VJM Publishing profile
VJM Publishing
VJM Publishing
VJM Publishing is for those who have seen beyond. We offer an asylum at the top of the mountain for those who have caught a glimpse of what lies beyond the material illusion. Esoteric psychology, psychedelic culture and New Zealand-focused politics.

Share

Tell people about this page...
VJM Publishing profile is under review.

PLEASE, BE AWARE: due to an extremely high volume of recently submitted profiles, the approval will take longer than usual. After this page is approved, you will be able to subscribe as usual. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

Recent posts

VJM Publishing profile is under review.

PLEASE, BE AWARE: due to an extremely high volume of recently submitted profiles, the approval will take longer than usual. After this page is approved, you will be able to subscribe as usual. We appreciate your patience and understanding.
C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
In an ideal state, the ruling class doesn’t need to threaten people, because they will rule correctly and this will inspire devotion. Whether this is unrealistic or whether we live in a degraded age is unclear, but what is clear is that our ruling class threaten people a lot, sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly. As this essay will show, the ruling class has three major strategies for keeping the plebs in line.

The easiest way to keep the plebs in line is to starve them. Starvation is represented by the element of clay. In the old days, the rulers of the community would gather together all the product of that season’s agricultural harvest and portion them out to the deserving. Anyone deemed to be undeserving was given a smaller portion of food, or none at all. This is natural logic – one can see it replicated in lion prides.

If a child is seriously misbehaving, the go-to strategy for many parents is to send them to bed without any dinner. This is unpleasant for the child, because it plays on deep, primal fears of starvation. Much like a hand around the throat, which quickly gains compliance thanks to the fear of death, withholding food from someone can quickly cause submission. People are hard-wired to be afraid of hunger, for obvious biological reasons.

Starvation is more subtle than just denial of food. It can also refer to denial of the means to procure food, i.e. money. The way this is most commonly achieved in the modern world is to create uncertainly about the future of one’s job. All talk about economic downturns, mass layoffs, global financial crises etc. has the psychological effect of inducing submission among the plebs by stoking subconscious fears of starvation.

Some people often wonder why, in poor African countries, people still starve despite the enormous amounts of foreign food aid that is pouring in. The answer is that the people in charge of those poor African countries regularly refuse to distribute food aid to those groups thought to be enemies. If the dictator in charge comes from a particular tribe, he might withhold food aid to that tribe’s traditional foes as a way of settling scores.

Threatening to impoverish someone by taking away their food supply is the most elementary and primal way to establish control and compliance, which is why it’s so effective. This is the ultimate reason why men “follow orders”, even when those orders are criminal – the alternative might be unemployment, which means starvation.

Imprisonment is represented by the element of iron, and is the way that the ruling class threaten anyone they cannot starve. If you can access your own food supply, or earn your own wage with which to buy food, fair enough, more power to you. It means you have avoided enslavement at the level of clay, but the ruling class can escalate things to the level of iron.

Imprisonment is what happens to you if you break the law. The law is how the ruling class gets you to do things when the threat of starvation is insufficient.

The ruling class determines what the law is by drawing up a list of all the things they don’t want you to do. The initial list is one of all the things that common law has agreed causes harm to people, because making these things against the law grants the ruling class legitimacy. To this list they add certain things they don’t want people doing.

For example, the Western ruling classes have been afraid that if cannabis were legal, their livestock would be less productive. The belief is that cannabis use saps ambition, which our economy relies upon. This belief is warranted to some extent – cannabis use tends to cause a drift away from materialism, which implies less interest in money and consumption. So making it illegal causes the cash cows to grow fatter.

The threat of imprisonment is the threat of ripping someone away from their usual environment at gunpoint, and then putting them in an enclosed environment with people who have caused harm to others. Furthermore, if you don’t want to go in the cage the Police will kill you on the spot. It’s the threat of a deeply unpleasant experience, which is why the threat of iron is so effective at modifying the behaviour of the peasantry.

Ostracisation is represented by the element of silver. As silver is more subtle than iron, so is ostracisation more subtle than imprisonment. However, as silver is more valuable than clay, the fact that it is more subtle than iron makes it stronger, and not weaker. Ostracisation can affect people who cannot be targeted for enslavement in the realm of clay or iron, on account of that their behaviour is not objectionable enough.

The ruling class can still threaten to destroy their social reputation, and these threats are just as capable of insidiously affecting a person’s mind as the threats of starvation or imprisonment. Whispering campaigns and rumour-mongering are both capable of making someone’s life much less pleasant, and the threat of being subjected to these is often enough to induce compliance where other methods are inapplicable.

In practice, ostracisation is an extremely powerful tool, because all it takes to employ it is to tell enough lies about the target. A sufficiently motivated rumour-mongering campaign can blacken the reputation of even the most exalted of people. Such campaigns can be waged with the strength of thousands if the person spreading the rumours is influential enough.

Moreover, the clay and iron strategies of starvation and imprisonment only work if the ruling class has clear physical dominance. Ostracisation can be employed by any member of the ruling class, established dominance or not. All they have to do is induce people to feel contempt for some other member of the collective. They can also target other members of the ruling class with such means.

Ostracisation also plays on fundamental primal fears, because humans are a social animal, and the vast majority of us cannot function well without healthy social interaction. The real beauty of it, from the ruling class’s point of view, is that it’s always possible to change what’s fashionable within society, and therefore always possible to ostracise a person (or group of people) so long as the apparatus of propaganda are controlled.

Through combining these three major threat strategies, the ruling class is able to induce submission in virtually all of the members of the lower classes. These three are enough to cover the entire spectrum of man’s lower nature, and therefore are sufficient to appeal to all elementary human fears.

*

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.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.
C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
With news that the New Zealand Government will make the teaching of New Zealand history compulsory in schools from 2022, many are wondering what form this history will take. Napoleon said “History is a set of lies agreed upon,” and many Kiwis are skeptical that this new history will be accurate and fair. These concerns are warranted. This essay summarises the New New Zealand History in six words: White Man Bad, Brown Man Good.

The move by the Sixth Labour Government has been heavily criticised by commentators such as Anarkiwi, and for good reason. Government initiatives to “tell the real truth about history” always end up being indoctrination campaigns, launched to brainwash the population into supporting a particular agenda. The history that will be taught in New Zealand schools will be a set of lies agreed upon (although your input will not be sought).

Central to the New New Zealand history is the idea that there was no benefit to the Maori from colonisation, only losses. Maoris did not benefit from medicine, or a justice system, or from sanitation, or from infrastructure, or from technology. All of these things are either presumed to have no value, or it is assumed that Maoris would have developed them anyway without British help.

This New History will follow closely to a Rousseauean conception of human nature, in which uncivilised man is a “noble savage”, morally superior to civilised man. The civilised man is, according to this conception, much like the stereotypical Jewish merchant. He schemes, he swindles, he extorts and steals, and he does so without shame or scruple. Uncivilised man, by contrast, lives in a state of perfect harmony with his environment.

In the New New Zealand History, civilisation descended on these isles like a black wave of corruption and evil. Technology, law and order are considered to be negative things that lured the Maori out of his state of innocence. This allowed for land to be swindled out of the Maori tribes much like candy from an innocent baby in the crib.

Part of this New New Zealand History will be the enshrinement of the special status of Maoris as those people who live here by right, whereas every other race has a conditional residency status contingent on “upholding the Treaty”. The idea is that the continued presence of non-Maoris in New Zealand is dependent on the permission of Maoris. This will see an increase in the use of vocabulary like ‘tangata whenua’ and ‘tauiwi’ (the latter being the Maori equivalent of ‘goyim’ or ‘kaffir’).

Anything that doesn’t fit the White Man Bad, Brown Man Good narrative will simply not be taught.

The Musket Wars, during which 40,000 Maoris were killed by intertribal wars launched by Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika, will be glossed over, summarised or simply ignored. One can confidently predict that the New New Zealand History will begin in 1840, as if New Zealand had come to Earth already perfectly formed, a last-minute addition direct from the mind of God.

Another thing that won’t be taught is that some 150,000 Maoris have emigrated away from New Zealand to Australia, which offers the same wealth and prosperity that colonisation brought to New Zealand, only more so. Neither will it be taught that Maoris are, on average, five times wealthier than the average Tongan.

Tonga was never colonised, and the fact that Tongans willingly move to New Zealand in far, far greater numbers than Maoris willingly move to Tonga is solid evidence that Polynesian natives prefer the benefits of Western life to the sort of life that existed previously. Actions speak louder than words, after all, and Polynesians have clearly shown with their migration decisions that the Western life is better.

Neither will the ecological consequences of Polynesian settlement get a mention. We won’t hear a word about the extermination of pre-existing megafauna such as the moa and the Haast Eagle. Neither will we hear anything about the fact that Maori settlers in the South Island destroyed 40% of its forest cover within the first 200 years.

The Parihaka story (or at least the Green Party version of it), on the other hand, will play a central role. This story paints Maoris as Gandhi-like figures of peace, and the British as Genghis Khan-like murderers and rapists, and is therefore emblematic of the New New Zealand History. Doubtlessly we will see renewed calls for a Parihaka Day, which is to be another grievance day.

Genuine grievances will not be mentioned if that doesn’t fit the agenda. The destruction of Maori religious and spiritual traditions by Abrahamists suits the Government fine, as does the imposition of recreational alcohol culture on a people who had no genetic resistance to it (and the criminalisation of the recreational cannabis culture that they preferred). Both of those things serve the agenda of tightening control on the thoughts and behaviours of the people.

The actual purpose of the New New Zealand History is manyfold, but it achieves two major objectives from the point of view of those bringing it in.

First, it divides Maoris between those who are New Zealand nationalists and those who are Maori nationalists. The New Zealand nationalists tend to be assimilationists who would rather get on with things and declare old history to be water under the bridge. The Maori nationalists tend to be separatists who understand that their power comes from stoking grievance and dissatisfaction.

The New New Zealand History splits these two groups apart by teaching a grievance narrative that has white people and Maoris at each other’s throats. Those Maoris who are New Zealand nationalists are made to feel as if they are betraying “their own people” by remaining loyal to New Zealand. On the other side, white people with sympathies to Maoris will have them tested by a narrative that places Maoris in the role of accuser and prosecutor and white people in the role of defendant.

Second, it divides the rest of the population between those who tell the truth and those who are on board with the new fashion. Inevitably, those who maintain that Maoris benefitted from colonisation will be decried as old-fashioned and out of touch with the “new learning”. They will be pilloried as racists and bigots and we will hear that society would be better without them.

The New New Zealand History is, like most United Nations-driven novelties, a set of lies intended to further a globalist agenda. It’s closely related to the movement known as Brown Communism, which is a form of slave morality intended to divest white and Far East Asian people of their wealth. Like most sets of lies, the way to counter it is to remain steadfast to the truth, no matter how unfashionable that becomes.

*

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.

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Periodic outrage arises at something called the “Gender Wage Gap.” We are constantly being told that men are paid a certain percentage more than women because of anti-female discrimination and prejudice within the workplace. The problem is that the idea of a gender wage gap is absolute bullshit. Demographer Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, explains.

There is, indeed, a correlation of 0.23 between net median income and being male (and commensurately a correlation of -0.23 between net median income and being female). This is not a very strong correlation, and in this study is only on the borderline of statistical significance.

This does mean that men control slightly more of the nation’s money supply than women do. Some people, particularly on the left, make the assumption that all human population groups are precisely the same, and therefore any difference must be the consequence of oppression. The existence of a positive correlation between personal income and being male is taken as proof that women are systematically underpaid.

However, a closer look at the data reveals the lie in this lazy assumption.

The correlation between being male and having a personal income above $150,000 was 0.03 – essentially nonexistent. The correlation between being male and having a person income between $100,000 and $150,000 was even less than this, at 0.01. This shows that the distribution of the highest-earning jobs is almost perfectly even between men and women.

Indeed, we can see from Understanding New Zealand that there is essentially no difference between men and women when it comes to higher education. The correlation between being male and having a Bachelor’s degree is not significant, at -0.04, and for the postgraduate degrees the correlation is weaker still. So the equal share of educational achievement leads naturally onto an equal share of the top professional jobs.

The best-paid jobs in New Zealand are appointed on the basis of education and not gender. Further proof for this comes from the fact that the correlations between working as a professional and having any degree are extremely strong – around 0.80 to 0.90. The correlation between being a professional and being a male, by contrast, is not significant, at -0.10.

Nearer the centre of the earnings scale we can see that the correlation with being male rises, to 0.22, for an income between $50,000 and $60,000. This correlation is borderline significant, but it is in the wage brackets between $40,000 and $70,000 where the bulk of the nation’s income is earned. All of these wage brackets have a positive correlation of at least 0.18 with being male.

Lower down the earnings scale, we can see that the correlation with being male is negative for all income brackets below $30,000. It is a borderline significant -0.19 for the prime beneficiary’s income bracket of $10,000 to $15,000. Indeed, we can see that the correlation between being male and being on the unemployment benefit is -0.39, so women are significantly more likely to be bringing in less than average.

So if women and men are paid the same at the top levels, why do men earn more in the middle levels?

As mentioned above, the reason that men make more money than women overall is because of the fact that there are more of them in the $40,000 to $70,000 range and fewer in the $30,000 and below range. But the reason for this is not prejudice.

Most of this difference can be explained by the correlation of 0.48 between being male and being in full-time work. There is also a correlation of -0.48 between being male and being unemployed. Simply put, this means that men work a lot more than women do. Further proof comes from the negative correlations between being male and being on the unemployment benefit (-0.39), being on the invalid’s benefit (-0.26) or being on the student allowance (-0.21).

What this means is that the plum jobs are shared out equally between men and women, but the lower one goes down the socio-economic scale, the more likely it is that women will become unemployed instead. This makes perfect sense, because the less one earns the more marginal working becomes in comparison to spending that time on one’s family, and women are much more likely to make such a calculation than men.

The gap in earnings between men and women can be best explained, therefore, not by sexism or any other form of prejudice, but by life history patterns. Men tend to work hard as young adults and then work hard as older adults. Women, by contrast, tend to work hard as young adults and then transition to part-time work as they get older, shifting the primary focus of their concern from their career to their family.

What the statistics show is a very reasonable pattern of women starting out as professionals if they can, otherwise starting at the bottom and transitioning into family care as they age. Men also start out as professionals if they can and also otherwise start at the bottom, but the difference is that they tend to transition into managerial positions as they age. This is evidenced by the correlation of 0.49 between being male and working as a manager.

The “gender wage gap”, therefore, is best explained as the result of different choices made by the average man compared to the average woman. It has nothing to do with prejudice or sexism, and anyone claiming that it does is either misguided or lying.

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
The Internet is full of bitching about who is entitled to what and who is ripping who off. Endless back-and-forths that have been running for decades already, and sometimes for centuries before the Internet was invented. This bickering does a tremendous amount of social damage, fostering distrust, suspicion and cynicism at all levels. As this essay will examine, a universal basic income would pay for itself by settling much of this bitching.

One of the eternal debates relates to the pension age.

Our society is currently structured so that 64-year olds are made to work under threat of starvation, but 65-year olds are gifted $370 a week from the state until they die, no questions asked. A person’s life is radically different from the week before they turn 65 compared to the week after. Turning 65 grants you access to so much free money that it’s like winning the lottery.

The problem, from the state’s point of view, is that the pension already costs New Zealand some $16 billion dollars per year – a figure that is rising by about a billion a year. This means that there is a great incentive to cut down on costs by raising the pension age. On top of that, many argue that the current pension arrangement in unsustainable, on account of that people are in good health for longer.

Naturally, proposals to raise the pension age are bitterly resented by those close to it. Howls of outrage are inevitable every time the media raises the subject. Also naturally, those younger still, who have no hope of the luxury pension lifestyle that today’s elderly enjoy, don’t give a shit, and are happy to just laugh. Therefore there is bitter resentment on all sides.

We already have a universal basic income for those over 65. If we would lower the size of the payment to something more reasonable, and then extend the age limit all the way down to 18, would could get rid of the need to argue over the pension age entirely.

Another eternal debate revolves around making a distinction between the mentally ill and the lazy. The logic is that it’s fair to pay mentally ill people welfare because they can’t be expected to hold down a job, but it’s not fair to pay lazy people on welfare because it will just encourage them to not work.

The difficulty is, of course, that it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between the two. It’s not at all routine to find agreement between two psychiatrists as to whether a given patient is mentally ill or a malingerer. It couldn’t possibly be, given how complicated the average mind is and how long it takes to get to understand it.

In practice, there’s essentially no way to tell whether a person’s unwillingness to work stems from mental illness (thereby demanding a feminine solution) or a failure of the will (thereby demanding a masculine solution). There is no scientific test, so the psychiatrist just asks a bunch of questions and then offers a degree of help commensurate with how much they like the patient.

This means that a large part of the welfare apparatus – that devoted to distinguishing the “deserving” from the “undeserving” – is superfluous and could be scrapped at no loss. A universal basic income would remove the need for absurdities such as the requirement to get a doctor’s certificate every year or so to “prove” that one was too mentally infirm to hold down a job.

A mentally healthy person will not choose to avoid work, for the simple reason that employment is the only realistic way to meet one’s social needs today. Some people might need to take a break away from intense social pressure on occasion, and a UBI would help them do this. Then they could return on their own terms when able. This would prevent people from being ground down into destruction through the stress of trying to maintain employment with a mental illness.

Seldom does a person stop and think about how much social damage is caused by arguments about who is worthy to receive a basic level of financial dignity and who isn’t.

A universal basic income would settle all of these disputes in one stroke. It would say: there is no such thing as public welfare anymore, only dividends. Every citizen gets a basic dividend of the nation’s wealth, enough to stave off abject misery, no questions asked. No more squabbling about who’s paid in enough and who has been promised what.

There is a lot of talk about a looming financial crisis, and how we can’t lower interest rates to fight it, and will therefore have to print money. The last time we printed money we gave to the banks, and that didn’t help alleviate the human suffering. This time we should print money and give it to everyone to meet their basic survival needs.

If 3,500,000 people received a dividend of $250 for 52 weeks, the total cost would be $45,500,000,000. According to the New Zealand Treasury, crown income was $81,800,000,000 for the 2016/2017 financial year. That same link also shows us that the current cost of social security and welfare is $30,600,000,000, currently paid for by taxation and not money printing.

This means that we could scrap the entire social security and welfare bureaucracy, shift all of the funding for it to a UBI, and we’d only be $15,000,000,000 short. This shortfall could be made up for by money printing, or from increased economic efficiencies brought about by the structural change of every person having government-backed poverty insurance.

One likely side-effect of a UBI is that is will make many things much cheaper.

For instance, without the life-or-death pressure of needing to get a job before one starves, Kiwis would be much more willing to live in places with fewer job opportunities. This would create a drift to rural areas and release some of the demand pressure on urban land. Introduction of a UBI would, of course, mean the termination of the Accomodation Supplement, as there is simply no justification to live somewhere you can’t afford if this isn’t necessary for work purposes.

The fact is that New Zealand needs entrepreneurial activity if it is to succeed this century, and much of this will necessarily be Internet-based owing to New Zealand’s extreme geographical isolation. A UBI would make it possible for small start-ups to get off the ground in the smaller centres, because these start-ups would have much lower initial costs.

The rest of the value might be made up from the social benefits of putting a definitive and official end to all questions about who was worthy of Government assistance and who was a bludger, malinger, thief etc. Everyone gets $250, and when the rate goes up it goes up for all. Because everyone gets it, and the same amount, there would be no question over who is entitled and who isn’t.

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
The Boomer is an utterly Godless creature. Having completely forsaken divine guidance and surrendered to ego, it lives a life of pure narcissism, driven only by instinct, lurching from one impulse-fuelled drama to the next. However, there is always a resurgent spark of yang everytime yin appears triumphant. When the last Boomer perishes, God will return to Earth.

The Boomers are a deeply damaged generation, in two major ways.

Men who spend several years in mortal combat, as the parents of the Boomers did, almost inevitably end up with warped attitudes to violence, abuse and mental health. This isn’t to blame that generation – this is simply pointing out a psychological fact by way of explanation. When you add large amounts of alcohol to this mix, in lieu of an actual mental health system, you end up with a parenting style that doesn’t lead to healthy offspring.

Many returning veterans became alcoholics to deal with the trauma of surviving combat and the deprivations of war. Many others became emotionally distant. A great number found that a screaming child brought them straight back to the screams of the wounded on the battlefield, and this brought with it bursts of adrenaline – hardly the right mindset to be raising children with.

For Boomer children, it was common to only see one’s father when completely pissed after work. When they did interact with fathers, it was often with damaged, broken men who behaved unpredictably. Coming to one’s parent with a problem was often met with a “Fucking harden up!”, and causing problems frequently led to the bash. What the Boomers learned from this was to put themselves first, always, because the world was a terrible and dangerous place.

However, World Wars One and Two did a lot more damage than merely causing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to millions of veterans who would then go on to neglect and abuse their children. It also demolished their belief in God.

In the lead up to, and during, World War One, people on all sides were told that their nation’s participation in the war was the Will of God, and that God wanted them to go and fight in Europe. This severely weakened the belief that most Westerners had in God. World War Two destroyed it. By the end of World War Two it was widely believed that the very idea of God was for weaklings, and was just a trick to sucker people into doing the priest’s bidding.

Consequently, the Boomers were raised in an unprecedented absence of spirituality and spiritual sentiment.

This combination of self-centredness and godlessness led to a narcissism that had never previously been seen. This monstrous egotism has pushed the world into an extremely precarious state, with numerous dangers that pose existential risks to the human species. Not only is the environmental and military situation precarious, but the ideological climate is conducive to fanaticism.

Generation X is aware that the selfishness of the Boomers is far from normal. We’ve seen our grandparents’ generation, who were entirely different. Despite the hardships they themselves had endured, they were kind, thoughtful, other-focused: the anti-Boomers. Some of us can even remember our grandparents saying that there was something wrong with the whole Boomer generation, that they must have been spoiled or left in front of the television too long.

Generation X, as described in Fight Club, has faced a different dilemma. With a parental generation so self-centred as to be all but absent, and a grandparental generation mostly shuffled off this plane of existence, our Great War is a spiritual war. We have problems such as finding gratitude for what we have when we know that our parents had it so much better. We must look for meaning in a dying culture.

Many people like to act as if God was an unnecessary thing altogether, and that an absence of belief in God had no meaningful effect on a person’s behaviour. The reality is that, absent a belief in God, an individual will inevitably behave as if they were an animal, driven only by biological concerns for resource acquisition, social dominance, shitting, pissing and sex. This causes tremendous suffering to all.

The first Boomers were born in the mid-40s, and the last ones in the early 1960s. This means that the oldest Boomers are already in their mid-70s, and that means that they’re about to start dying off in droves. Right now, Boomers are in complete control of the political, economic and cultural agenda, but their impending mass retirement means that they will cede all of this to their offspring over the next fifteen years.

The death of the last Boomer will be as the bursting of a great dam, one that held back the flood of a new spiritual age. With no more Boomers to trash the planet in search of an ever-comfier retirement, Generation X and the Millennials will be able to build a world that focused on the cessation of suffering. This we shall achieve through a great spiritual renaissance.

Features

  • Access to articles and essays
The subscription gives you:
  • Full, unlimited access to Star's profile content - to view it online or to download it to future use.
  • Support your Star by donating – one-time or recurring.
  • You can cancel this subscription at any time.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Continue to use the site as normal if you agree to the use of cookies. If you’d like to find out more about the cookies we use or to opt-out, please read our Privacy Policy. By choosing "I Accept", you consent to our use of cookies.