A Multipolar World Order, Racial Totems And A New Political Dispensation

By DIE SIENER

The argument for political globalisation is the argument for a one-world government. Whether or not the nature of such a global government is totalitarian or democratic has never been put up for public debate. We all assume that it would have to be democratic, but it is only the gullible among us that honestly believe that to be the case. The more cynical, or rather, sensible, just assume that some posse of faceless elites have decided that they are inherently superior to the rest of us and therefore have the right to rule over us.

It does seem reasonable that the only viable global state is undoubtedly going to be one based on dictatorial practices. The major obstacle is the inherent differences between racial totems which will see internal conflicts multiply as there are only so many resources to share between a global citizenry of nearly eight billion souls. A genuinely global governance system would need massive suppression of the populace to ensure resources are shared equitably.

It would also create a small and very well-paid ecosystem of crony enforcers and overlords and leave the masses without any legal recourse. The most optimistic outlook would be that any system implemented to suppress eight billion people would tire itself out very quickly.

We should not forget that this whole utopian vision is one created by western elites immersed in Abrahamic sympathies. The Chinese, the Indians, the Africans and funnily enough most of the European populations do not share this supremacist dream.

What is the connection between the Abrahamites and global imperialism? Well, the Bible details the Abrahamic dream of global supremacy thoroughly. The covenants made with Abraham and all his spiritual successors follow the same basic mantra, Psalms 2:7-9, illustrates this well:

I will proclaim the decree: Yahweh said to me, “You are my son; today I became your father. Ask of me, and I will make the goyim your inheritance; the whole wide world will be your possession. You will break them with an iron rod, shatter them like a clay pot.”

Further Abrahamic texts in the so-called “New” Testament and plenty of Koranic text also make for excellent reference material. The bottom line is that global supremacy has been a pipe dream of the Abrahamites since time immemorial, it underpins the very premise of their faith.

All Abrahamic ideology is based on a tribalistic wet dream of supremacism. “I” over “thee”. Moreover, an adherent has all the moral and ethical certainties which go hand in hand with a personal deity, such as Theism postulates. A deity which elevates his followers over all others, and blesses them with an abundance of women and other material resources.

It is silver magic at its best. Luckily for the non-believers, this dystopian attempt to create a new Babylon is failing miserably. Simple viruses and occultic meme magic have proven significant adversaries to these worshippers of Moloch. They will continue to falter against the approaching dawn.

The world order which these Western elites are building is deteriorating faster than what they can rebuild. The USA, the best example of regional governance ever implemented, is fractured, unlike ever before. The frictions that led to the 1861 civil war do not even come close to the massive ethnic Balkanisation that happened across the USA since the introduction of the civil rights act of 1964 and the subsequent immigration changes. The federated United States is exponentially accelerating towards its own destruction.

In the old world, the European Union is the most successful attempt at a regional government since the USA. For a time it looked like a peaceful Europe may exist. However, the EU has continued to morph into an authoritarian and imperialistic bureaucracy, filled to the brim with unelected and unaccountable tyrants. Large parts of the European population are extremely disgruntled, and events such as Brexit are merely a taste of things to come.

There is also the damage done by the enforcement of globalist ideologies such as forced cultural and racial diversity to consider. The Multikulti tyranny is gradually erasing any form of natural diversity and replacing it with a cheap “one size fits all” cultural substitute. The backlash will be mind-blowing, grab some popcorn and strap in because some real “Day of the Rope” action is bound to happen in this part of the world.

Various other attempts at regional governance are flaccid in all aspects. The African Union is incapable of affecting even the most basic consensus on policy decisions. The reality is that on most days, it is just an excuse for corrupt dictators to squander the tax money of their hard-working citizens in Addis Ababa’s whorehouses.

The globalised economy is supposedly steered by superregional organisations such as the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organisation. However, interest groups, most notably the Abrahamic money lending cartels and their corporate spawn in Europe and the US misuse these organisations for global hegemony.

The discriminatory voting system in the UN is still based on a western and imperialist ecosystem. Attempts to reform it has only led to the UN diminishing in stature year after year. It’s an expensive joke for the most part. One country (or ethnic group) legitimately raises an issue (Palestinians or Kurds for example), interest groups align, nothing happens.

Now for the good news. Rival ideological options are starting to emerge globally. Many are not clearly defined yet, but these reactionary ideologies are leading the daily assault on the status quo. Millions of lay and educated individuals on the historic left and right are going through a transformative phase which has seen the emergence of new and disruptive ideologies across the world.

Revolution is again in the air. Some argue that the best outcome of these reactionary ideologies would be a world in which we see a multi-polar world order as opposed to a centralised dictatorship.

It is only sensible that such poles would naturally centre around racial totems. The thick black lines would reappear on the map and power would be given back to the local populations to change them as they feel inclined.

There will be a reversal of globalist Multikulti policies and unfettered economic dominance of a small cabal. The concentration of political and economic power will be dispersed and localised. Natural order would again prevail over supremacist ideologies. Human harmony would be the primary aim of everyday endeavours.

Through the establishment of a genuinely democratic system, people would seek to restore ownership, agency and identity in a secure environment. A complete renaissance in the aspects of group and individual rights must follow. This renewed Magna Carta will require the establishment of a new form of political theory to rival the basic tenants of globalism. It should be fundamentally altruistic, rejecting any avarice and supremacism. Human spiritual fulfillment should be at its core.

As occultists, we believe in the natural order, in dharma. We understand the need to “uphold the world” as part of our esoteric practices. We must, therefore, advocate for sensible change in the exoteric traditions of the societies into which we manifest. If we are to see society change for the better, we need to instruct people according to the primary nature of their spirits.

Racial totems are a somewhat obscure topic rarely discussed among occultists. An understanding of racial totems is necessary to complete a more holistic view of reality and our goal of a stable and natural order (dharma).

Let us first consider a moral argument against the empirical science of race. Scientific racism in all its forms remains a repulsive child of modernism and the epistemological belief in empiricism. The measuring of noses and the classification of peoples based only on their natural expressions lead to unnecessary suffering, all in the service of greed and selfishness.

This moral argument against the scientific classification of humanity should, however, not interfere with our ability to perceive the natural temperamental and spiritual expressions as found within humanity.

Simply spend some time to observe the differences in temperaments of different human populations. A good example is to look at non-integrated immigrant communities with widely different racial totems. These immigrant communities seldom adopt the culture of their new hosts wholeheartedly. Wherever smaller groups do this out of necessity, it quickly disappears when the group achieves a certain percentage of the overall population. The immigrant community then reverts to a culture based on their inherent temperaments and friction between the totem powers escalates.

This process is a fundamental law of Spirit that needs to be understood; the Great Fractal splits into various components, each having an overriding or dominant characteristic. All resultant expressions of the fractal along that line will then follow the same characteristic pattern.

Human populations which share common human ancestors would naturally live more harmoniously within an environment where these characteristics form the status quo. It comes down to the occultic laws of attraction and repulsion.

God truly does express himself differently in different groups. Individuals in one group cannot easily perceive God through the optics of another. This principle is a biological function as much as a sublime mystery. Any form of dharma or social order should seek to minimise this effect as far as possible by preventing it entirely.

A new political dispensation is, therefore, what is needed to overcome this ever approaching tyranny. The specifics of which will be an ongoing discussion, however, laying down a fundamental esoteric law would be a good starting point for some productive discussion.

Let us consider that reality is ultimately a form of two entangled natures. The first nature is one of awakened consciousness or Spirit and the other, the reflection, but more correctly, the reverse, which we simply call un-consciousness or matter-energy.

These two elements fuse to join and manifest reality in an infinite amount of variations but always in a state of balance-seeking. All matter is animated by Spirit, and all Spirit finds expression in matter. Alternatively, as an old maxim states “Quod est inferius, est sicut quod est superius.” This ancient maxim is a key to understanding the Great Fractal and all manifested reality.

If we are to see a stable political system, we must endeavour to model it as near to this principle as possible. Any stability-seeking system will allow for the transmutation of energy from the one extreme to the other and vice versa in a predictable and orderly manner. Both extremes should be able to influence the other freely.

A firm top-down system seems to be the most practical way in which societies in more stable and cultured eras found expression. The simple reason why this worked for so long is that the magi had tremendous influence over those societies.

Kings under heredity monarchical systems may have ruled by decree; however, it was God that allowed them that power, the magi that revealed that power and the people who were the receptacle of that power.

Once a ruler forsook natural order, destiny would step in and relieve the said monarch of his power in short order. This lack of duty towards his subjects would lead to the magi forsaking him, and God forsaking him. He was then left vulnerable and without a mandate. His enemies, or even his close subordinates, would then capitalise on this state and relieve him of his rule.

Any elective system seems to be a superior option, especially if a robust bottom-top / top-bottom mechanism is put in place. A genuinely responsive system of democratic rule has thus far been elusive since there no technology to build it on. In today’s world, where even the poorest of citizens have a smartphone, an interactive democracy or elective monarchy could quickly become a possibility.

The rise of a global patchwork of localised states, based on a tiered elective and super responsive system of governance, would dramatically increase competition. It would remove the burden of superfluous trade and production, and increase the absolute quality of the human experience all while upholding the values of our racial totems against Abrahamic supremicism.

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!

Opposing Islam Is Left-Wing, Not Right-Wing

With the rapid changes that have occurred in the West over recent decades, many people have been forced to make quick strategic decisions. In some cases, grievous errors have been made. In other cases, great amounts of complete and utter bullshit have been spoken. This article looks at one egregious example.

On 11 January this year, Radio New Zealand ran a smear attack against Right Minds columnist Dieuwe de Boer, calling him a “far-right activist”. This was part of a report detailing how de Boer had been raided by Police in connection with a recently-prohibited firearm part (none was found). This hit piece led to a couple of complaints to the New Zealand Media Council.

Beholden to the same globalist corporate interests as the rest of the New Zealand media, the New Zealand Media Council ruled in favour of Radio New Zealand. In a decision that the Marxists at the Human Rights Commission must have applauded, they declared that it was not unreasonable to use the term ‘far-right’ to describe de Boer on account of that he was “openly critical of Islam”.

As usual when it comes to Governmental proclamations, the truth is closer to the opposite of what they say it is. In this instance, the truth is that open criticism of Islam is left-wing, not right-wing.

Islam is practically no different, in either ideology or action, to the far-right-wing Christian conservatives that the left has always opposed. Just like Christian conservatives, the vast majority of Muslims oppose homosexuality, oppose women’s liberation, hate non-believers and oppose the use of spiritual sacraments.

There are 12 countries in the world that currently punish homosexuality with death: Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. All of them are Muslim-majority countries.

The vast majority of Muslims support punitive measures against homosexuals. Koranic passages such as 26:165 and 29:28 describe homosexuals as evil, and declare that they should be destroyed. Hadiths such as Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447 are no less horrifying. This one cites Muhammad himself as saying: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”

These attitudes and beliefs are firmly right-wing conservative. The religious sentiments that inspire Muslims to persecute homosexuals are almost identical to the religious sentiments that inspired Christians to persecute homosexuals in decades gone by.

Hatred for homosexuals is not the only thing shared by Muslims and conservative Christians. Both have taken measures to oppress and enslave women. Both have taken measures to persecute non-believers. Both have extremely relaxed attitudes to child abuse. Both have imprisoned users of spiritual sacraments.

In all of these instances, Muslims and Christians have been opposed by the left. It was primarily the left that fought to change the laws that were persecuting homosexuals. It was primarily the left that fought to criminalise child abuse. It’s primarily the left fighting now to end the persecution of cannabis and psilocybin users.

Therefore, opposing the attitudes and beliefs held by Muslims is left-wing.

It’s left-wing to oppose Islam because Islam itself is far-right. In fact, Islam is so compatible with the far-right that there was even a Muslim division of the Waffen-SS. The 13th “Handschar” Division was made up of German officers and volunteer troops, mostly Muslim, mostly recruited in Bosnia with assistance from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Nazism and Islam are highly compatible on account of that they are both hate-fueled supremacist ideologies that share a common enemy in the Jew. If Nazis are the kind of far-right extremists who we should all be scared of, and if Muslims fight side-by-side with Nazis out of shared ideological sentiments, then Islam itself is far-right. This is basic logic.

De Boer opposes Islam, not because Islam is left-wing, but because the Christian vs. Islam conflict is part of the interminable internecine warfare that Abrahamism has inflicted upon the world. Everywhere there is Abrahamism, there is war, whether war against non-believers or war against heretics. Christianity and Islam have been at war for almost 1,400 years, and de Boer is merely playing his part in that.

One point needs to be emphasised, however: just because there is an internal conflict within Abrahamism, one that sees Christians and Muslims fighting with each other, doesn’t mean that anyone criticising one particular faction of Abrahamism becomes “right-wing”. Christianity is itself divided into Catholic and Protestant factions, but no serious person would claim that a Protestant who opposes Catholicism on account of Catholicism’s barbaric attitudes towards spiritual sacraments is ‘far-right’.

The left would like to claim Muslim voters for their own on account of that Muslims tend to be non-white and outside the Establishment power structure. But neither of those things is close to sufficient. Homosexuals, women and users of spiritual sacraments are already outside the power structure – therefore anyone who hates these people is in service of the right wing.

It is left wing to stand against doctrines that call for the subjugation and oppression of homosexuals, women, outsiders and users of spiritual sacraments. This is especially true when the subjugators claim to be acting in the name of the God, and it goes double when they specifically claim that it is their destiny to rule over the rest of the planet.

Therefore it is left wing to stand against Islam.

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 Do Pedophiles Keep Getting Away With It?

Australia was shocked yesterday by news that Cardinal Pell’s five convictions for child sex offences were overturned by the Australian High Court. This news was hard to believe on account that Pell’s lawyer, Robert Richter, had admitted during the trial that Pell sexually penetrated a child under 16. Pell getting away scot free with what he did is an echo of Jimmy Savile a decade earlier. This article examines why they keep getting away with it.

No honest person doubts that Pell is a pedophile. The High Court statement didn’t declare Pell innocent – it simply stated that “There is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof.” The father of one of the boys who had claimed to have been raped by Pell will continue to pursue a civil case.

Pell’s lawyer admitted in court that his client sexually penetrated a child – the defence hinged on the arguments that the acts were “plain” and “vanilla”. Several other men have claimed to have been sexually abused by Pell, and the Cardinal was involved in years of covering up child sex abuse by other Australian bishops.

Perhaps most tellingly, Pell used to live together with one of Australia’s worst pedophiles, Gerald Ridsdale. Not only did they live together for 12 months in a clergy house, but Pell came to one of Ridsdale’s trials, walked side-by-side with him into court and played down the seriousness of his abuse.

As was the case with Jimmy Savile, Pell looks likely to get away scot free with what he did. Despite the fact that his predilections are widely known (they call him a ‘rockspider’ in Australia because he likes to get into little cracks), and despite the fact that his lawyer admitted that Pell sexually penetrated a child under 16, the High Court overturned his conviction on a technicality, as some predicted they would.

So how can this have happened?

The usual story we’re told about politics is that the political hierarchy is mostly made up of fair and honest men and women, who commit to a hard and stressful job out of a desire to make their communities better. Although there may be a few bad eggs in politics, these people are rare, just clever tricksters who have managed to sneak through the net. Fundamentally, the hierarchy is honest and made up out of good people.

The truth is that the political hierarchy is very close to the kind of hierarchies that exist in a state of Nature. Only in criminal gangs – the underworld equivalent of political parties – does one find anything closer to the kind of dominance hierarchy that exists among, for example, chimpanzees.

In a state of Nature, fighting for dominance rewards a capacity for cruelty. The crude equation is that one person will respect another person to a degree equal to the total distance between how much harm that person is capable of causing and how much help that person is capable of offering.

Being willing and able to cause harm is one thing. Creating the perception that you are willing and able to cause harm is another. This latter ability is called ‘intimidation’ by most people, but an esotericist might call it black magic. This is, crudely speaking, the art of causing others to conform to your will by intimidating them.

Raping a child is one of the most evil acts that a person can do. Therefore, anyone who does it, and especially anyone who does it serially, is generally considered an evil person – at least by normal people. Most pedophiles aren’t interested in manipulating other people, beyond the child they’re abusing, but those that are are correctly understood to be a kind of black magician.

A normal person will, upon learning that another person is a child rapist, shun that other out of contempt and disgust. A black magician, by contrast, will esteem them on account of the belief that they are powerful. This is a completely different way of thinking to that of normal people, but it has to be understood if our ruling class is to be understood.

When a deeply evil individual arises, the sort of person who becomes a serial child rapist or similar, other black magicians don’t abhor them like normal people do. They worship the power of will that is necessary to do something like rape dozens of children while claiming to be a man of God. Such actions don’t seem like shameless hypocrisy; they seem like incredible feats of pure will. There’s something almost reptilian about it.

Therefore, other black magicians exult such evil people, and take actions to ensure that those people get away with the harm they cause. Savile got away with what he did because of the regard in which he was held by other evil people who worked in the Justice System. These people conspired to discourage investigation, to intimidate complainants and to destroy evidence.

This explains why other black magicians rushed to Pell’s defence. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who had played an instrumental role in the Iraq War (and therefore in the deaths of one million people), even went as far as writing a glowing character reference for the Cardinal, who he had been close friends with for 30 years.

Mass murderers like Howard don’t consider other evil men, like mass child rapists, repulsive. They consider them impressive in a badass way, like a person would think of a professional rugby player or heavyweight boxer. So when one of them gets accused of raping a child, they naturally come to their defence.

The ruling classes of our societies are much, much more tolerant of evil than the average citizen is. This is partially because they have to be on account of that they’re surrounded by it all the time. But it’s mostly because, in this grossly degraded age, our ruling classes are themselves evil. Our dominance hierarchies reflect the spiritual nature of the world – and right now, that nature is one of cruelty.

The reason why pedophiles keep getting away with it is because others of their kind cover for them. Not only other pedophiles, but other black magicians. These people understand that a child rapist on the loose causes an incredible amount of fear and suffering, and that those energies give them power. Therefore, they perpetuate them to the extent that they are able.

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