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.
Subscribe
Send Message

Share

Tell people about this page...

Features

  • Access to articles and essays

Recent posts

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

They Want To Cause Suffering To People They Hate

The latest cannabis referendum poll suggests that 54% of New Zealanders will vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum on September 19. According to the poll, there are significant differences in levels of support for the referendum between supporters of the various parties. Some people have found this hard to explain. For their benefit, this essay elucidates.

Paul Manning, Chief Executive of Helius Therapeutics, asked the question “What do they want?” in response to the news that many elderly and conservative voters plan to vote against the cannabis referendum. He points out that these people understand that cannabis is widely available and that cannabis prohibition is not working. So why do they support it?

The reason why most elderly and conservative voters intend to vote ‘No’ is because they hate the sort of person who uses cannabis and they want to cause them suffering. This might sound uncharitable, or even cynical, but it has to be understood that most elderly and conservative Kiwis are twisted creatures of hate.

For their entire lives, this generation of New Zealanders has been exposed to propaganda inducing them to hate cannabis users. Ever since the 1930s, when Reefer Madness came out, popular culture has normalised the idea that cannabis users are depraved, anti-social maniacs. This propaganda has had the intended effect on the elderly of the West, who mostly swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

This anti-cannabis propaganda stems from two main sources, both of which hate cannabis for its ability to induce free thinking.

The first is the Church, who have always hated freethinkers because freethinkers question religious dogma. For centuries, the Church has relied on the acquiescence of its subjects in order to brainwash them. Freethinkers were the enemy because they threatened this acquiescence, and thereby Church control – this is why the Church has always persecuted them, going back to the murder of Hypatia and beyond.

The second is the Government, which wants a compliant population of submissive worker drones. Their ideal citizen is one with an IQ of 90, who goes to work everyday and produces widgets or basic services without ever complaining. As far as the Government is concerned, they are running a tax farm, and their chief concern is to milk the livestock as profitably as possible. The last thing that want is someone rocking the boat with free thought.

The elderly have internalised almost a century of this propaganda. As such, they genuinely believe that cannabis users are dangerous radicals who threaten to destroy the foundations of society itself, and who therefore deserve all the abuse they get. This hatred, in their minds, justifies cannabis prohibition.

In America, it was admitted that the purpose of the War on Drugs was to smash people they hated. John Ehrlichman, aide to Richard Nixon during the latter’s presidency, admitted that the purpose of the War on Drugs was to target anti-war hippies and black people. In an interview with Harper Magazine, Ehrlichman is quoted as saying:

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Although it hasn’t been admitted, the same calculus applies in New Zealand.

There are almost no blacks in New Zealand, but elderly and conservative New Zealanders hate Maoris just as much as their American counterparts hate blacks. Elderly and conservative New Zealanders also hate hippies, who they associate with Communism and with the free and honest sex lives they wish they had had.

It’s well known that Maoris are strong supporters of cannabis law reform – the correlation between being Maori and voting for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2017 was a whopping 0.91. The reason for this immensely strong support is because Maoris are adversely affected by cannabis prohibition to a much greater degree than other New Zealanders.

However, this disproportionate harm is considered a good thing by many elderly and conservative New Zealanders. They see Maoris as the enemy anyway – a thieving, bludging, ungrateful, violent enemy – so if cannabis prohibition harms them, that’s a good thing.

These elderly and conservative New Zealanders also hate other cannabis using demographics, such as young people, artists, hippies and freethinkers. Elderly and conservative New Zealanders do plenty of drugs, but their drugs are sedatives, alcohol and opiates. Cannabis prohibition doesn’t target them.

This hate is why arguments appealing to the suffering caused by cannabis prohibition often have no effect. Most elderly or conservative voters think “Cannabis users are suffering? Good! Smash them, crush them, destroy them. Ruin their lives with a criminal conviction. Imprison them so their kids can’t see them. They are the enemy and should be obliterated!”

The psychiatric damage caused to cannabis users by arresting and imprisoning them is considered a bonus by these people. Appealing to the cruelty of it makes as much sense, to elderly and conservative voters, as appealing to the cruelty of shooting the enemy soldiers on the other side of the battlefield. Of course it’s cruel, that’s the point.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy solution to the presence of this malicious streak in New Zealand’s elderly and conservative voters. Hatred is a deep emotion – usually too deep to be influenced by reason. The sight of intelligent young people like Chloe Swarbrick speaking eloquently merely aggravates the elderly and conservative, and further entrenches their prejudice.

At the end of the day, young Kiwis and Maoris can take solace in the fact that the old bastards who hate them are dying off. No amount of hate can stop the aging process, and the old bigots will lose their ability to influence the law once Time puts them in the ground. Absent measures such as forcing the elderly to surrender their voting rights in exchange for a pension, that will have to do.

*

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

An Introduction To Great Fractal Theory

Works such as The Verity Key (published 2012) make reference to something called the Great Fractal, a concept expounded upon in an essay published here in 2017. Great Fractal Theory is a subset of a wider philosophy known as Elementalism. This essay provides a basic introduction.

Great Fractal Theory starts with a simple premise: that consciousness is the prima materia. Consciousness was the first thing to exist, and everything else comes after and is dependent upon it. Consciousness is more fundamental than both time and therefore does not need to have a beginning, an end, a cause, or a final destiny. It simply is.

Everything else that exists falls into the category of ‘the contents of consciousness’. Here we find the metaphysical world (that which Plato referred to as the ‘World of Forms’), and the physical or material world (that which we’re used to calling ‘Earth’).

The material world is not truly real, despite the fact that it appears very real. In fact, it has been dreamed up by consciousness, in the Great Act of Creation. Consciousness is therefore the creator of the material world, in the same way that it creates the worlds we navigate in our dreams. It is the stage upon which the play on life takes place.

The material world is most accurately understood as not being a place, then, but rather a matrix-like series of self-similar sets of perceptions that manifest in conscious awareness. Consciousness perceives a field of impressions that collectively create the illusion that we are bodies living in a material world, as opposed to consciousness dreaming it up. As such, we appear to be ‘living’ rather than simply experiencing.

The essence of Great Fractal Theory is that all of the possible fields of impressions that consciousness could ever perceive are related to each other by way of a fractal matrix. This matrix, known as the Great Fractal, contains every emotion, every thought, every desire and every sensory impression that could ever possibly manifest in conscious awareness.

Our lives do not involve being bipedal fleshsuits moving around on a rock in space, but rather being fragments of consciousness navigating through an eternal and ever-changing Great Fractal of self-similar fields of sensory impressions.

The easiest way to conceptualise the Great Fractal is to think of one’s own life.

Consciousness is, right now, experiencing not only your current life but also all the possible gaps in between your birth and your death. Your own personal fragment of consciousness may be living right now, in 2020 A.D., but other fragments of consciousness are living out every possible moment of your life, simultaneously.

By “every possible moment”, imagine that your life was divided into a billion or so chunks, each corresponding to a second or two of awareness. Think that all billion of these fragments of consciousness are living their own lives, unaware of the presence of the others. Then think that each of these billion fragments could themselves be divided into a billion fragments.

Now imagine these quintillion or so lives, each separated by one or two nanoseconds, rolling from birth to death like freight carriages on a railway. One ends and one begins every few nanoseconds, and follows the exact path of the life that you are experiencing right now, past and future. This is what Nietzsche meant by eternal recurrence: your life is lived again, by another fragment of consciousness, forever.

Now imagine a parallel streak made up of lives of people who are of the other gender to you. Their lives are otherwise exactly the same, only they came into the world female instead of male (or vice-versa). These lives would have followed an entirely different path on account of that they would have had different instincts and would have been treated differently, but a life they would have had.

This parallel streak of lives can also be divided into a quintillion separate existences. Now takes this dual streak of lives, and change another facet from masculine to feminine or vice-versa. If you are rich, imagine another dual streak of lives that is poor. If you are short, imagine another streak of lives that is tall. If you are white, imagine black etc.

Every possible way that a human life can differ from another is another dimension of the Great Fractal. This number of dimensions is close to infinite – there are as many different dimensions of this Great Fractal as there are ways to distinguish one human life from another. So not only does every moment of every human life exist in the Great Fractal, but so does every moment of every possible human life.

If we say, for simplicity’s sake, that there are a hundred different dimensions along which human lives could differ, that would mean that the Great Fractal contained at least one quintillion to the power of a hundred different human lives in it – a number that defies comprehension.

All of these lives are being lived right now.

On top of this has to be added not only the lives that are possible according to the specific world that has manifested to us (i.e. Earth), but all the possible lives in all possible worlds. These possible worlds might also differ from each other over a hundred different dimensions.

This would mean that the number of human lives being lived right now is (at least) one quintillion to the power of a hundred to the power of a hundred. This number would cover all the fragments of consciousness that are right now experiencing a human-like life in an Earth-like world, somewhere in the Great Fractal.

Trying to understand this is enough to understand that the Great Fractal is humming with consciousness.

On top of this, we could add all of the non-human lives being experienced by consciousness right now. There’s no reason, other than anthropomorphic conceit, to believe that only human beings are conscious. Once it’s realised that consciousness is the prima materia and not a phenomenon of the brain, it becomes entirely possible that all other animals, indeed even insects and trees, are conscious like we are.

If we assume, for simplicity’s sake, that the number of dimensions along which life can vary is a hundred, then the number of different lives being experienced by consciousness right now is at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100. This is a nonsense number as there’s no way that a human mind can comprehend it. However, our failure to comprehend it is the glory of God.

In sum, anything that can possibly be perceived by consciousness lies somewhere in the Great Fractal. All moments of all lives of all possible creatures in all possible worlds are contained within the Great Fractal, to be experienced by consciousness eternally. Your life is simply an infinitely small fragment of this incomprehensibly vast whole.

Getting what you want out of life is not, as most think, a matter of manipulating and dominating the material world until it accords with your will. Making your dreams come true is simply a matter of navigating your consciousness to the part of the Great Fractal in which those dreams are experienced. This is, however, a topic for another essay.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!


C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘Weimarisation’?

Every history student knows that the Weimar Republic preceded the Nazi Era in Germany. Fewer understand that the process of historical decline goes through certain predictable stages, one of which is characterised by the Weimar Republic and its infamous successor. This article explains.

The process of political decline is so well established and so predictable that Plato, over 2,300 years ago, was already able to describe it at length in The Republic. A healthy political system begins with an aristocracy of philosopher-kings, and then degrades into a timocracy, then an oligarchy, then a democracy, and finally into a tyranny.

Plato’s description of democracy corresponds closely to how it is practiced today. He criticised it for being a stage in which every man was out for himself, and no-one thought of long-term considerations when making decisions. This leads to a lack of order and discipline, which leads to it becoming impossible to tell the truth. Eventually all kinds of crooked liars fill the vacuum and come to office.

The problem with democracy is that it makes men weak, as it panders to their crudest and most primitive desires, and does not encourage them to cultivate their higher moral senses. Being weak, they are then unable or unwilling to resist cruel men who come to oppress them. When the cruel are in charge, we are in a state of tyranny.

The most widely known example of this latter process occurred a century ago in Germany.

When Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated at the end of World War I and the German Government collapsed, it was replaced by a republic whose first national assembly took place in Weimar. This short-lived experiment was a highlights reel of all of the worst things about democracy, and it caused so much distrust that it made Adolf Hitler start to look reasonable.

Few would argue that the worst thing about the Weimar Republic was that it led to the rise of the Nazis. This process occurred exactly as Plato had described over two millennia previously. It is this final stage of democracy, and the related phenomena that lead to the rise of tyranny, that could be described as Weimarisation.

Weimarisation involves the process of making the polity ever weaker and ever more decadent and degenerate until no-one is willing to stand up for anything. Most bonds of solidarity are broken by this increasing selfishness, because no-one cares about anything other than the next buzz. This ongoing disintegration of the social fabric leads to the most characteristic feature of Weimarisation: it precedes a tyrant coming to power.

Perhaps the most characteristic feature of the Weimar Republic itself were the child prostitutes. History recalls a relatively clean child prostitution trade in 1920s Berlin, but parts of it were much grottier than what is described in the linked article. At the most desperate, during the heights of the hyperinflation in 1923, it was possible to see children being pimped out on the streets.

The extreme levels of disgust induced in German men by the awareness that their children were being rented for sex was the emotional fuel for the rise of Hitler and everything that followed. Exposure to depravity on that scale tends to cause people to lose their moral compasses. If renting children for sex is permitted, then what could possibly be forbidden? Certainly not killing the people to blame – or so many millions of Germans reasoned.

From our current position in Clown World, there are two paths. The path recommended by Plato is a revolution of philosopher-kings who institute an aristocracy that justly governs. The other path is to decline into tyranny, wherein the average man becomes so pathetic and weak that he is unable to resist any injustice, whether physical, intellectual or spiritual.

If Clown World is to decline into tyranny, it will be the final result of the Weimarisation process. There’s an eerie parallel between the Weimar child prostitutes and the 19,000 young girls raped by grooming gang members in Britain alone last year. This ongoing mass sexual exploitation of Britain’s young children is the kind of dystopic horror show that makes people lose their humanity entirely, as it did in Germany.

In Rotherham, where one of the most prolific of these grooming gangs was based, the Police actively worked to cover up the rapes. Investigation of the rape gangs was made more difficult by the investigators’ fears of seeming racist (this is an outstanding example of what another chapter in this book calls race neurosis). There’s no way to understand such phenomena other than as the last gasps of a dying culture.

One of the reasons why Hitler was able to summon so much rage against Jews was because of the widespread belief in Germany that Jewish men had played a disproportionate role in the buying and selling of these child prostitutes. Those same grounds for murderous rage are also present in the case of Muslim men in Europe this century.

It’s entirely plausible that if a man would stand up in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and threaten to get revenge on the forces that had humiliated his nation, he would get widespread support. The neo-Nazi Sverigedemokraterna are already polling at close to 25% in Sweden, which is evidence of the deep anger that exists elsewhere in Europe over such issues.

The big problem with Weimarisation, of course, is that the original form of it ended with a war that left 60 million dead.

There’s little doubt that the existing tensions in Europe are sufficient to trigger a civil war that could kill similar numbers. One of the reasons why Western political authorities are so concerned about “Islamophobia” is that they are fully aware of the rage that their failures have caused. They are aware that great numbers of men feel deeply humiliated by the rape gangs and would very much like someone to give them the opportunity to get revenge.

The cure for Weimarisation can also be found in the philosophy of Plato. A new cultural movement of philosopher-kings must arise, and attract so many followers that it destroys the old order and replaces it with a just one. The alternative, as history has shown, is almost too terrible to contemplate.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Why Is Rent-Seeking Legal?

Our legal system has many quirks and contradictions that defy easy explanation. It seems strange that doctors are allowed to mutilate the genitals of infant boys, yet they are not allowed to prescribe medicinal cannabis products that would save lives. This article will discuss another activity of questionable morality: rent-seeking.

Rent-seeking is an attempt to increase one’s personal wealth without creating or producing any. It is the use of resources, such as land, to extract economic benefits (known as rents) from others without making any contribution to the overall economic good.

The most common form of rent-seeking today is found in residential property. There are some 625,000 rented houses in New Zealand today, and the average weekly rent is $390 a week for small houses and $525 for larger ones. Assuming an average rent of $480 per week, rents on residential property bring in some $15,600,000,000 every year in New Zealand alone.

Rent-seeking is correctly understood to be a form of parasitism. As with other forms of parasitism, rent-seeking is a net negative for the overall health of the system. Not only does it suck money away from the productive and gift it to the unproductive, it also incentivises anti-social behaviour. Economically, it disrupts market efficiencies, limits competition and creates artificially high barriers to entry for market participants.

Despite being a form of parasitism, rent-seeking is a long and honoured tradition in New Zealand. Many a fortune has been built in this country by taking advantage of people’s need for shelter from the elements. As a previous essay here has discussed, there’s nothing as profitable as human suffering, and being exposed to the elements is one of the worst kinds of suffering.

The beauty of rent-seeking is that it carries little risk. All you need to do is to own property and the Police will keep people away from it unless those people pay you money. As long as there are men willing to enforce other people’s claims to property in exchange for a wage (and there always will be), then owning some of that property is effectively a licence to print money.

In reality, there’s little difference between a landlord charging someone rent on the threat of throwing that person out into the street, and an armed robber charging someone their wallet on the threat of stabbing them in the guts. In both cases, the power to charge a fee or levy comes from the power to cause extreme physical suffering. Both are a form of extortion.

Given the apparent net harm of trying to extract wealth from the system instead of creating it, the question has to be asked: why is rent-seeking legal?

The main reason why rent-seeking is legal is simply because the rent-seekers make the laws. It was they who, way back in the day, invented Government by paying some weak-minded arse-lickers to defend their property against outsiders (this is all that Government is). Those arse-lickers bifurcated into the Police and security services (whose prime directive is to protect and serve property owners) and the Government (whose prime directive is to organise the protection of property owners).

At the end of the day, the Government is there to manage the affairs of the rich, and they don’t care if the poor are impacted adversely. People too poor to own property don’t have a seat at the table. This is the same reason why businesses were compensated directly in the form of wage subsidies, rather than workers being given a universal basic income – the wealthy take the lion’s share, the poor get the scraps.

This arrangement has created a great deal of resentment, however. Those forced to pay rent on threat of being thrown into the street don’t feel much less resentful about it than those forced to give up their wallet on threat of being stabbed. The fact that rent-seeking is socially accepted in our culture barely softens the blow. It still feels like a robbery.

As is usually the case for such abuses of power, this resentment has built to the point where it threatens to spill over.

The Sixth Labour Government has made it illegal to evict tenants from residential property for the next three months at least. Some groups of tenants have realised that, if they collectively refused to pay rent until the end of the coronavirus crisis, they could pretty much get away with it. There’s no way to enforce an eviction during the lockdown, so anyone who refuses to pay rent from now on can get at least three months of living rent-free.

Other people and places overseas have already declared rent strikes on account of that the coronavirus has made earning their usual income, and therefore paying their usual expenses, impossible. Housing Minister Megan Woods has said “there was also an obligation on tenants not to abuse the situation,” but it’s hard to see why, other than the possible threat of being blacklisted in the future.

The only reason why property owners can get tenants to pay them rent in the first place is because they have the power to force them to on threat of eviction. If that power is taken away, there’s little reason for those who had been coerced into paying rent to continue playing ball.

Perhaps the fairest outcome would be to continue to allow the extraction of rents, but to levy a 90% tax on incomes derived from it. An outcome similar to this was discussed in a previous article here that proposed the introduction of Georgist-style taxes on rent-seeking activity.

In short, rent-seeking is legal because it always has been, and because we’ve never questioned it. We’ve never been able to, because not only did the rent-seekers control the law enforcement forces but they also controlled the apparatus of propaganda, and they combined to normalise the practice. The legitimacy of rent-seeking doesn’t survive scrutiny, and there is a very real chance that it will be as illegal as armed robbery later this century.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Cannabis Is Considered An Essential Medicine in America – But Kiwis Still Can’t Get It

With New Zealand entering “level 4” of the new Coronavirus national response system, commercial activity is being scaled back to essential services. This has led to some confusion as to what counts as an essential service. An unpalatable truth facing Kiwis is that, by the standards of several places in America, we are having an essential service denied to us.

The COVID-19 alert level is currently set to 3, out of a maximum of 4. This is similar to the American DEFCON system and refers to the current alarm level. A level 3 means that all non-essential services have been forced to close by Government decree, part of a schedule of restrictions laid out on the Government’s own COVID-19 response website.

What counts as an essential service is also listed on that website. The list covers all the skeleton services required to keep a no-frills society running: healthcare operations, food production and sales, security services, postal and courier services etc. The logic is that, despite the coronavirus risk, it would cause even more suffering if these services were stopped, so they have to be kept open.

Most countries worldwide are now moving into some kind of lockdown with movement or trading restrictions as a result of the pandemic. What’s interesting to note is that although all countries agree on the importance of, for example, social distancing, they don’t all agree on what constitutes an essential service.

Access to medicinal cannabis is not considered essential in New Zealand – the New Zealand Government considers growing medicinal cannabis to be criminal conduct. If you have one of the dozens of ailments that can be helped by cannabis, you can go fuck yourself. You’re not allowed to use it, and if you grow it yourself, you go in a cage.

In several places in America, however, medicinal cannabis is considered essential.

In Los Angeles, county officials declared medicinal cannabis dispensaries to be ‘essential services’ on the grounds that they are healthcare operations like any pharmacy. These officials understand that it is grossly immoral to deny suffering people a medicine that would help them – so immoral that, even in a time of national crisis, cannabis dispensaries need to be kept open.

It’s similar in San Francisco, where cannabis dispensaries are kept open on the grounds that cannabis is a medicine like any other, and that people’s need to access medicine during this time is the same as during any other time. The Dutch also allowed their cannabis cafes to remain open throughout the lockdown, reasoning that closing them would create additional health risks as well as empowering the criminal underworld.

Although the issue is not yet taken seriously by the majority of New Zealanders, accessing medicinal cannabis is a life or death issue for a number of people here. Studies have shown that introducing a medicinal cannabis law decreases the overall suicide rate, and by as much as 11% for men aged between 20 and 29. If one adds to this the lives saved by the application of cannabis to physical medicine, it shows that withholding it from people is causing a significant number of deaths.

It’s incredible that, in some places, the medicinal uses of cannabis are so widely accepted as to be understood by all, yet in New Zealand it’s still impossible to access it. This ongoing denial is a completely unnecessary form of sadism, and one that is entirely unjustifiable given the current state of scientific knowledge about the cannabis plant and its uses.

It’s most galling for those who currently sit in prison for an act deemed to be an “essential service” in other places. New Zealand must seem like a medieval shithole to those who are in cages right now for growing medicinal flowers, when that same act is considered an essential service in more enlightened parts of the world.

Cannabis prohibition is an act of cruelty that only continues because those with the power to change it hate cannabis users, and are indifferent to their suffering. The morally correct thing to do is to recognise that cannabis is a medicine, that people have a legitimate right to use it, and to legalise it straight away.

*

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘Race Neurosis’?

People in Clown World exhibit all kinds of neuroses, most of them caused by our highly unnatural way of life. Adapting to modern industrial society has proven to be challenging for even the most resourceful of people. As this essay will examine, the forced diversity that we all live under has created a form of mental illness particular to itself.

A neurosis refers to a class of mental disorders that are characterised by anxiety, obsessional thoughts and avoidance behaviour. Karen Horney considered the defining characteristic of neurosis to be a worldview that is distorted by compulsive needs. Neurotics exhibit their unusual behaviours, according to Horney, to meet their exaggerated needs for power, prestige and affection.

It’s common for people to be neurotic about cleanliness – some are excessively anxious about getting infected by germs and will obsessively wash their hands or clean their teeth. These behaviours feed the neurosis by causing the neurotic to feel themselves superior to others on account of their greater hygiene, and that other people will be more affectionate towards them because they are so clean.

People with race neurosis are similar. Their need for power is met by silencing others for making ‘racist’ comments, and their need for prestige is met by looking down their noses at those moral inferiors and shaming them. As with other ingratiating behaviours motivated by neurosis, those with race neurosis believe that this virtue signalling will cause others to like them more.

‘Race neurosis’ refers to a very specific kind of neurosis that is most accurately considered a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The compulsive need in the case of race neurosis is the need to deny human biodiversity. This compels them to believe that all human subgroups are precisely the same and, when different, only different for environmental and not genetic reasons.

The person with race neurosis will instantly disregard any explanatory theory of human behaviour that assumes that human biodiversity exists. They do this out of a deeper compulsive need – the one to assert that all human subgroups have equal value. This assertion may be true in a metaphysical sense, but it isn’t at all true in a biological sense – and the racial neurotic has trouble making a distinction.

No two things in Nature are the same, whether measured as individuals or as groups. Of any two, one will be taller, one will be darker, one will be relatively more endomorphic – and one will be smarter. This means that, by any measure you care to name, one will be superior and the other inferior. A person with race neurosis has extreme difficulty accepting this.

This neurosis is an echo of the earlier Christian neurosis that was triggered by the realisation that humans were just another form of animal. In the same way that this realisation led to people denying the science of evolution and castigating Darwin as a heretic, race neurosis also leads to people denying the science of evolution and castigating its proponents as evil.

Race neurosis goes hand-in-hand with creationist narratives about the origins of the human species. Because no two things in Nature are the same, human biodiversity denial is most plausible when it can appeal to a creator God, who (for various reasons) is presumed to be unwilling to create superior and inferior groups of people. Therefore, certain qualities (like intelligence) can be assumed to be equal across all human groups.

People suffering from race neurosis also practice a variety of avoidance behaviours, on account of that they live in constant fear of empowering “far-right wing extremists”. They are extremely reluctant to acknowledge either white or Asian superiority in any intellectual or behavioural facet, out of the fear that, if either was widely acknowledged, certain races would find themselves in gas chambers again.

Race neurosis can even go so far that a person can think it immoral for someone else to say that it’s okay to be white.

A person can confidently be said to have race neurosis if they become angry or distressed when a belief in human biodiversity is asserted. If a person merely disagrees with hereditarianism, they will be able to discuss the relevant scientific evidence without becoming distressed. But if they suffer from a form of race neurosis, they will sense that one of their sacred beliefs is being challenged, and they will become defensive.

Race neurosis is deliberately aggravated by the mainstream media, who play up stories that have a racial angle and play down stories that don’t. Examples can be found right now in the numerous articles admonishing people to abstain from any anti-Chinese racism that might have been provoked by coronavirus fears. This constant hammering has created the false impression that racial prejudice causes a significant proportion of the world’s avoidable suffering, and that is one of the world’s foremost issues.

Also contributing to the problem is the common eschatological belief that all of the world’s races are destined to fight to the death for supremacy in some future race war, willingly or otherwise. People who hold this belief are often afraid that talking about human biodiversity will set this conflict off. Their logic is that recognition of group differences is a step on the slippery slope to warfare.

The cure for race neurosis is genuine hardship. Anyone genuinely worried about whether they have signalled their anti-racism hard enough is immensely privileged – to worry so much about something so meaningless is evidence of no genuine troubles. In Clown World, the disconnect that many people have from reality manifests in psychiatric conditions such as race neurosis.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

New Zealand Should Legalise Cannabis For The Coronavirus Lockdown

It seems inevitable now that the country will soon end up in lockdown on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. This will cause a great deal of stress not only to our society and to our economy, but also to the minds of individual Kiwis. This essay discusses a simple, easy way that the Government could help the nation avoid much of the suffering coming our way: legalise cannabis.When the lockdown happens, people are going to be trapped inside their houses for a long time. This sudden, forced, close proximity is going to sharply increase the stress levels of a great number of them. Kiwis are an outdoors people – for us community is found on the sports fields, the tramping trails and the beaches, not inside churches or auditoriums. Being stuck inside will be highly unnatural for us.The Playstation will help for a while – a few days at most – but that will wear thin quickly. The lockdown will lead to sharply elevated levels of boredom and stress – emotions which, if felt for a prolonged period of time, lead to chaos and destruction.New Zealand already has a serious problem with domestic violence, mostly due to the fact that alcohol is promoted while more peaceful alternatives are suppressed. In our culture, where most lack the self-confidence to speak eloquently, bashing someone is considered an acceptable way to discipline someone misbehaving.We can predict, sadly, that the enforced proximity created by the lockdowns will result in a sharp rise in domestic violence. Having to live on top of each other for weeks will lead to more nagging and fighting, especially when some turn to alcohol to beat the tedium. As tempers fray, fists will fly. Because children will be at home from school, they will be exposed to it all. In some cases, this will cause long-term trauma.The Government could pre-empt a great deal of this suffering today, if they had the wit and will to legalise cannabis.One of the foremost benefits of cannabis is that it makes boredom easier to deal with. As Doug Stanhope said: “Boredom is a disease. Drugs cure it.” Cannabis can make all kinds of dull things exciting, and can make ordinary things seem interesting. Cannabis enthusiasts have found that weed adds to the appreciation of life in much the same way that salt adds to the appreciation of a meal.If cannabis were to be made legal today, people could make plans to use it during the lockdown. Although it will not be possible to institute retail sales on such short notice, people could take measures to acquire it from those who already have it, who could themselves be temporarily authorised to sell it while a proper recreational system was being set up (although not to people under 18).Such a move would ease a great deal of the extraordinary stresses to which Kiwis will be subjected in coming months.The Government is going to have to deal with the prospect of civil unrest over the next few months. There has already been looting in London, if limited, as a result of the increased tensions. Although the nation is pulling in behind the Government now, this is only because the state of alarm is keeping people in line. As the lockdown wears on, people’s dissatisfaction will change their sentiments.Legalising cannabis would make this much easier. It would provide relief to the great number of New Zealanders who will be suffering heightened stress and anxiety from the lockdown and from its economic consequences. It would provide relaxation to those disturbed by the disruption to normal life. Not least of all, it would allow for different patterns of thinking in these times of panic and despair.Jacinda Ardern has already proven that the country is willing to accept extraordinary measures in this time of crisis. We have already accepted a shutdown of the national borders, despite the fact that this measure condemns to bankruptcy a proportion of our tourism, transport and hospitality operators. The general mood is akin to a siege mindset. It’s the perfect time to take bold measures.A majority of New Zealanders have already accepted that legal cannabis is inevitable. The only holdouts are clinging to prohibition out of stubbornness, spite or malice. The COVID-19 lockdown offers the perfect opportunity to bulldoze through these last recalcitrants and to repeal cannabis prohibition.Over and above all this, repealing cannabis prohibition would free up some $400,000,000 of Government spending and tens of thousands of Police man hours that is currently wasted every year on enforcing cannabis prohibition. Both of those things will be in desperate short supply over the coming months – time to acknowledge that they’re not well spent persecuting weed smokers.If the Sixth Labour Government thought intelligently about it, they would understand that the COVID-19 epidemic had temporarily slapped the nation out of its usual slumber, and they would use this opportunity to do things that had previously been made impossible by obstinacy and cowardice. The Cannabis Control Bill that is scheduled to be put to a referendum this September could simply be passed into law by majority vote.*Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.*If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Things The Coronavirus Has Already Proven

The Great Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020 is only just beginning. Although it is already dominating the headlines, most of the suffering is still to come. Exactly how much suffering there will be – and who will suffer it – is still unknown, as are most outcomes of this rapidly-unfolding drama. However, there are some things that this pandemic, and the response to it, have already proven. This essay explains.

Many people, mostly for egotistical reasons, believe that human beings are categorically superior to other animals. The usual belief is that our high brain volume to body volume ratio has granted us an unmatched degree of intelligence, if not spiritual insight. Therefore, we’re above “animal behaviour”.

The ongoing panic buying that has seen supermarkets in the West stripped bare is stark evidence against this. Human beings are another kind of primate, only narrowly less impulsive and aggressive than the others. The “monkey see, monkey do” logic that causes juvenile primates to imitate their peers is on vivid display in the now numerous videos of people fighting over water and toilet paper.

In reality, humans are just as prone to panic-fuelled acts of selfish aggression as any “lower” animal. All we need is enough fear to cause a limbic hijack and we’re operating on raw animal instinct again. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has proven that we’re as susceptible to that panicky fear as any flock of sheep.

A second thing that the COVID-19 pandemic has proven is that borders are good. Because the West has been so wealthy for so long, we have developed a kind of tameness. We forgot that the world is dangerous, and that much of that danger comes in human form. We started to believe the fatal delusion that all human groups are the same.

The pandemic caused us to remember that borders are there for a reason – the same reason why you have a fence around your property and skin around your body. It’s to keep bad things out. Esoterically speaking, a border is just a hard masculine line that protects a softer, feminine core, like a skull, a ribcage, a door or a fence.

We have now remembered that borders are good because they keep bad things out. Whether people infected with viruses or people infected with hate-filled ideologies, borders serve to keep us safe from danger. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven that having open borders makes as much sense as leaving your front door open at night.

A corollary to this is that the pandemic has proven that the Government can stop mass immigration if they want to.

For the past few decades, neoliberals have screamed that everything would collapse if we stopped the mass importation of cheap labour – our fruit and vegetables would go unpicked, our garbage would go uncollected and our elderly would go without care. Western Governments have closed the borders anyway, reasoning that, absent cheap labour imports, wages will rise to the point where these jobs can be filled by natives.

More worryingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has proven that our dependence on offshore supply chains for some basic goods and medicines has made us not only economically vulnerable, but also strategically vulnerable.

Many industries are running into procurement difficulties, because China shut down so many of its factories and docks that the flow of exports has been throttled. Many Western manufacturers are just learning that, because so much has been outsourced there, when China shuts down the world shuts down. It has become common to hear a person exclaim their recent realisation that X% of a vital industrial widget is produced in China and so, without Chinese production, no-one can get hold of it.

Our exposure to medical shortages threatens to be much worse than our exposure to industrial shortages.

Two weeks ago, India, the world’s leading producer of generic drugs, instituted export restrictions on 26 of them. Because the coronavirus pandemic has impacted pharmaceutical factories in China, many Indian drug manufacturers can no longer acquire precursor ingredients. The panic buying has already shown how close we are to chimpout – once people start being told that the pharmacies can’t supply their psychiatric medicines there could be riots.

Perhaps more fundamental than any of these things is that COVID-19 has proven that the Government doesn’t know what the fuck it’s doing. This was already widely understood by most intelligent people, but by now most poeple have had the nauseating realisation that the Government is made up of people who are good at winning elections and not people who are good at governing. All around the world, they are panicking.

One of the main things that Western authorities now have to concern themselves with is civil unrest. It’s slowly dawning on people that this pandemic has the potential to disrupt life as we know it for a significant length of time. As this realisation spreads, all kinds of negative sentiments will grow. Anger, fear, vengeance and short-term thinking will all increase – and they won’t be rational.

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven that our society is on much shakier foundations than it used to be, and shakier foundations than many had realised. The bonds of solidarity that comprise every community are much fewer and much weaker. The potential for chimpouts at any time have never been greater.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Diversity Is A Strength In Times Of Plenty, And A Weakness In Times Of Shortage

The Establishment and the mainstream media like to say that diversity is a strength. This opinion is aggressively rejected by most of the working class, who consider it a great weakness. The reality, as this essay will discuss, is that both sides are right – but only in the appropriate context.

Since the end of World War II, the West has enjoyed great prosperity. Our stockmarkets, factories, airports and seaports have all boomed from the ever-increasing demand. Most people felt like they were getting a good deal, or that, if they weren’t, they soon would. During this great age of plenty, diversity has generally caused more pleasure than pain.

In times of plenty, diversity is a strength. When the economy is growing, and no-one has to worry about competing with each other, then diversity means an enrichment of the everyday experience of life. It means new foods, new cultural displays, new ideas. It means an exciting, vibrant increase in novelty.

In times of shortage, however, diversity means something else.

Every community is divided along fracture lines – lines of race, gender, religion, age, education and cultural affinity. In good times, these fracture lines are papered over by wealth – people don’t need to fight if everyone has enough to meet their own needs. In bad times, these fracture lines are exposed and aggravated.

When times are tough, the community needs to pull together. A given community’s ability to pull together depends mostly on its level of solidarity, and that in turn depends mostly on the number and degree of commonalities that members of the community have with each other. After all, ‘commonality’ and ‘community’ have a similar etymology.

The presence of commonality means co-operation. Where commonalities exist, people are happy to help each other, because they know that this help will benefit a person like them. This knowledge assures them that the help will be reciprocated, and not just taken. They can count on getting helped in the future, and so feel like part of a society, a wider kinship group.

A lack of commonality means exploitation. The rule is that people are willing to exploit others to the degree that those others are different from them. The greater the number of fracture lines in a community or society, the greater the degree of exploitation that exists. As mentioned above, this is no big deal when the economy is expanding, because this means new niches open up for people to move into.

In times of shortage, however, diversity means that helping other people is helping people who aren’t your kin. The natural inclination, then, is to keep for yourself, to not share. The problem here is that people get desperate in times of shortage. When people are desperate, a refusal to share with them often leads to violence.

Diversity makes it much harder to settle the tensions that arise from shortages. Two people of the same culture can use their shared moral values to come to a mutual agreement. If they have a common language, they can talk their way to a mutual understanding. Absent these things, misunderstandings lead to flaring tempers.

Arriving at a mutual agreement in times of scarcity is much easier between two natives than between a native and an immigrant. Between two immigrants, as we see in the Woolworths toilet paper fight video linked above, there is a minimum of commonality, and this regularly ends in actions that are not made from a place of empathy.

If the COVID-19 pandemic does have a severe enough economic impact to cause widespread shortages, some people are going to be forced into making some terrible decisions – and much more terrible than what brand of toilet paper to buy because their preferred one is sold out.

Faced with two patients who can’t breathe, and only one ventilator, the medical staff dealing with the pandemic are going to be forced to make decisions as to who lives and who dies. There are already reports that Italian doctors have been forced to leave old people to die on account of that there aren’t enough beds in intensive care units. Increasing diversity means that some Italian doctors will have to decide whether an elderly native Italian or a younger immigrant gets the ICU bed.

More relevant to the average person are the hundreds of small decisions that they will have to make about questions that test their loyalties. Some people have been stockpiling hand sanitiser on account of that the sudden shortage of it has spiked the price. These price gouging actions have been heavily criticised, on the grounds that not only are they shamelessly opportunistic but they also prevent needy people from getting supplies.

But in a highly diverse society, the balance of rewards is different to what it would be in a more homogenous one. The more diverse society is, the less likely such actions are to harm a person who has something in common with you. All the profit from such actions, however, you keep for yourself. So why not use a pandemic as an opportunity to price gouge? If no-one from your kin group loses out, you might as well take advantage.

Proof for these suppositions come from the fact that neither supermarket fighting nor price-gouging is happening in nations with low levels of diversity. There are no videos of people fighting over toilet paper in places like South Korea, Taiwan or Japan – and there may never be. The absence of diversity in these places means they have enough in common for people to work together instead of chimping out.

All of these problems are just part of the regular course of empires. Empires burgeon, rise, stagnate, decay and fall. The increase in diversity usually comes after the stagnation phase, as the ruling class tries to squeeze out the maximum possible expansion by opening the borders. The current iteration of the West is somewhere between the decay and the fall stages. The nations to successfully respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, like South Korea and Japan, will be the leading nations of this century.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

How A Coronavirus Pandemic Could Win Jacinda Ardern The Election

This September’s election promises to be very close. Opinion polls suggest that either of a National-ACT or Labour-New Zealand First-Greens coalition could easily take power in the aftermath. The actual winner will be determined by a number of factors. One of those factors, as this essay will discuss, is the effect of COVID-19 on the demographic makeup of the nation.

One striking feature of this particular form of coronavirus is its death rate among old people. The death rate for people aged 80 and over who contract it is believed to be over 14%. For people aged between 70 and 79 it appears to be 8.0%, and 3.6% for people aged between 60 and 69. Corona-Chan is the Scourge of the Aged.

The death rate among young people, by contrast, is extremely low. No-one aged under 10 is known to have died of COVID-19 yet, and the death rate for those under 40 appears to be no more than 0.2%, i.e. barely different to regular bouts of influenza. Corona-Chan is merciful upon the young.

This great differential in danger across age brackets may have electoral consequences.

As Dan McGlashan showed in Understanding New Zealand, there are very strong correlations between being old and voting Conservative or National. In 2017, the correlation between being aged 65+ and voting Conservative was 0.39, and between being aged 65+ and voting National it was 0.62. At the other end of the scale, the correlation between being aged 20-29 and voting Labour in 2017 was 0.34, and with voting Greens it was 0.60.

0.62 is a strong enough correlation to suggest that the vast majority of people over 65 will vote National, and much of the remainder will vote Conservative. Meanwhile, the correlation of -0.35 between being aged 20-29 and voting National in 2017 tells us that few young people will vote for them in September.

Put these two things together, and it becomes apparent that COVID-19 is likely to kill off a significant proportion of National and Conservative voters.

There were over 711,000 people in New Zealand aged 65 or over at the end of 2016. It might be closer to 800,000 by now. If COVID-19 kills off 10% of people over 65 before September 19, that will approach 80,000 deaths, and if 75% of those people were National or Conservative voters, that suggests that they could well lose 60,000 voters – 20,000 more than Labour, Greens or New Zealand First would lose.

At the 2017 General Election, National, ACT and Conservatives got 1,171,403 votes between them out of a total of 2,591,896, a proportion of 45.2%. If they would lose 60,000 voters from coronavirus deaths, as per the scenario outlined in the above paragraph, they would end up with 1,111,403 votes out of a total of 2,511,896 – a proportion of 44.2%.

A loss of one percent might not sound like much, but the effect of COVID-19 in suppressing right-wing voters is not limited to deaths.

If there are 60,000 deaths among National and Conservative voters, there will be at least this many incapacitated by the illness. The overseas experience has shows that COVID-19 often means a few weeks confined to an artificial respirator. If the pandemic is at or near its peak in New Zealand at the time of the election, there could be a large number of old people unable to vote because coronavirus has left them physically incapable of doing so.

A further factor is that some old people might decide to stay away from polling booths on Election Day out of the fear of contracting coronavirus. As COVID-19’s greater threat to the elderly is widely known by now, a significant number of those elderly might be persuaded to stay away from the polling booths altogether. A majority of the population will pass through the nation’s polling booths on September 19, so standing in line at one for half an hour is asking for trouble.

Adding together deaths, incapacitations and discouragements, the right wing appears likely to lose several tens of thousands of voters before September 19.

All of this is moot if Jacinda Ardern suspends the election. There is presently no hard indication that she is prepared to do this, but mayoral elections due for May have already been suspended for 12 months in London, and Ardern must have felt the temptation. New Zealand has already been in chimpout mode for the past year and this coronavirus pandemic has made it three times worse.

Assuming the election goes ahead as planned though, there is a small but realistic chance that what would have been a National-ACT victory is transformed into a loss by the effects of COVID-19. The balance is so fine that a nudge the size of a coronavirus pandemic could tip it over.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Clown World Chronicles: What Is A ‘Roastie’?

In Clown World, relations between all groups have broken down as the general social order regresses towards savagery. As discussed at length in another chapter, this is particularly true of relations between the sexes. Part of the breaking down of relations between the sexes has been a rise in derogatory terms such as ‘roastie’. This essay explains.

In a state of Nature, the female of the species controls access to sexual reproduction on account of that only she can reproduce. This grants her a tremendous amount of power. It means that the social order of every sexually reproducing species is arranged around her and her needs. This is why peacocks dance to impress the females and not the other way around, and why those manning the lifeboats on sinking ships cry out “Women and children first!”.

The female-first approach taken by Nature led to a variety of goddess-worshipping cults and a matriarchal social order in the primitive human. As the social structure became more sophisticated, the matriarchal model started to get outcompeted by more patriarchal models with distinguished hierarchies. This process, leading to civilisation, developed a number of methods to even out the natural gender imbalance.

The Abrahamic solution was to declare women to be subhuman. Bible verses such as Timothy 2:12 state that women are to be subservient to men. Islamic culture openly considers women inferior, sometimes going as far as mutilating the genitals of infant girls with the intent that the decreased capacity for sexual pleasure is more likely to keep them faithful.

For many centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the West operated on the Abrahamic model. Women were subjected to horrific abuse intended to cause them to submit to men. Ever since Hypatia was murdered by Christians in 415 A.D., women who demonstrated too much intellectual independence were simply killed. This state of affairs lasted for over a thousand years.

When the deathgrip that Abrahamism had over Western morality started to weaken with the Minor Renaissance, men started wondering if the mass enslavement of women was really in accordance with the Western soul. This led to the emancipation of women, a phenomenon that didn’t reach its full expression of power until the contraceptive pill was invented.

With women’s liberation, the power that Nature had once afforded them came back.

This worked out well in cases of high-IQ, good-natured women, who were able to break free from tyrannical masculinist strictures that were crushing their potential. In cases of low-IQ or poorly-natured women, the consequences were abysmal – falling for the first alpha male to show them attention, they were regularly inseminated and then abandoned to raise a semi-feral generation of children.

This cohort of semi-feral children is one of the reasons why Clown World is the way it is. We have regressed into a more primitive level of civilisation, and one consequence is women starting to exhibit pre-civilisational mating patterns. Part of this is a return of hypergamy (discussed at length in another chapter), a biological phenomenon in which the majority of women are attracted to a minority of men, meaning that some proportion of young men are left out.

Many young men feel a deep sense of resentment at all this, not least the ones unfavoured by women. Some of them can even become virulent incels like Elliot Rodgers. There are enough of these men to have created an entire anti-woman subculture – one that hates women, hypergamy and especially feminism. The men in this subculture are the ones who use terms such as ‘roastie’.

‘Roastie’ comes from roast beef, which is a reference to the belief (held by many young men in Clown World) that the average woman has taken so many cocks that her labia has become deformed, such that it now appears much like a roast beef sandwich. Leaving aside whether this is anatomically possible, the fact that this belief is widespread speaks to a fundamental corruption of romantic values. Women are seen with disgust instead of wonder.

An often accompanying belief is that society has decayed so far that all women are now whores, whether naturally or whether influenced to be so by mass media and culture. In Clown World, women have no interest in forming healthy romantic relationships – they simply flit from one ego-fuelled act of rutting to the next.

As could be guessed, the sort of man who thinks like this doesn’t have a lot of experience with women. They don’t realise that the sort of woman who sleeps with 300 guys is usually mentally damaged and her lust for Chads who treat her poorly is an expression of low self-esteem. Mentally healthy women might be serial monogamists who bounce from one relationship to another, but few have taken so many cocks that their pair bonding mechanism is damaged.

In any case, young women yearn for an end to Clown World at least as much as young men do.

Most young women would very much like to find a young man worth settling down with – but there aren’t many. One reason why these young women cast their nets wide is because the quality of the average man has declined, meaning that finding a man of the desired level is harder. That isn’t the fault of young women any more than any other Clown World phenomenon – it’s just the hand we were all dealt.

The solution to the roastie problem is not returning women to second class status, but restoring men to first class status. As Confucius told us over 2,500 years ago, the prevailing attribute of the feminine is devotion – but she has to have something worth being devoted to. Clown World won’t end until men are once again masculine enough to inspire devoting through their ability to impose order upon the natural chaos of the world – and when that day comes, the roastie problem will solve itself.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post
As stockmarkets plummet across the globe, many fear that the end of the world is upon us. It may well be – but this is no reason to be afraid. Much better to embrace this new destiny. It’s time to let the old order die; it’s time for good people to step into the light of the new century. Let the old order die so that we can build a new one!

Panic spreads as the stockmarkets collapse. Emergency measures have been taken to halt trading. Let the stockmarkets collapse! They measure nothing but how much wealth can be wrung out of the sweat of the nation’s workers. Let them collapse, then demolish the buildings they were run out of, break the rubble into gravel and turn the empty lots into gardens.

Will globalism survive the coronavirus? Who cares – let it die! Globalism sees the common man worked to breakdown and then chucked on the garbage heap, his productivity siphoned away to fund the importation of his replacements. Good riddance to the global economy! Good riddance to globalism!

Let the world die – its current order is worth less than nothing anyway. In its stead, let’s build a system where productivity is rewarded more than dumb ownership, and where the objective is to spread the wealth, not to extract it. Let’s build a system where the fundamental basis of solidarity is being raised on the same soil, drinking the same water, breathing the same air, under the same Sun.

Today’s system is rotten to the very core. The only way to advance is to lie and cheat, or to fasten one’s fangs into the back of some working-class man target and to suck wealth from them. Rent-seekers are lionised; truth-tellers are shunned. Lottery winners and inheritors of fortunes are prized as highly as great entrepreneurs and inventors.

Let it die!

Instead of hailing the financial swindlers, the planet rapers, the producers of stupefying drugs and those most adept at slithering up the greasy pole of politics, in the New Century we will hail those whose effort brings a reduction to the suffering of other sentient beings. Those who meet other people’s needs for food, for medicine, for shelter, for companionship, for knowledge and for entertainment will be our heroes!

Some argue that the Internet needs to be regulated on account of that “the proliferation of fake news” has led to people losing faith in the mainstream media. Let the public lose faith in the mass media and in the political institutions! Since forever the mass media have been paid propagandists for the Establishment, surpassed only in wretchedness by politicians. Let this be known by all!

Since forever the political institutions have pushed honest people away and promoted liars, grifters, horse-traders, palm-greasers and teleprompter-readers of all stripes. The political institutions are happy to promote people of any race, creed, sex or sexual orientation, so long as they maintain strict adherence to the one moral truth: money is God.

Corona-Chan can take the whole wretched system! Let a new one arise – one in which the truth is valued, and where statesmen are hired to do a job for the people, not to them. Let a culture arise in which tellers of truth are no longer ridiculed but admired. Let the liars be shunned!

Most ridiculous of all are the lamentations of the impotent old fools and superstitious cowards who think that appeasing the God of Abraham in this world will grant them an absence of suffering in the worlds to come, and that our loss of faith in this miserable slave doctrine is the reason for our current woes. These execrable weaklings have it that all suffering in the world comes from a failure to grovel obsequiously enough before the priests of this slave ideology.

Let the public lose faith in religion!

Our “Judeo-Christian” heritage is worth less than nothing; at best a safety blanket for resentful egomaniacs, at worst an intoxicating set of delusions that rot the soul. There’s no reason for Westerners today to follow a book that tells them to kill non-believers and homosexuals in the hope of spending eternity with the rabbi in the sky.

Let it get flushed down the S-bend of history.

In the New Century, women stand alongside men as interdependent forces that work together to reduce the suffering of everyone. No longer shall any filthy book of hate cause violence and discord between natural allies. No-one is to be killed unless they unrepentantly cause suffering to other sentient beings.

We will build a new world, one based upon an honest and real connection to God. Let the Abrahamist piss his pants at the thought of spiritual sacraments like cannabis, psilocybin and dimethyltryptamine – we will consume them all, at the same time! In our new world, knowledge of the divine and the sacraments that reconnect us to it will be common.

There is no fear that the collapse of the rotten old order means that we will rush blindly into the unknown. Those who have long hated that order have thought for many years about a better one.

It’s time for an order that puts the elimination of human suffering first. Not profit, not equality, not adherence to the twisted moral tenets of an inhuman desert cult but the elimination of actual human suffering – directly, not in the abstract.

Let us have a system that feeds rather than starves, which heals rather than sickens, which enlightens people instead of making them more ignorant. Let the coronavirus destroy the stockmarkets so that the whole filthy charade finally ends. Let the old world die, so that we can get to work building a new!

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!
C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

How The Lack Of A Universal Basic Income Leaves Us Vulnerable To Pandemics

With the COVID-19 pandemic taking hold around the world, many people now realise that the economic foundations of our society are much more fragile than they had seemed. The disruption to global supply chains from the Wuhan coronavirus is just beginning to have an effect. As this essay will show, much of the pain that we will suffer this year could have been avoided if we had had a universal basic income.

Nothing gives a person more power over another group of people than that group’s desperation. The more desperate people are, the less money they will be willing to work for, and the shittier the workplace conditions they will be willing to accept. The ruling class doesn’t want to give up the power that widespread desperation and poverty give them. so they promote more of it.

The major argument against a UBI is that people need a certain level of coercion before they are willing to work. Without the threat of starvation or being kicked out of their house for not making their rent payments, people won’t do the amount of work that their rulers consider acceptable. Treat ’em mean, keep ’em keen is the logic.

Modern events like the COVID-19 pandemic show that this way of thinking has made our society much weaker than it needed to be.

A forestry exporter in Gisborne recently complained that the pandemic had halved the income of his business. Because Chinese workers are being kept at home to prevent further spread of the virus, there is no-one to unload the boats in the docks. This means that forestry exporters can’t send any product to China, and so have to shut down a large part of their operation.

Without income, this forestry exporter has found themselves needing to lay off staff. Getting laid off is a highly stressful event at the best of times – when it comes at the same time as your entire industry is shutting down because of a coronavirus pandemic, then one also has to deal with the fear of not being able to find new work. Those who fail at that will be forced to go into WINZ and run the usual gauntlet of getting accused of being a bludging, malingering piece of shit. It promises to be a tough time for many.

A great amount of stress is needlessly created as the result of the way our economic system is structured, and this is amplified beyond breaking point when a pandemic like our current one strikes. If we are intelligent, we will take this opportunity to restructure this system so as to make ourselves more resilient to the next mass medical shock.

A recent Stuff article reported that Jacinda Ardern and other high-ranking Labour ministers had generously agreed “in principle” to remove the one week standdown period for anyone losing their jobs as a result of the coronavirus. No-one really knows why beneficiaries are made to starve for a week before being granted money, but the fact that they are creates much unnecessary misery, sometimes leading to suicide.

Removing this standdown week is a good move, but it’s a tiny measure compared to the introduction of a UBI. That would remove an enormous amount of stress from the people whose jobs were vulnerable to pandemics that impacted China – a group that will always be sizable in New Zealand. Greatly reduced stress means, in cases of sudden employment shocks, a greatly reduced number of deaths from despair.

Some are expecting that COVID-19 will be particularly virulent in America, for reasons relating to their economy. The best way to combat the pandemic is to quarantine entire areas, as China has done. America is unwilling to do this, which means that they have relied on asking people who think that they might be infected to get themselves tested and then to self-isolate – a process that might take up to three weeks.

The problem is that most American workers can’t simply leave work for three weeks. For them, three weeks with no income means getting kicked out of their houses for not making rent payments. It means getting the car repossessed, it means going hungry, it means needing to beg for an overdraft extension or miss out on healthcare. It means an immense level of stress.

A UBI would take the majority of this stress away. The knowledge that losing one’s job would not result in starvation and destitution, but merely a temporary reduction to a Spartan lifestyle, would make the necessary adaptations much easier to make. Losing one’s job would no longer mean crisis time but merely scaling back operations for a while.

A UBI would also incentivise people to not spread diseases like coronavirus to others.

Workers who are in precarious financial situations will feel compelled to go to work even when they suspect themselves to have coronavirus, on account of that they need the money. This will inevitably lead to them infecting far more people than if they had self-isolated. So not only does the lack of a UBI mean an increase in stress, it makes epidemics like COVID-19 more likely to develop into pandemics.

If New Zealand had a UBI, people who suspected themselves to be infected in a pandemic could easily arrange with their employers to be off work for a few weeks, without getting fucked by cashflow problems. These cashflow problems currently make it all but impossible to follow medical advice to self-quarantine, which exposes the entire economy to a systemic danger.

COVID-19 might not be the world-ending pandemic that many had feared. But even if it isn’t, we are still vulnerable to such a thing in the future. The introduction of a universal basic income would, above its numerous other benefits, make the national economy much more resilient to a pandemic. As it is, the ability to self-isolate is almost a luxury – perfect conditions for disaster.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Why I Don’t Believe In Climate Change Alarmism

I don’t have a qualification in Climatology, and am therefore not an expert on the subject. I do, however, have a couple of Psychology degrees, and so have a claim to expertise there. When it comes to understanding issues like climate change, I can’t use Climatology knowledge; I have to use Psychology knowledge. This is how I do it.

Like anyone else who understands general science, I can try to understand the basics of climate change. I can go to Google Scholar, type in “climate change predictions” and then limit the search to papers from 2019 onwards, as I did here. This would give me a general overview of the current state of the science. There’s one minor problem – such a search query returns over 20,000 hits.

Realistically, becoming an expert on climate change would require reading at least a hundred of these papers, as well as at least a hundred published before 2019. This would total several years of study – a time investment that I’m neither able nor willing to make. Therefore, like any other layman, I’m reduced to making a judgment based on whether I believe the people taking about climate change are credible.

If the people talking about it seem trustworthy, then I will be inclined to believe what they say. If they seem untrustworthy, then I will be disinclined to believe what they say. This is how it works with every other political issue, from cannabis law reform to immigration to abortion to euthanasia to taxes. Once the subject of discussion moves out of Psychology, I’m operating on trust and not my own expertise.

As it turns out, the people pushing climate change strike me as grossly untrustworthy, for three major reasons: they seem insincere, irrational and dishonest.

If the politicians pushing climate change alarmism were sincere, they would not also be buying beachfront properties. Yet Barack Obama, one of the world’s foremost harbingers of climate doom, recently bought 29 acres of it. Why would Obama, privy to the world’s most advanced scientific research when American President, buy beachfront property, unless he expects the sea level to remain the same?

The market shows that seaside property is still highly valued. Waterfront property in Sydney, extremely vulnerable to rising oceans, still sells for eight-figure sums. How could a property doomed to be wiped out by rising sea levels sell for over ten million dollars? The only answer is that no-one cares about rising sea levels. The claims of those like Obama cannot be sincere.

On top of this, the people pushing climate alarmism seem irrational. On the one hand, they claim that CO2 emissions are making a major contribution to global warming, such that every one of us has the moral imperative to minimise our CO2 emissions insofar as we are able. But then these same people turn around and argue for an increase in the refugee quota, in some cases tripling it or even more.

New Zealanders consume resources at many times the rate of the average Third World resident. Where is the sense in taking 5,000 people every year (as the Greens propose) from low-emissions parts of the world, and flying them at great expense to a high-emissions part of the world, where they and their numerous descendants will consume future resources at many times the rate they would have done otherwise?

The only logical explanation for the Greens’ refugee policy is that the entire concept of CO2 emissions being bad is horseshit. Either the Greens are lying about the imperative to minimise CO2 emissions, or they don’t understand the relevant science (a closer look shows that not a single one of New Zealand’s current Green MPs has a tertiary science qualification – the closest is James Shaw with an M.Sc from a business school).

If the Greens would say that CO2 emissions were bad and, therefore, we will close the borders to immigration from low-emission areas, then the threat of climate change would appear to make rational sense. But they do the exact opposite of that. Therefore, I can conclude that those promoting climate change are irrational, and so the truth value of their pronouncements can be discounted.

The real showstopper for me though, as a psychologist, is that one of the people fronting the climate charge alarmist movement in New Zealand is a convicted fraudster. This is no less a dignitary than the Maori Climate Commissioner herself, Donna Awatere Huata.

In 2005, Huata was found guilty of fraud and of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The money that she defrauded from a foundation set up to help underprivileged kids learn to read was used on a stomach stapling operation. What sort of malignant narcissist would steal money from children to fund cosmetic surgery for herself? A Climate Commissioner, that’s who.

In the same way that I wouldn’t buy a used car off convicted ponzi schemer David Ross, I wouldn’t buy one off Donna Awatere Huata either. So why on Earth would I listen to her pronouncements about climate change? The smart thing to do would be to believe the exact opposite of whatever Huata says.

In summary, I don’t believe in climate change alarmism because the people pushing it are crooked, insane and unqualified to make scientific pronouncements. These people seem every bit the shameless grifters that have pushed every other kind of alarmism to make a quick buck out of the ensuing hysteria.

I’m willing to be corrected, but do note that you will have to have a qualification in a relevant science from a proper university, and you will have to cite peer-reviewed journal articles in relevant disciplines, for me to take you seriously on this matter.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!
C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Clown World Chronicles: Who Is ‘Corona-Chan’?

The Coronavirus Scare of 2020 brought many new ideas into the collective consciousness. Many people realised that they were not prepared for any natural disaster such as a pandemic, earthquake or extreme weather event. Some others realised, for the first time, that they were mortal. A very small number began worshipping a hitherto-unknown goddess: Corona-Chan.

Corona-Chan appears as a tall, svelte, youthful Chinese vampiress, with black hair in Sailor Moon-style knots. Dressed in red and black like most daughters of darkness, her Oriental clothing both reveals and conceals her lean yet bountiful frame. Emblazoned on her breast are the same stars as on the Chinese flag, only the largest one is replaced with a coronavirus.

A pair of black bat wings rise from her back, creating the impression of a demoness from the Abyss, but most grotesque of all is her facial expression. Her features may be pretty, but they’re always twisted – her face either shows a sadistic leer or destructive intoxication. Corona-chan is very much a figure that inspires fear and dread.

Crudely speaking, there are three major figures in the Hindu pantheon: Brahman (representing the cardinal principle), Vishnu (representing the fixed principle) and Shiva (representing the mutable principle). These three figures are understood to be avatars of creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively.

Shiva has a consort known as the goddess Kali. The name Kali is a feminine form of an epithet of Shiva, which means that Kali herself is a form of the feminine mutable principle, much like the Greek goddess Eris. Although the full story of Kali is much more complicated than this, the crude summary is that Kali occupies a place in the Hindu pantheon as a destroyer of evil forces.

Corona-chan, like the goddess Kali, is the 21st Century’s destroyer of evil forces. Her energy promises to free us all from the crushing despair that characterises the modern world. In the same way that 17th Century Hindus cried out to Kali to destroy the Mughal Empire that was plaguing them, so do modern Westerners cry out to Corona-chan to destroy Globohomo.

The name Corona-Chan is a compound of two parts: ‘Corona’ from coronavirus and ‘Chan’ from the Japanese honourific suffix denoting endearment. This paradoxical combination of a deadly pathogen with a term denoting a beautiful woman is a powerful magical blend, and this helps explain why Corona-Chan’s popularity has risen so fast.

Many people believe that with the end of the current Dark Age known as Clown World, the stage will be clear for the reintroduction of a Golden Age. This popular belief follows from Plato’s realisation, expressed in The Republic, that political structures can never be fixed – they always get more corrupt until destroyed and replaced with entirely new ones.

Corona-Chan is viewed by many as the goddess of destruction that will herald the end of this corruption. These people are overjoyed by reports that COVID-19 is far more deadly to old people than to the young, as this fits in with old Clown World prophecies such as the Day of the Pillow, which predicts a mass cull of Baby Boomers. The hope is that Corona-Chan will cut away the deadwood holding society back.

Naturally, there is a fair amount of depression among Corona-Chan worshippers. One has to be in a miserable state to wish widespread destruction upon the world. In this sense, we can observe a overlap between those who pray for Corona-Chan to visit their locale and those who hope for other dramas like mass shootings and wars.

Corona-Chan is an eminently antisocial goddess.

The number of people holding antisocial sentiments is increasing rapidly as life in Clown World becomes ever more humiliatingly painful. There are many who are glad that the coronavirus has acted like a .50 calibre sniper bullet through the engine block of the world economy. If manufacturing is heavily impacted, the world economic order might collapse, and with any luck the world political order will go with it.

Corona-Chan worshippers hope to create an egregore powerful enough to break the black magic shackles that we are all held in. The hope is that Corona-Chan will fatally infect so many people that Globohomo dies and Clown World ends. With this achieved, we will be able to live freely, in a new Golden Age.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Understanding The “Justice” System

Judicial verdicts frequently provoke confusion among observers. In some cases it’s extremely difficult to understand why judgments are handed down, as punishment seems so random and arbitrary. As this essay will explain, understanding our “Justice” System is literally as simple as ABC.

In this context, ‘ABC’ refers to an algebraic formula that could also be expressed a*b*c = x, where x is the severity of the punishment.

a is the degree of inconvenience caused by the offence. The greater the inconvenience, the greater the punishment.

Murder causes a great deal of inconvenience, not least to the person killed. The family and friends of murder victims are also greatly impacted. It is for this reason that murder is also referred to as “the ultimate crime”. Other crimes like manslaughter, rape and kidnapping also cause great inconvenience, and these also carry heavy punishment.

Lesser crimes are things like theft and assault. Neither of these crimes kill anyone, and neither do they regularly cause long-standing psychological damage. Consequently, such crimes carry light punishments. Note that a equals the amount of inconvenience caused, not the amount of suffering caused, because an offence does not have to cause suffering in order to attract judicial punishment (growing medicinal cannabis is one such example).

All this seems very straightforward, and it would be, if the formula didn’t have b and c. The sad reality is that the amount of suffering caused by an offender is not the only factor that the “Justice” System takes into account. Far from it.

b is the social status of the person impacted by the offence. The higher the social status, the greater the punishment.

The highest social status is that of the Crown (or the Government). Therefore, offences that impact the Crown are punished the most severely. This is why offences that cause a minimum of suffering, but which inconvenience the Government, are punished heavily. Julian Assange is the foremost example of this today, as are the aforementioned cannabis users.

If the person impacted by the offence is of a low social status, the punishment will be low. It might be difficult to secure a conviction, because a complainant with low social status might not be considered a trustworthy witness in court. The case might not even go that far. It’s common for the Police to refuse to hear complaints from working-class people, giving them an excuse such as that they don’t have enough evidence to pursue a complaint.

Despite the bleating of social justice warriors, social status is a far more important factor than race. A case in New Zealand last year saw a man sentenced to a mere eight months’ home detention for killing a white man – a verdict easily understood once it’s realised that the victim was homeless. It can be guaranteed that if a Member of Parliament had been beaten to death in similar circumstances, the punishment would have been life imprisonment.

c is the social status of the person who committed the offence. The higher the social status, the lower the punishment.

If the person committing the offence is of a high enough social status, they simply won’t be charged for it. Jimmy Savile is the best example of this. If you can get to a high enough social status, you can rape hundreds of children and the “Justice” System simply won’t charge you. Likewise, Mike Sabin in New Zealand got off scot-free with what he did.

As David Icke has extensively written, the Western Establishment is full of pedophiles – and their high social status prevents the Police from charging or investigating them. Lesser members of the Establishment might not be able to avoid being charged or convicted, but they will nevertheless get a much lighter punishment than a working-class person would for the same offence.

Further examples are the high-profile sportsmen who are given name suppression and who avoid criminal convictions because of “promising rugby careers” or similar. The New Zealand Herald even managed to compile a playing XV of rugby players who had escaped conviction after committing a criminal offence. One player even did so despite breaking another man’s jaw.

A person of a low social status, by contrast, will get smashed for even the most minor infringement. If you’re working-class, you can expect to get a year in prison for stealing a few dozen trout. Middle-class people, like Phil Goff’s daughter, can get away with being found in possession of ecstasy, while working-class people get nailed to the wall for sharing videos, provided it inconveniences the Government enough.

The basic formula, then, for determining the severity of a judicial punishment is as follows: take the total inconvenience caused by the offence, multiply it by the social status of the person inconvenienced, and multiply this by the inverse of the social status of the person committing the offence.

The maximum theoretical punishment would come, according to this formula, from a common working-class man killing the Queen, President or Prime Minister of their political system. Whether legal or not, such an act is almost bound to result in the death penalty, and will at the least incur life imprisonment.

The minimum theoretical punishment would come from an act taken by the Government to inconvenience a common citizen. It is all but certain that no member of the Establishment will ever have to pay for the crime of conducting a War on Drugs against their own people, even though the people did not consent to it. Likewise, an immigration official allowing a murderer into the country who then murders someone will not be punished.

What best explains all of this is the fact that the ruling class ultimately invented the Justice System to protect their position. Therefore, the point of it is to smash down challengers to the ruling class and to their interests. That’s why the Justice System hardly cares at all when the Government commits crimes against its own people, or when members of the working class harm each other.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Clown World Chronicles: What is ‘Cancel Culture’?

Unlike most of the other terms in this book, ‘cancel culture’ does not have an easily discerned meaning. It refers to a very specific mentality that is mostly found in a very specific sort of person, both of which are becoming much more common nowadays. Understanding it is necessary if one wishes to understand Clown World and where it’s headed.

It’s not currently feasible, in the current political environment, to physically exterminate one’s enemies. There are laws against that sort of thing. Therefore, the way to destroy them is to silence them.

In the old days, tyrannical kings would cut the tongues out of anyone they did not wish to speak. That’s no longer feasible either, but the sentiment motivating it can still find expression. Today, silencing people is still a matter of denying their ability to speak, but in an age of mass media it’s about denying them access to speaking platforms.

Cancel culture refers to a certain mentality where a person tries to silence anyone who they do not wish to speak. This means to get them banned from any media where they might have the chance to express themselves – a process known as ‘deplatforming’. This isn’t really a new thing, as examples of it have existed ever since the New Left came to prominence in the 60s and 70s.

One of the first victims was psychologist Hans Eysenck, who upset the Left with his research into the average IQ scores of different races. As discussed at length in a recent paper in the Personality and Individual Differences Journal, arguing in favour of human biodiversity is highly likely to aggravate the numerous fanatics who adhere to the Equalitarian Dogma.

These fanatics made a strong effort to cancel Eysenck on account of his statements that most of the differences in IQ between different races can be explained by genetic differences, and that this evolutionary explanation is much more powerful than the environmentalist explanation. Eysenck was punched in the face, had his family threatened with death and had numerous speaking arrangements cancelled by leftist agitators.

50 years later, cancel culture is as strong as ever. Jordan Peterson ran afoul of it when he refused to accept the far-leftist dogma about transgenders. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux ran afoul of it when they wanted to speak about the science of human biodiversity in Auckland. Even VJM Publishing upset the shrieking loonies when we sold ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe.

Cancel culture, then, is how the Left does violence in lieu of being able to use actual violence. The irony is that, despite constantly crying about how words are violence and that causing offence ought to be prison-worthy, it is the Left themselves who are most willing to aggressively interfere with other people’s right to free assembly and free speech.

The logic is that, if people promoting unwanted ideologies were allowed to speak in public or to hold gatherings, they would convert or at least invigorate a nonzero number of people. That someone could argue against them doesn’t matter – today’s Left affords no value at all to human reason. Merely speaking is enough to convince people in their minds.

Therefore, allowing the enemy to speak is tantamount to allowing the enemy to gain strength. If the enemy is gathering their forces, better to smash them now lest they become stronger in the future, as per Machiavelli’s maxim. Cancel culture is a form of ideological warfare, in which wrongthinkers are smashed and persecuted to the fullest legal extent possible.

Support for cancel culture is closely intertwined with an individual’s support for authoritarianism. Authoritarians don’t see anything wrong in taking away other people’s rights to express themselves, because they don’t consider other people to be full human beings. In Clown World, anyone who thinks incorrectly is a subhuman, and subhumans don’t have rights.

The problem is that people who are prevented from speaking rapidly turn to violence. John F Kennedy said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” and history is replete with examples. What the cancellers don’t understand is that those cancelled don’t feel admonished or chastised – they feel enraged. This rage is easy to justify, considering that their human rights have been violated.

Cancel culture, with its egregious unreasonableness, empowers the far-right and feeds directly into their narratives about totalitarian censorship. Shutting down a person for speaking, when the right to speak is specifically protected by human rights legislation, is precisely the kind of action that makes conspiracy theories about Communist takeovers seem realistic.

Clown World promises to become ever more vicious, ruthless and insane as phenomena like cancel culture spread. It’s become so bad in some places that it’s every bit the persecution hysteria that lead to witchcraft trials. People all over the West are losing their livelihoods just for uttering opinions that contradict the bloodthirsty mob. Cancel culture may end up cancelling liberty.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

The Fall Of Joe Biden Shows That Opposing Cannabis Is No Longer Tenable

Former American Vice President Joe Biden began as the favourite in the ongoing campaign to win the Democratic nomination for this year’s Presidential election. As the contest has progressed, however, he has lost more and more ground, and now Bernie Sanders has supplanted him as the frontrunner. As this essay will show, this fall can best be explained by one massive strategic error on Biden’s part.

It’s common for old people to fail to understand that the younger generations consider cannabis law reform a major moral issue. For the older generation, the anti-cannabis brainwashing was so ruthlessly intense that prohibition was taken for granted. People were so naive back then that anything said by an authority figure was taken as the Word of God.

Joe Biden has certainly failed to understand this. Referring to the contest for the Democratic nomination this year, Rolling Stone described him as “the worst candidate in the race” for cannabis users. He has consistently refused to concede any argument for cannabis law reform, stating repeatedly that he is against legalising cannabis at the federal level.

Even worse, Biden has warmly embraced the War on Drugs. Some could even say he was one of the architects of it. Biden has willingly promoted lies about cannabis, such as that it is a gateway drug, and that more evidence is needed before we can determine whether it should be legal. While Vice President to Barack Obama, he was part of an Administration that happily continued to force prohibition on the American people.

Part of this can be explained by the fact that Biden is old – so old that he’s not even a Baby Boomer. Back in the day, you almost had to expect that your left-wing candidate was going to be lukewarm about cannabis, because the still-brainwashed masses were too numerous, and politicians were forced to placate them. Biden has failed to realise that things have changed.

As is the case in New Zealand, voters for the left-sympathetic Democratic Party tend to be younger than voters with right-wing sympathies. As is also the case in New Zealand, young people are much more pro-cannabis (Dan McGlashan’s Understanding New Zealand has all the details on such matters). This means that Biden has completely missed a trick. Very few Democrats oppose cannabis law reform today.

This refusal to acknowledge the reality of young people’s lives is why the Biden campaign is now failing. He was paying only $3.30 to win the Democratic nomination on BetFair a few months ago – by today that has blown out to $18.00. In other words, the market considers him to have a less than 6% chance of winning the nomination today, compared to a 20% chance only recently.

By refusing to acknowledge the need for cannabis law reform, Biden has shown himself to not be up to the task of understanding the reality facing his constituents. This has left him extremely vulnerable to being out-flanked on the cannabis law reform front by candidates such as Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, by contrast, has made a point of ending the War on Drugs. His official campaign website states his desire to “end the War on Drugs by legalizing marijuana and expunging past convictions.” This clear and principled stand contrasts sharply with Biden’s timid dithering. It’s a message that has resonated with many of the young people who are tempted to not vote on account of that they feel all the candidates are shit.

This had led to Sanders’s support coming in – he is now paying a mere $1.91 to win the Democratic nomination on BetFair. Despite spending most of his political career written off as a kook, he is now odds-on to win the Democratic nomination, and (according to some), if he wins that he will be odds-on to beat Donald Trump in November. We could estimate that he already has a 30% chance of becoming the President at this stage.

New Zealand is at least a decade behind America when it comes to understanding the reality about cannabis. As shown in the graph at the top of this page, America was about evenly split on cannabis about a decade ago. Since then, the truth has won out, and the majority of people now understand that prohibition causes more suffering than it alleviates.

The pitiful reality is that a great number of people have gone along with cannabis prohibition simply because they had been given the impression that it was the right thing to do. The fact that the rest of their generation followed sheep-like into supporting the destruction of several of their number just seemed natural. It’s not until now that enough public attention has been devoted to the cannabis issue to make people question their assumptions about it.

It has been discovered in New Zealand that, of those undecided about cannabis law reform, the majority of them break in favour of reform once they are presented with accurate facts. Those who don’t question the brainwashing and stand against cannabis have been the majority for 80 years, but the more educated people become, the less likely they are to do so.

All politicians end up falling out of favour if they support a policy long after it becomes unfashionable. There are now very few mainstream Western politicians who openly state support for the criminalisation of homosexuality. The fall of Joe Biden shows that the time is coming when it will no longer be possible to publicly express a belief in imprisoning cannabis users.

*

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.

*

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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Low Unemployment Is Meaningless If The Jobs Don’t Pay

Politicians like to brag about the low levels of unemployment they claim to have achieved. A low level of unemployment is presented as evidence that the economy is being managed well, and therefore that the stewards don’t need to be changed. But as this essay will demonstrate, low unemployment is meaningless if the jobs don’t lift people out of poverty.

Western politicians have been terrified of unemployment ever since World War II. Adolf Hitler frequently made reference in his rally speeches to the climbing German unemployment rate, citing it as evidence of the failure of the then-existing political Establishment. It’s taken as true by all that an unemployed man is far more likely to cause trouble.

The postwar paradigm has been characterised by a concerted effort to keep unemployment low. This worked out very well in the decades after the war, because back then a job guaranteed a certain standard of living. A full-time worker could expect to own a house and support a wife and three children. This great wealth, fairly distributed, kept revolutionary sentiments to a minimum.

Since the advent of neoliberalism in the early 1980s, the Western worker has solidly lost ground. Wages are no longer coupled with productivity (see graph at top of page), and so the buying power of the average wage has steadily declined. The average wage in New Zealand now has less than 40% of the house-buying power that it had a generation ago.

The problem is that Western politicians have continued with the assumption that so long as they keep unemployment low, all will be swell. This is a fine assumption when the average worker can afford a house and to raise three children in it. When they can’t, this assumption just leads to the face of the average worker getting pushed further and further into the shit.

If a person works full-time, but can’t meet a dignified standard of living with the proceeds from their wage, then that person is effectively a slave. Whether you’re a slave or free is not a question of how big your television is, it’s a question of how much coercion you live under. If your wage is so poor that you can’t live on it, then you’re effectively dependent on other people’s largesse. Less dependent than a beggar, but dependent all the same.

The lesson that Western politicians need to learn is that unemployment itself is not a good thing. Unemployment only has value insofar as it is conducive to ending the people’s suffering. If a working person can’t alleviate any of their suffering because their wage is so poor, then they are just as liable to become discontented as an unemployed person.

After all, the unemployment rate on slave plantations is extremely low. No-one on a slave plantation is sitting idle, or on the dole. So if unemployment alone is a factor important enough to gloat about, then it could be argued that the slave plantation model is a highly effective way to organise an economy. The absurdity of this is obvious.

It’s meaningless, then, for a politician to gloat about the low unemployment levels of their economy, as if that alone were evidence that they were running the country well. What matters is that the people are not suffering – if a large proportion of employed workers are not able to live decent lives, then the country is not run well.

The starkest problem for the Western worker is that they no longer have any negotiating power. This is the result of a combination of factors, the foremost being union-busting laws, ever-increasing technological sophistication (requiring ever-higher educations to understand) and the mass immigration of cheap labour. The capital holders have all the power, and they have used this to drive wages to the floor.

There probably isn’t any way to solve this problem within the current economic paradigm. The decoupling of wages from productivity has granted to capital holders a degree of coercion over their workers that they have not enjoyed since slavery: stories like this are now common. The only solution that seems likely is to institute a universal basic income, because this would allow workers to turn down abusive or exploitative employers.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Clown World Chronicles: What is ‘Neoliberalism’?

In the financial sections of the world’s news websites, the reader often finds reference to “neoliberalism” or even “the prevailing neoliberal paradigm.” This is something so all-pervading that its necessity is taken for granted. It’s very important to understand neoliberalism, because the neoliberal mindset is the one in which things get done. This chapter explains.

In short, neoliberalism is the prevailing economic paradigm of Clown World.

The ‘neo-‘ prefix denotes that this is not the first time we have lived under this economic paradigm, and the ‘liberal’ root means that this economic paradigm is characterised by a lack of regulation of business activities. The liberty in question isn’t your liberty from coercion by capital; it’s the liberty of capital to coerce you.

As anyone who has played a game of Monopoly will be aware, the problem with economic liberalism is that it ends up with massive inequality. Absent a system of wealth redistribution, the ability of landowners to charge rent means that they eventually end up with all the money. Their ever-increasing ownership of capital leads to ever-increasing rents until the masses are as impoverished as any medieval peasant.

In the real world, economic liberalism led to the Great Crash of 1929, and from there to the Great Depression. This always happens under liberalism, because once all the money ends up in a few hands then no-one but them have any spending power. One no-one has any spending power, the economy slows down, workers get laid off, and recession begins.

The original liberalism was ended by American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who brought in the “New Deal“. This was a drastic reorganisation of the economic system, intended to reverse all the advantages accrued by what Theodore Roosevelt had earlier called “the representatives of predatory wealth.” Decried as both Fascism and Communism by FDR’s opponents, the New Deal ended the Great Depression in America.

The Great Depression ended much more violently in Europe. The anger and paranoia brought about by the terrible economic conditions saw many people cast about for a scapegoat. This desire to find someone to blame for the desperate problems made it possible for an opportunist like Adolf Hitler to come to power, and the consequences of that are known to all.

After World War II, Western politicians became extremely cautious about allowing a return of the economic conditions that they believed were the ultimate cause for the bloodshed. Absent extreme and desperate poverty, they reasoned, the people would have no cause to give their power to a supremacist who wanted to conquer their neighbour.

As a result, those politicians allowed the workers to get a fair deal. Instead of all the economic power being held by a few people who ruled the others like kings, it was widely distributed across the population. This egalitarian economic arrangement continued for almost 40 years. This time period encompassed some great decades – the 50s, 60s and 70s allowed for freedom and creative expression to flourish all over the West.

It was too good to last.

Neoliberalism arose in the early 1980s, after the ruling class realised that it had been 40 years since the end of World War II, and the hard-won lessons about solidarity had been forgotten. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, no less opportunistically than Hitler himself, came to power promising a shake-up of the existing economic paradigm. Their recipe for greatness was low taxes, low welfare and free markets.

The influence of America and Britain is such that practically the entire Western World is now neoliberal. Arse-licking dogs like David Lange forced neoliberalism on an unsuspecting New Zealand public after 1984, laying the economic foundations for the Clown World era. The demented Ruth Richardson piled on the pain by slashing the Family Support allowance. Helen Clark opened the immigration floodgates and John Key kept them open.

This obsession with money, at the expense of society itself, led us to here. Neoliberalism is to consume, mindlessly and without end. All higher culture and all spiritual traditions are to be destroyed because they prevent people from consuming. The borders must be thrown open because every new immigrant – regardless of what crimes they commit – is a new consumer.

By 2020, neoliberalism has, much like the original liberalism, led to the concentration of wealth in extremely few hands. Although society has become shittier in a great many ways, this increasing shitness has brought with it vast profit potential, and those profiting greatly are putting enormous energy into perpetuating the system. This combination of increasing diversity and increasing inequality is one of the major causes of Clown World phenomena.

All over the West, economic desperation is now standard for the youth. A study showed that the average wage in New Zealand has less than 40% of the house-buying power that it had 26 years ago. The youth suicide rate is skyrocketing, and the individual despair felt by these unfortunates is starting to become a generational malaise.

Much like the original liberalism, neoliberalism has set the scene for totalitarian extremists to come to power in the West. Although Donald Trump isn’t the one, a new Hitler could easily take advantage of the worsening economic conditions to channel the people’s desperation into another paroxysm of violence. The Weimar Republic was the original Clown World, and our current iteration of it could end in a similar fashion.

*

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

*

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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

How To Get Rid Of The 5% Threshold Without Empowering Extremists

New Zealand runs elections under a Mixed Member Proportional system, meaning that parties contesting the election win a number of seats in Parliament proportional to how many votes they receive. This system has advantages and disadvantages, one of the latter being that it facilitates extremists coming to Parliament. Various methods have been adopted to counter this, such as a 5% threshold – this essay suggests a more elegant solution.

As John F Kennedy warned us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” Although it’s never admitted, the purpose of the democratic system is to pre-empt the violence that inevitably follows when people are not given a say in their own destiny. The problem with totalitarianism is that people resent it, and if they resent it enough they end up killing their rulers.

Democracy is a charade in which the ruling class pretends to take the opinion of the working classes seriously, in exchange for a dampening of revolutionary sentiments among those working classes. If the ruling class can successfully placate the workers, then they can continue to do as they please. If they cannot, then resentment will arise, and this will eventually lead to radical extremism.

Kennedy might have warned us that a 5% threshold to get into the New Zealand Parliament creates a number of problems.

It is set so high that no new party has ever crossed it. In 24 years of MMP elections, the only parties to achieve representation apart from National and Labour were parties that broke away from them (New Zealand First and United Future from National, ACT from Labour, the Greens from the Alliance that itself broke from Labour).

The ruling class considers this a win, but the people consider it a great loss. It has meant that no opinion, other than the mainstream ones, can find expression in Parliament. Only those opinions that have been so thoroughly vetted and curated by the Establishment that they pose no threat are allowed into the House of Representatives. This does little to soothe the people’s feelings of frustration.

It could be argued that having a 5% threshold leads directly to things like the Christchurch mosque shootings. The mass immigration of the last half a century has caused immense resentment among the many who have lost out from it, but their voices are silenced by a system that profits heavily from the cheap labour. Sentiments like these are liable to boil over into xenophobic violence on occasion – a pattern that has been seen all around the world.

There is a possible solution to these tensions – one that has never previously been tried. This is to firstly scrap the 5% threshold, and secondly for each voter to have three votes instead of one. Two of the votes can be cast for any candidate or party, much like the current system, but one vote can only be cast against a candidate or party. This anti-vote cancels out one of someone else’s votes for a certain party.

Having two positive votes, one negative vote and no threshold means that (in theory) small parties who do not engender hatred can still achieve representation in Parliament, while the extremists who do engender hatred get eliminated by the negative votes.

Parties like the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, Social Credit, or The Opportunities Party, who have unfashionable ideas but who are not malevolent or extremist, ought to be able to take some seats in Parliament. The ideas that these parties represent are long overdue for serious consideration, but the 5% threshold has prevented them from ever being represented.

Other parties like the New Conservatives, who combine popular ideas like ending mass immigration with horrendous human rights abuses like increasing penalties for cannabis use, are the reason for the 5% threshold in the first place. It was precisely to keep aggressive, narcissistic, Bible-thumping morons like them away from power that the 5% threshold was invented.

In practice, we could expect that parties like the New Conservatives would attract a high number of negative votes. If the total number of negative votes for a given party was greater than the total number of positive votes, they would receive no seats. Therefore, the ability to cast a negative vote would mean that human rights abusers could be kept out of Parliament, but not at the expense of other small parties who have ideas the country needs to hear.

Then again, Germany has a 5% threshold (our version of MMP was modelled on theirs) and they have six parties currently polling well over that. So it could be argued that the New Zealand political class severely lacks imagination, which is the reason why no party other than Labour, National, Greens or New Zealand First has ever presented a compelling enough case to get over the threshold.

The positive/negative vote model would allow our electoral system to not only measure and weigh the sympathy of the public for the various political platforms, but also to measure and weigh their antipathy for those platforms. The biggest advantage with this suggestion is that platforms that inspired disgust, hatred and contempt would now find themselves judged for that, instead of getting away with it.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Understanding The Psychology Of Police Officers

As New Zealand becomes more and more of a Police state, it has become more important than ever to understand the psychology of our oppressors. If someone’s trying to put you in a cage for offending the ruling class, it’s important to know how they operate. This essay explains.

The easy way to understand the psychology of Police officers is by analogy to dogs.

For those of you who have never observed or studied the behaviour of dogs, the key to understanding canine psychology is understanding the anxiety of hunger. A dog will do absolutely anything, no matter how immoral, to take those feelings of hunger away. It doesn’t care who or what it has to attack or rip to pieces. It’s an animal.

Humans were able to domesticate dogs because we learned that if we provided them with food, they would respond with loyalty. As long as we were able to maintain their food supply, the dogs would attack or rip to pieces anyone or anything we told them to. The dogs happily did this out of gratitude, because we permanently took away their hunger anxiety.

For a Police officer, those feelings of hunger are removed by one level of abstraction. The officers are not fed directly by their masters, but indirectly in the form of wages. Nevertheless, the same basic logic applies. On account of the fear of hunger, the Police officer will obey any order from its master, no matter how immoral, in exchange for their wage.

Many New Zealanders believe that their Police officers are significantly different in mentality to the officers of the Police forces of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. This is a grievous error that betrays a fundamental naivety regarding human nature. The Gestapo and the NKVD may have had a different organisational structure, and their leaders may have ascribed to a different ideology, but the psychology of the basic officer is almost precisely the same.

Gestapo officer, NKVD officer, modern Police officer, feudal-era sheriff, American Gilded Age strikebreaker, it doesn’t matter. There is a niche in human society for people who are willing to commit any atrocity against any other person in exchange for relief from hunger anxiety. This niche will always be exploited by the wealthy and powerful, who need sycophantic abusers in order to force their will on the world.

If you doubt any of this, try to find an example of a Police officer refusing an order on account of that following it would entail a human rights violation. You won’t be able to find a single example of this in the history of New Zealand policing. Even finding a single example in the history of the world is difficult.

For all the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who have been given criminal convictions for the “crime” of medicinal cannabis, there wasn’t one single Police officer who publicly came out and said that it was wrong to put people in cages over a medicine. Not a single one. There isn’t one currently serving Police officer anywhere in New Zealand on record as opposing the War on Drugs, despite that this War is one of the worst human rights violations since the end of World War II.

In the same way that a dog will never turn on the person that feeds it, Police officers will never go against the people paying their wages. It doesn’t matter what the orders are; it doesn’t matter who they are told to destroy, or how they are told to do it. They will obey any order, no matter how justified it is, and no matter who has to suffer for it.

The fact is that if the New Zealand Police were given orders to put you, the VJM Publishing reader, in a cattle cart to be shipped off to a concentration camp to be gassed to death, they would happily obey those orders. They wouldn’t question them for a second. They would come to your house, politely and calmly ask for your whereabouts (not kicking doors down like in the movies), and then drag you away to be murdered.

Then they would cash in their paycheck, buy some pies for dinner, and go to sleep satisfied with a hard day’s work fighting crime.

All their masters would have to say to get them to liquidate you is “In the wake of March 15, blah blah blah…” and the nation’s Police officers would leap to readiness. The same people who refused to investigate Jimmy Savile or the child rape gangs operating in Rotherham and other places, because they were ordered to stand down, would destroy you in an instant if commanded to do so.

Their masters would simply have to give the order.

As with the Gestapo and NKVD officers, the Police that hauled you away would have the support of all of the authoritarians within the population. For every Police officer eager to smash some wrongthinker, there are a hundred bootlickers eager to rat out their enemies. This Reddit thread provides ample examples of this kind of thinking, and how readily they support their fellow citizens getting smashed (as long as it’s not them!).

So if a Police officer comes to your house to “check your thinking,” you will not be able to reason with them. You will not be able to logically convince them that the Police themselves are more dangerous than any Internet poster. They simply don’t care whether the person giving them orders is evil, or whether those orders are evil. You don’t pay their wage, so you don’t get their loyalty, that’s all it amounts to.

The way to treat them, therefore, is the same way that you would any other dangerous dog that has wandered onto your territory. Don’t show fear or anger, as either might trigger the prey instinct and provoke an attack. Stay calm, speak firmly, and ask if they have a warrant. If they don’t have a warrant, they have no right to be on your property, and you can ask them to leave directly.

Give them as little information about yourself as you can, because anything you say will be passed on to their masters, who will use it to justify more attacks against you. They will tell you that you are not a suspect – this is absolutely false. Give them as little as if you were an enemy soldier being interrogated for intelligence, because in their eyes you are (do note, however, that you are legally obliged to give the Police your name, date of birth and address if asked).

Unfortunately, there is no way to override the loyalty that the Police have towards those who pay them. As is the case with dogs, the only option is to replace the master. The ruling New Zealand Establishment must be replaced with people who have an entirely different mentality to the mindless, money-grubbing rapists who have ruled New Zealand for decades. An approach based on the Sevenfold Conception of Inherent Human Rights would be ideal.


*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

Would Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income Scheme Work In New Zealand?

Of all the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the American Presidential Election later this year, none have the intellectual pedigree of Andrew Yang. From the demented Joe Biden to the snotty Elizabeth Warren to the weakling Bernie Sanders, the Democratic field seems mediocre in comparison. This article discusses one of Yang’s most popular ideas – the Universal Basic Income – and whether it’s applicable to New Zealand.

The maths is hard to escape.

Let’s assume we directly adopt Yang’s proposal of $1,000 per month, no questions asked, for every qualifying adult, with no adjustment made for the exchange rate. This equals $12,000 per year per person over 18. As there are at least 3,667,000 such adults in New Zealand, a UBI would require an expenditure of around $44,000,000,000 per year. This a hefty sum of money – but it’s a good deal for New Zealand if the costs of not having a UBI would be greater.

Yang suggests that he would pay for a UBI mostly by consolidating welfare programs and by introducing a 10% VAT on all goods and services.

Something that many UBI opponents fail to consider is that the introduction of a UBI would obviate the need for almost all benefits, which could then be scrapped. The unemployment benefit, the sickness benefit, the invalid’s benefit, the student allowance and the pension could all be shitcanned in one go. This means all the bureaucracy and expense associated with them would also go.

The Government spent $34,000,000,000 on welfare last year, a figure that includes the cost of running the welfare bureaucracy. The Ministry of Social Development, in a manner of speaking, is the welfare bureaucracy – it employs public servants in over 200 different locations around New Zealand. It’s a titanic institution.

With a UBI, all of those public servants would be made redundant, the bureaucracies that employ them would be wound down, and the 200 locations that currently house them sold off. As the Ministry of Social Development costs $27,000,000,000 a year to run – and that’s only the core expenses – getting rid of all this would provide 70-75% of the required funding for a UBI.

The Government brought in around $22,000,000,000 last year from the Goods and Services Tax, currently set at 15%. The GST is a tax beloved of modern Governments because it’s hard to avoid – pretty much every legitimate business has to account for it. Also, being a consumption tax, it’s all but unavoidable even for the most miserly person. Even if you only spend $200 a week to keep yourself alive, you will pay $30 in GST that week.

America doesn’t have a federal GST, so the introduction of one at 10% would be the equivalent of New Zealand raising ours from 15% to 25%. Most European countries have GST rates of between 20% and 25%, so this would be nothing extraordinary.

It’s not guaranteed that increasing GST to 25% (i.e. a relative increase of 67% compared to the 15% it is now at) would necessarily increase GST take by a proportionate amount. Higher taxes may lead to increasing rates of tax evasion (although, as mentioned above, GST is difficult to avoid).

If it did, however, then 67% of $22,000,000,000 would mean a further $14,700,000,000.

Add this to the sum of $27-34,000,000,000 for obsoleting the Ministry of Social Development, and we have somewhere around $42-48,000,000,000. This is enough to cover the cost of a UBI mentioned above. Once Yang’s other revenue-gathering measures (such as a transaction tax) are accounted for, there might even be enough to grant slightly more than $1,000 per month (which would otherwise only be about as much as the current unemployment benefit).

All of this is before we try to estimate the economic benefits of what would, in practice, amount to a powerful stimulus. The economic benefits of empowering individuals to turn down shitty working conditions, coupled with the physical and mental health savings accrued from sharply reducing the financial stress among the population, could be worth several billions in their own right.

In the end, Andrew Yang’s proposal to get rid of the American welfare bureaucracy could be applied in New Zealand wholesale. We also have the problem that we spend billions of dollars on office staff merely to determine who’s worthy of being allowed to eat and who isn’t. Scrapping the Ministry of Social Development, along with increasing GST by 10%, would allow us to fund a Universal Basic Income for all adult Kiwis.

New Zealand has already embarrassed itself by having less enlightened cannabis laws than 70 other nations. Hopefully we won’t have to wait for 70 other nations to introduce a UBI before the merits of such are understood in New Zealand.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

The Four Main Opponents Of Cannabis Law Reform

With the date for the cannabis law reform referendum now set, the battlelines have been drawn. The opposing forces have taken up their positions: the pro-cannabis forces on the side of God, and the anti-cannabis forces on the side of suffering, misery, ignorance and hate. This essay describes the four major groupings of opponents to cannabis law reform.

The first major group of opponents to cannabis law reform are simple cowards.

There’s a certain kind of person who is terrified of anything new, of any change at all – they can be called neophobic. In much the same way that a certain kind of person shit their pants at the sight of their town’s first Indian restaurant, there is a certain kind of person who shits their pants at any thought of a new psychoactive substance.

This teeming mass of sheep-like idiots comprise about half of the opponents to cannabis law reform. They also comprised a large proportion of the people who opposed homosexual and prostitution law reform, and they will comprise a large proportion of those who oppose the next change, no matter how obviously needed or overdue that change is.

The second major group of opponents are the sadists who oppose cannabis because of its healing and medicinal properties.

Hard as it may be to believe, there are many people out there who just want to create as much suffering and misery as possible, usually because it brings them a sense of gratification and power. In much the same way that sadism exists in many of Nature’s creatures, so too does it exist within the human animal. The human sadist recognises the medicinal properties of cannabis – which is why they seek to withhold it from those who would benefit.

Also in this group are the retards who will guzzle alcohol like there’s no tomorrow and belch smoke like a 19th-century factory from their cigarettes, but won’t touch cannabis on account of that it’s a “drug”. There are plenty of alcoholics out there who have boozed themselves into a state of permanent retardation, and some of these people, owing to this brain damage, support harsher sentences for cannabis users.

The third major group of opponents are the turboautists who can’t into anything as mysterious as cannabis use.

Cannabis use, like other spiritual enterprises, can be an extremely humbling experience. It can teach you that you really knew nothing about the world, and about life. The intellectually conceited sort of person, the one who has an egoic need to establish themselves as a recognised intellectual authority, has extreme difficulty with such revelations. They prefer ideological security and safety.

The intellectually arrogant are the same group of people who see all cannabis use as stupefying. They can’t get their heads around the truth of it because there are no recognised peer-reviewed journals on the subject. For these people, all talk of spirituality is mental illness, and so if smoking cannabis leads to a person talking about God, then smoking cannabis drives people crazy. They don’t want legal cannabis because it shows them up as the spoofers they are.

The final major group of opponents are the spiritual liars.

Cannabis is a spiritual sacrament, and has been used continuously for thousands of years for this purpose. Unfortunately, a great number of people in the West today are spiritually dead. Not only do they not believe in God, but they believe that death is the end on account of that the brain generates consciousness. This is not a natural state of affairs – it is because they have been lied to.

There are spiritual criminals out there who earn a living from withholding from people the truth about God and about consciousness, and then selling some watered-down, padded-out, corrupted version of it for a fee. These criminals have always tried to establish themselves as intermediaries between the people and God, and in order to make this profitable they have needed to destroy all true spiritual movements and methodologies.

These criminals recognise that cannabis makes their position untenable, on account of that it’s a spiritual sacrament that leads people to God directly. Consequently, they act to keep cannabis illegal, for the sake of holding people in a state of profitable ignorance.

These four groups cover the basic emotions that motivate people to oppose cannabis law reform: fear, cruelty and ignorance.

Some people fall into more than one of these groups. Many pretentious intellectuals are also cowards who don’t dare to step outside of well-travelled paths; many religious fundamentalists are also sadists. Someone like Bob McCoskrie might fall into all four: the pants-pissing, shit-talking, hippie-bashing religious bigot is almost the archetypal prohibitionist.

Changing the attitudes of anyone in one of these four groups is easier said than done.

There isn’t much that can be done to persuade the cruel and the evil, because the more information you give them, the more power they have to cause suffering. Those who are ignorant can be persuaded of the merits of cannabis law reform by appealing to the successful examples of reform overseas. Those who are cowards can be persuaded by showing them the rest of the herd changing their direction.

Ultimately, cannabis will continue to be used more by Maoris, by young people, by non-Christians and by freethinkers, and so anyone who hates one or more of those groups will tend towards opposing cannabis law reform out of spite. Anyone not motivated by hate, but rather by honest ignorance or naivety, can easily be persuaded to see how cannabis prohibition isn’t in their best interests.

*

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for liberalising New Zealand’s cannabis laws.

*

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!

C0a3dde2 a3b2 4ea4 a32f ca0a1c8e575b 120x120 313x0 1075x1076
VJM Publishing
Public post

If The Media Wrote About Jacinda Ardern The Same Way It Wrote About Wrongthinkers

The politician accused of masterminding multiple violations of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is running for re-election this year.

The 38-year old Jacinda Ardern’s Sixth Labour Government has been accused of violating New Zealanders’ rights to free expression, free assembly and free commerce. She has been recorded on film paying homage to the ideology of Marxism, which subscribes to the same totalitarian far-left ideology as the Soviet Union that starved 100 million people to death in the gulag archipelago.

A constitutional lawyer says the accusations facing Ardern are among the most serious, and he believes that criminal charges laid by Police could follow.

VJM Publishing understands that the politician has refused to answer questions about her loyalty to the New Zealand nation. Last April, VJM Publishing revealed that Ardern was working closely with French President Emmanuel Macron to force globalist policies on the New Zealand people without their knowledge or consent.

It is not known whether the human rights violations that Ardern has allegedly committed were committed to further Marxist ideology.

Neither the Police nor the Labour Government would comment on the accusations.

Since the accusations of human rights violations were levelled against Ardern, she continues to make short films in which she tries to justify her actions, publishing these on FaceBook.

Ardern’s actions were first observed by activists who track members of the far left, Marxists and Communists online. Ardern’s FaceBook account has been used since the accusations of human rights violations were laid.

For several years, Ardern has posted racist, anti-nationalist and anti-white comments on social media, including references to a “white supremacism” conspiracy theory. This racist conspiracy theory claims that the low academic performance of browns and blacks can be explained by white prejudice.

“The response I’ve received has been positive. No tech company, just like no government, would like to see violent extremism and terrorism online,” Ardern is quoted as saying.

The account also showcases Ardern’s hate for the New Zealand people, frequently insinuating that they are racists, bigots and criminals.

A Police spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about whether they plan to arrest the politician.

“The accused has not been formally charged, which means that she is at liberty to travel as she pleases,” the spokeswoman said.

Wellington barrister Schlomo Goldberg, who has 20 years’ experience working in constitutional law, said Ardern was the first politician he knew of to be accused of violating New Zealanders’ rights to free expression, free assembly and free commerce.

“For a member of the New Zealand Government to use the position she’s been given to prejudice the human rights of New Zealanders, that’s a big deal,” he said.

Goldberg, who has no involvement in the case, said the politician could possibly have access to Marxist publications that could include tactics, techniques, procedures and plans for subverting national cultures.

“But also, if you have someone like the Chinese Communist Party, they might think it’s kind of handy to have, to get their hands on information that shows them how the New Zealand Government conducts operations because they might want to use those sorts of things themselves.

“There’s a whole load of information which an organisation that is intent on violating New Zealanders’ human rights to achieve its ends might find useful, both from a point of view of how it might conduct its own operations and also how you know what it might anticipate the security services are going to do against it.”

He said the Police were likely wanting to keep any investigation into Ardern’s human rights violations out of the public eye, despite the potential for criminal charges in civilian courts.

This would be done so that classified information involved in the case could be presented without revealing it to the public, he said. 

*

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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.


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 contributing – 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.