the labour market to improve working conditions. Improving these conditions would incentivise people to engage with the workforce.
One effect of this would be to make it much harder for abusive bosses to keep staff. In the New Zealand workplace of today, many employees find themselves having to put up with psychological abuse from their superiors because those superiors control the purse strings, and thereby control whether the employee gets to eat or not.
In summary, bringing in a UBI would sharply reduce the degree of coercive power that moneyed interests would have over people who were dependent on an income for food and shelter.
VJMP Reads: Anders Breivik’s Manifesto VII
This reading carries on from here.
In this section (c. pages 426-573), Breivik discusses “Modern Jihad”, or how adherents of the Islamic religion fight for supremacy in the modern world. Opening with a quote of Surah 9 verse 5, in which Muslims are admonished to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them”, this section details the existing Jihads carried out by Muslims against non-Muslims.
In his characteristic way, Breivik exhaustively catalogues the crimes committed by Muslims against non-Muslims. No offence, not even ones as prosaic as common assault, is too minor to be listed here. This is enough to give the impression that Islam is at war with every other culture that it shares a border with.
To some extent, Breivik has a point here. There are very few peaceful borders between Muslim-controlled areas and non-Muslim controlled ones, and prospects for there being more are very slim.
However, one glaring point is missed: if Islam is so ruthlessly aggressive when it comes to purging non-Muslims from Muslim lands, why are there still non-Muslims there? Nazi Germany managed to exterminate the vast bulk of European Jewry in fewer than six years of trying – how can it be that non-Muslim communities still exist in Muslim lands after what we are told has been 1,300 years of relentless extirpation?
Breivik mentions that one-sixth of the population of Egypt are Christians still. This seems like an extraordinarily high proportion for a group that has suffered 1,300 years of ethnic cleansing. The Native American population of the USA, the Aboriginal population of Australia and the Maori population of New Zealand are all much lower than this – and they were displaced over 400 years or less, meaning that the Christian exterminations of unwanted populations has been an order of magnitude more efficient and aggressive than those carried out by Muslims.
Moreover, the exhaustive list of Muslim crimes against non-Muslims is not compared to the list of non-Muslim crimes against non-Muslims, so there is no reference point against which to decide whether this list has any import. 800 Americans are shot dead by other Americans every single month – a monthly list of crimes much longer than the Muslim crimes detailed by Breivik in this document. And this is with a population one-fifth of the size of the Muslim world.
To some extent, Breivik is playing on the infamous persecution mania of Christians who see enemies everywhere and a never-ending infernal plot to drive them from the world in order to conquer it in the name of Satan. Ironically, although Breivik correctly points out that Muslims always try to cast themselves as the victims in order to gain sympathy, he does the exact same thing in this document.
There are many ways in which Breivik’s discontent with the current European situation is a consequence of the failure of European leaders. He correctly points out that part of the reason why Europeans are losing rights to increased security measures is because of the Islamic presence in Europe – had Europe never let the Muslims in, they never would have lost the freedoms that have been taken from them in the fight against extremism.
What needs to be done in response is clear. According to Breivik the terms of victory are “the total banishment of traditional Islam from a specific country. Widespread emigration/deportation and large scale conversion of Muslims in the country.”
This is necessary because “An objective analysis can never reach the conclusion that Islam is peaceful, tolerant and consistent with human rights.” Here, Breivik re-emphasises the point that Islam has never undergone a reformation of any kind. What Westerners foolishly call “moderate Muslims” are simply Muslims who are not particularly religious.
This section ends with a frightening question: “How was it possible that Immanuel Kant, who lived in a German state without liberal democracy, could criticise basic aspects of religion in the 18th century, while in the West of the 21st century there are social and legal consequences for criticising other religions and cultures?”
Have we really gone backwards since the Enlightenment?