The Four Basic Political Subjects

Underneath all the talk about politics today lies a great confusion. People talk about what politics is supposed to achieve, but they have generally forgotten who it’s supposed to achieve it for. For our ancestors, the political subject was obvious, but for us it is not. This essay explains.

The first and original political subject was the tribe. In the biological past, humans had no conception of nations or kingdoms. One was born into a tribe of roughly 50-150 people, and these people were your blood kin. As such, their interests were your interests, in almost every case.

Every member of the tribe was in the ingroup, and everyone not in the tribe was in the outgroup. This made politics very simple. If you encountered a stranger, they were the enemy, and it was acceptable to do anything to that stranger if it furthered the interests of the tribe. This tribal mentality still exists today, only it has become much weaker than it used to be (in most cases).

The second political subject is the state. This came into being when civilisation did. With the advent of civilisation, it was possible to have two strangers share the same space without chimping out and attacking each other. This meant that it was possible to have towns and cities made up of people from different tribes, perhaps even competing ones.

With the advent of towns and cities, it was necessary to have an administrator class that dealt with any disagreements that arose. The bringing together of different tribes meant competing schedules of moral values. These administrators, employed to smooth over differences between tribes, became the state. Their different approaches for settling quarrels became ideologies.

One way of dealing with the tensions created by identification with the tribe was to identify with the state instead. In practice, this is much the same as identifying with an ideology. Thus, a judge who was from a particular tribe would not necessarily rule in favour of his own tribesman. This was a radical new way of thinking when compared to the tribal solidarity model. It required a new political subject.

Thinking in terms of the state provided this new subject. If people were able to abandon their previous allegiances to their tribes, they could band together and build a mighty state that challenged the world, such as Rome or America. The memetic hybrid vigour brought about by multiple tribes all agreeing to work together under a state banner proved to be immensely powerful.

Not every civilisation succeeded in making this transition, however. If a state was not capable of creating an egregore powerful enough to persuade people to abandon their tribal allegiances, the divided loyalties caused by those remaining allegiances would pull the state apart from the inside. Corruption reigns in every state where tribal allegiances continue to hold sway.

The third political subject is the individual. This political subject arose as a way of settling firstly the tensions between those who identified with the tribe and those who identified with the state, and secondly the tensions between those who identified with different states or ideologies. In the world of 2020, the individual is the default political subject.

The logic is that, by identifying with the individual ego, people would no longer be drawn into conflict on account of competing tribal or ideological loyalties. Only caring about oneself might seem selfish and egotistical, but it has the bonus effect of settling tensions between groups. If people only care about the next hit, they will not take collective action.

It is true that what Adam Curtis called the Century of the Self led to a great peace. In recent decades, Hitlers and Stalins have been impossible on account of that no-one would follow them. Collective efforts demand individual sacrifices, and people who identify with the individual ego will not make them. However, this identification brings its own problems.

The fourth political subject is the consciousness itself.

The limitations of identifying with the individual ego are now obvious. Although doing so was a logical move forwards from the horrors of state-worship, the human animal is still fundamentally a social one, and it has social needs. Identifying with the individual ego might make warfare between nations less likely, but it sharply increases the emotional and spiritual suffering of the people, who find that their lives no longer have any meaning.

Some philosophers, like Alexandr Dugin, have suggested a return to Dasein as the basic political subject (Dugin frequently refers to Heidegger’s Dasein in The Fourth Political Theory). This is much the same thing as having consciousness as the basic political subject. In either case, it solves most of the problems of the first three political subjects.

Identifying with the consciousness allows the best of all worlds. Not only can a person meet their social and spiritual needs through connection to other conscious beings, but they can also do so without necessarily getting set against them because of tribal or ideological loyalties. Identifying with consciousness means that one is automatically allied and opposed to every other person.

There’s one problem with this otherwise elegant solution: most people have never learned to distinguish between consciousness and the contents of consciousness. They don’t know the difference between the True Self and the False Self. As such, most people operate either on the level of crude instinct (and thus tend towards tribalism), the level of conditioned responses (and thus tend towards fetishising the state or an ideology) or on both levels at once (and thus tend towards soulless globohomo consumer whoring).

As is so often the case, it appears that our great challenge is primarily a spiritual challenge. Identification with the consciousness might prevent us from getting drawn into tribal or ideological conflicts, and it might prevent us from getting bogged down in mindless anomie. But it will only be an option for those with the spiritual acumen to meditate and perform self-inquiry.

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!

Why The West Should Replace China With India

It’s apparent to all that the world is currently undergoing a strategic realignment. When the COVID-19 dramas have settled down, we will be left with a new set of alliances and global political arrangements. This essay will argue that the Western World should use this opportunity to replace the economic ties it currently has with China.

To a major extent, those who are powerful in the non-Western world are only so because of the favour of Western elites. China’s economic miracle is chiefly the result of the transfer of manufacturing capacity from the West since the early 1980s. After forty years of this, China has grown into a major world power.

In 1990, China had a smaller economy than Canada. Their GDP per capita was a pitiful $349 per year, putting them in the same class as Uganda, Mali and Rwanda. Today, China is second only to America by total economy size. Their GDP per capita is now in the same class as fringe Western nations such as Russia, Argentina and Bulgaria.

This development has brought with it great wealth, not only to China but also to their major trading partners. But with this wealth has come power, and with that power has come ambition.

China’s strategic goals in the South China Sea are evident: to take control of the entire region. As their economy continues to develop, their ability to actualise these goals increases. They are now wealthy enough to devote a vast sum of surplus capital to military outfitting and development. Some of this has been devoted to building artificial islands – rightly considered forward military bases – in the South China Sea.

Given that Chinese strategic goals often don’t align with ours, and that Indian strategic goals often do, it might be time for the West to make an immense pivot away from China and towards India. There are several reasons why this might be a good idea.

The most obvious strategic reason to replace China with India is the aforementioned military one. A close alliance with India would all but guarantee Western control over the Straits of Malacca, which is the jugular vein of Chinese shipping and trade. This would minimise the potential for China to get tempted into further expansionism.

Existing tensions on the shared border between India and China have flared in recent weeks. China has already moved a brigade’s strength of men into territory India claims as its own. This is an extreme provocation by any measure, if not an outright act of war. India’s response could lead to a wider conflagration.

If it does, it would be the perfect time for the West to throw our lot in behind India. Not only would it enable us to impose a collective will upon China in a weak moment for them, but giving assistance to India in their time of need would engender the greatest amount of long-term goodwill from their side.

More subtle are the economic reasons. China’s economy has advanced to the point where it is a competitor to the West in many ways, whereas India’s has not. Many Chinese firms have been able to drive Western ones out of certain markets by way of having a superior product. The general level of scientific knowledge in the Chinese population is now high enough that Chinese firms are likely to pose a consistent threat into the future.

It would be much better to co-operate with Indian firms, and to raise them to the level where they can compete with the Chinese ones, than to continue to raise Chinese firms so that they can compete with ours in the future. We can help India to adopt technology that both the West and China already have, at no strategic loss to ourselves.

As mentioned above, Chinese GDP per capita has increased sharply in recent decades. Today, it is over twice as high as the GDP per capita in India. This has brought with it increasing expectations of living standards, such that India now offers better opportunities to employ cheap labour. Factories could be set up in India at competitive prices.

The greatest reasons to pursue an alliance with India at the expense of China are cultural.

India is culturally superior to the West in several ways. Here we are not merely talking about lamb saagwalas. Their compassion for animals is such that India has more vegetarians than the rest of the world put together. This compassion is a feature of Dharmic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

The sadistic Abrahamic religions have no such restrictions, and neither does Chinese culture with its hellish wet markets. As such, there is an opportunity for us in the West to learn from Indian culture and from the Indian approach to life, and to use its inspiration to better ourselves.

The Indian spiritual culture fills a need in the Western soul for answers about how to morally conduct ourselves in this life. This is not to claim that all Indians conduct themselves perfectly, or even better than Westerners do on average. It is merely to suggest that there is great value to Westerners in the spiritual traditions of the Indian people, in particular Buddhism and Hinduism.

Because India has cultural advancements that we in the West ought to learn from, there is the possibility of genuinely reciprocal trade. We have scientific, technological and commercial knowledge that they would benefit from learning, and they have spiritual knowledge that we would benefit from learning. It would be a two-way exchange.

A further point relating to culture is the shared love of cricket. That cricket is popular in India as well as in Britain, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand means that men from all of these places have a shared bond, and this naturally allows for some degree of solidarity. After all, it’s through sport that men learn to conduct themselves in wartime, and men bonded in such a fashion are bonded deeply.

No such bond is shared with China.

In summary, an entire spectrum of reasons suggests that the West ought to take the economic bonds that tie us to China, and to replace them with bonds that tie us to India. This would not only make a great deal of natural sense, but it would also strengthen the strategic position of the West deep into this century.

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!

Have Western Elites Secretly Converted To Islam?

People in the West continue to be utterly baffled by many of the decisions made by their ruling classes. When it comes to Islam, these decisions are especially hard to understand. This article raises a shocking possibility: that the upper echelon of the Western elites have secretly converted to Islam.

One of Queen Elizabeth II’s titles is “Defender of the Faith”. The faith in question is usually assumed to be Christianity, sometimes assumed to be Judaism. A possibility rarely considered is that the faith in question is Abrahamism, and the Queen defends whichever form of it is most convenient at the time. At the moment, that form may be Islam.

The main reason to believe that Western elites have converted to Islam is that they act like Islam is important to them, but they don’t act as if anything else is.

Many residents of Birmingham were surprised to hear the Muslim call to prayer in public this week, for the first time ever. The call to prayer is a dominance signal that signifies that a given area is under the control of Islam. As such, it’s not usually broadcast in public in the West. But the Birmingham City Council is now stacked with so many Muslims, and their allies, that they had the numbers to vote to broadcast it.

The reality is that so many Muslims live in Birmingham now that it can rightly be considered conquered Muslim territory in the same way that, for example, Lebanon is. The British elites, over the past 20 years, have sat back and allowed places like Birmingham to be overrun. Many are asking themselves: why?

That Western elites consider Islamic culture more important than the culture of their own people can be seen from the various “hate speech” laws becoming popular in the West. Even though the right to free speech is one of the most sacred Western values of all, our elites seem happy to chuck it in the garbage to appease the newcomers.

These hate speech laws are blasphemy laws in another form. They’re often pushed by Muslims, such as Scottish Justice Minister Humza Yousaf, to silence their critics. Yousaf has introduced hate speech legislation to Scotland that will effectively make it illegal to criticise Islam. The only real opposition to this comes from everyday Scottish people, and not from the elites that are supposed to be defending them.

Why would the Scottish elites allow a Muslim to first come to power, and then to pass a law shitting on the most sacred of Scottish values, if not because those elites were secretly Muslim themselves?

More proof for the idea that Western elites have secretly converted to Islam comes from the fact that Islam now arouses more passions among them than Christianity does.

More people visit mosques on a weekly basis in England than visit churches. Christian churches are usually near empty during services, while mosques are overflowing. Indeed, many British mosques are re-purposed churches, a dramatic and unmistakable sign of taking over.

In Britain, Liberal Democrat MPs have fasted for Ramadan in solidarity with Muslims. In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave a special message to Muslims for Eid, but did not do anything similar for Christians for Easter. Such examples of politicians pandering to Muslims while ignoring all other religions are now widespread.

Western authorities are far more tolerant of Islamic religious practices than they are of their own indigenous ones. Muslims are allowed to preach hatred of infidels in mosques, are allowed to slaughter animals in a horrifically cruel fashion and are even allowed to mutilate the genitals of their offspring, but Westerners who use cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms as spiritual sacraments are put in cages.

This raises an obvious question: why did our elites convert to Islam?

This question cannot be answered without reference to the fact that Muslims worship the same god as the Christians: the genital-mutilating, woman-hating tyrant God of Abraham. So for our formerly-Christian elites, converting to Islam would entail nothing more than a change in appearances. The same psychopathic control-and-dominate mentality is present in both religions, as it is in all Abrahamic cults.

The most likely theory is that our elites have noticed that Christianity is dying, and intend to convert the population to Islam for the same reason they once converted them to Christianity: social control.

Christianity has been extremely useful to the ruling elites of the West over the past 1,600 years. It has enabled those elites to keep the plebs fearful, divided and willing to serve as cannon fodder for any imperial adventure that was going. It has kept them so ignorant that they have been willing to do almost anything, to almost anyone, as long as they were told it was God’s will.

But since World War I, the plebs have started waking up to these lies.

A wholesale conversion to Islam would give the elites the same level of control that they had when the population was Christian. It would once again allow them to dictate moral principles to the wider population, and would once again allow them to regiment that population’s moral sensibilities. The degree of temptation that the elites must have been under to do so is obvious.

The next question raised is: when did this conversion happen?

One theory has it that the conversion to Islam happened a long time ago – perhaps even during one of the Crusades. Some suggest that the Christian defeat at the Battle of Hattin in 1187 saw many Christians come to believe that God favoured the soldiers of Allah, and that the egregore of Muhammad had triumphed over that of Jesus Christ.

This theory holds that the Knights Templar, who were present in Jerusalem at the time, secretly converted to Islam and then returned to Europe. The secret societies they started were Christian on the outside, but on the inside they were controlled by devout Muslims.

This theory has it that the Shriners are the secret ruling cabal of the planet. This is based on the fact that, until recently, a man had to have completed the Scottish or York Rite systems of Freemasonry before they were allowed to join. In other words, a man had to have accumulated a considerable amount of prestige before the Shriners would take him in.

An astute observer will have already noticed the Shriner, with his conspicuously Islamic fez, occupying a central role in the image at the top of this page. This central role, in alchemical symbology, suggests a position closer to God than the men at the top of the pyramid who have merely completed the exoteric path, and are thus still on the outside. The Shiner is truly on the inside – he is the Inner Party.

Most people will tell you that the rulers of the Western World are mostly atheists and Christians, with a number of Jews mixed in. But the relentless Islamification of Western countries that we have seen over the past 20 years might be a sign that the ruling elites of the West have already secretly converted to Islam, wholesale.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

VJMP Anzac Day Address 2020: The Federalisation Imperative

The original proposed articles of Australian federation stated that voting rights were to be restricted to white people and Maoris only. The founders had assumed from the beginning that New Zealand would join the Federation, but they also knew that white New Zealanders were unwilling to see Maoris as lessers. Therefore, they were unable to restrict the franchise to white people only.

Given that the Australian representatives were willing to go to such lengths to accommodate the colony of New Zealand, they were surprised by the decision of the New Zealand representatives to not join the Federation. It seemed obvious that, as all the other British colonies in the Southeastern corner of the world were joining together, New Zealand would follow suit. But they did not.

Although the century that has passed since then has seen the thousands of kilometres between us reduced to a few hours in a plane, the Mistake of 1901 has never been repealed. Australia and New Zealand have continued to insist on their own differences, despite that no differences are apparent to outsiders. Although the whole world sees us as one, we do not – at least not officially.

To be fair, there was little pressure to unite while the West was so far ahead of any competitors. Even as recently as 1980, the combined Anzac economy was greater than that of China (according to World Bank figures). India and Indonesia were even further behind. The possibility that these countries could ever get it together enough to pose a military threat to us seemed remote.

Because China was so poor in 1980, they had a much greater potential for further development than Australia and New Zealand had. As such, their economic growth over the last 40 years has been much greater than ours. Over the last 40 years, China has transformed itself from an Africa-tier level of poverty to having a higher GDP per capita than either Argentina or Iran. The total Chinese economy is now over seven times the size of the Anzac one.

Currently, the Indonesian economy is smaller than that of the Anzac Empire, reflecting the fact that their GDP per capita is less than a twelfth of ours (some $4,000 per year). However, if they also underwent a 40-year stretch of relentless turbocharged economic development, as China did, then their economy would become five times bigger. And that would be a power right on our doorstep.

These growing Asian powers present us with a dilemma. The easy dominance that Australia and New Zealand has taken for granted for two centuries no longer applies. It’s no longer certain that the other Anglo powers have enough spare resources to keep the South Asian sealanes open. If not, then the burden falls necessarily on us.

Some have suggested a “Big Australia” in response to these challenges. This strategy involves opening the borders to all kinds of immigration, social consequences be damned. But there’s an easier way to add five million people to the population of Australia: welcome New Zealand into the Anzac Federation.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently mooted the idea of open borders between New Zealand and Australia, arguing that such a measure would help restart the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic was over. He is entirely correct, as is evidenced by the fact that previous measures to integrate the two economies have resulted in increased wealth. However, open borders don’t go far enough.

The Anzac Empire needs to unite to meet the challenges of this century, one in which the continued Anglo dominance of the seas might not endure. New Zealand needs to formally become part of the natural ruling power of the Southeast corner of the world stage.

We must accept the federalisation imperative.

Becoming one, united Anzac Empire would necessitate a change of thinking for New Zealanders. We are used to thinking of ourselves as a small, isolated and meaningless part of the world occupying a tiny corner of the world. A united Anzac Empire would belong to the second tier of world powers – with a future as a first tier power beckoning.

This realisation is perhaps best conveyed in raw numbers. As of 2019, Australian GDP sits at $1,376 billion (USD), while New Zealand GDP sits at $204 billion. The Australian population is 25,500,000, while the New Zealand population is 4,800,000. The Australian land area is 7,682,300 and the New Zealand land area is 263,310.

Therefore, the Anzac Empire would have a GDP of $1,580 billion, making it the 13th largest economy in the world, just behind Russia. It would have a population of over 30,000,000 and a land area of 7,945,600 square kilometres. Having won 17 Nobel Prizes, it would belong to the same cultural and intellectual tier as nations like Italy and the Netherlands.

Perhaps most importantly, the Anzac Empire would have the world’s single largest Exclusive Economic Zone. The EEZ of Australia is over 10 million square kilometres, and that of New Zealand over 4 million. The combined EEZ of 14 million square kilometres would be larger than that of America. This fact underlines the degree to which the Anzac Empire will be a maritime power.

Commensurately, the first priority of the updated federation must be to assure our territorial independence through developing a number of Trident-style nuclear submarines. An arsenal of a few hundred submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles would ensure the Anzac Empire’s place among the top rung of global powers, and safeguard our future prosperity.

The second priority must be to ensure that each province of the empire have its own culture. The spirit of the Anzac people is one of independence – therefore, the federal government must govern with a light touch. The vastness of the Empire must be recognised, and this means that the constituent states must be allowed to develop unique cultures that impress the others.

The Anzac Empire is today where Rome was in 300 B.C. We have enough might and culture to impress barbarians and minor nations, but our time in the Sun is yet to arrive. If, as seems true, the Spear of Destiny has leapt from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it means that the Anzac Empire is as entitled as anyone else to contest for the leadership of the world. Let us lay the foundations for it then.

An Anzac Empire based around the Tasman Sea, and with the expanses of the Australian continent as imperial possessions, would inevitably become one of the world’s foremost powers. Just an inevitably, it seems like it’s fate for Australia and New Zealand to combine in this manner. The Mistake of 1901 shall be repealed, and this will loose the Anzac Empire upon the world stage.

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!