The Four Elemental Spiritual Forces

Various physical theories exist to explain the phenomena of the natural world. Far fewer theories exist to explain the phenomena of the spiritual world. This very basic essay seeks to explain the four elemental spiritual forces that operate on people’s lives.

This essay contends that there are two factors of utmost importance when it comes to determining the true nature of any spiritual force.

The first is whether the force causes a person to raise the frequency of their consciousness or to lower the frequency of their consciousness. Forces that raise the frequency of consciousness cause a person to act more like Socrates. Forces that lower the frequency of consciousness cause a person to act more like a wild beast.

The second is whether the force comes from an internal or an external energy. It’s not quite as simple as saying that internal forces come from the soul and external forces are material. This is because there are spiritual forces outside of oneself, on account that all of us are a fragment of consciousness that God cast into the Great Fractal for the sake of entertainment.

The best kind of spiritual force is that which rises up from within. This is also the hardest to harness. In principle, there are two major ways that a person can generate a spiritual force within themselves that takes them to a higher place. The first is meditation and the second is spiritual sacrament use.

Meditation works as a kind of alchemy, through which a dumb animal that identifies with its body transmutes itself into a fragment of consciousness that sees the body as something subordinate to its true essence. As the Bhagavad Gita states: “the self is not killed when the body is killed.” Through meditation one can distinguish the true self from the false self.

Spiritual sacrament use is also a kind of alchemy, only it’s more like being struck by lightning. With judicious psychedelic use it’s possible to transmute one’s soul from that of a beaten-down wretch to that of an angel of the Sun. ‘Psychedelic’ means ‘soul-revealing’, and many atheists have been transformed into spiritual people through a dose of psilocybin, mescaline or LSD.

Another positive spiritual force is that which pulls up from above. This is when a person is able to draw inspiration to raise their frequency from their environment. Sometimes climbing a mountain can lead to the sense of awe that leads people to believe in divinity. Others have drawn such inspiration from great works of art or architecture.

Being pulled up from above does not necessarily mean that God pulls people back to Godself. As mentioned elsewhere, the Will of God is to entertain the gods. Life is not a matter of learning or overcoming anything (if it was, God would have created us already learned). But the gods can be entertained by watching humans otherwise lost in the darkness becoming able to “see the light” and become spiritual.

The most dangerous force is that which sinks down from within. This happens when a person gives in to their bestial impulses. The soul takes on a lower frequency when a person chooses to act like a lower animal. It becomes darker and heavier. The face of the person often transfigures to reflect the inner nastiness.

Contrary to the usual Abrahamic moralising, sinking down because of inner factors is not necessarily a bad thing. The most important thing is to entertain the gods. Therefore, it might be correct on some occasions to indulge in the sloth, gluttony or lust of the lower frequencies. However, people should always be aware that, in so indulging, they are playing with danger.

The fourth force is that which pulls down from below. This is described in various ways. Some call it the Matrix, some the Control System, others Angra Mainyu. It consists primarily of threats and terrors. In principle, anything that depresses, demoralises, horrifies or humilates will pull a person’s frequency of consciousness down towards the bestial level.

In our unfortunate modern lives, where we are materially blessed and spiritually impoverished, almost the entire political establishment can be described as a spiritual force that rips people down. As readers of 1984 will know, the control system is incentivised to make the population suffer because suffering makes them easier to control.

Mastery of these forces means that one can rise up the Great Masculine Axis at will.

Failure to master these forces will mean that one gets dragged back and forth through the Great Fractal by powers beyond one’s comprehension.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, 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, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Politics Of The 21st Century Have To Be Grounded In Known Psychological Science

Politics has been, since the beginning, a seat-of-the-pants enterprise. Although the West has produced Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli and others, the modern Western leader reads nothing of these men, preferring to just make everything up as they go along. But in the age of advanced science, it’s possible to have a political philosophy grounded in empirical observation.

More specifically, it has to be grounded in known psychological science. Modern psychological science gives us insights into human nature that were completely unavailable to philosophers in times past. Aristotle knew nothing of sociobiology. A sociobiologist standing on Aristotle’s shoulders could give us a vision of our own nature that was broader and deeper than ever before.

A failure to understand human nature is the common theme running through all failed political ideologies.

Communism failed because its architects failed to understand that people are always at least a little bit selfish, and cannot simply be conditioned to behave otherwise by propaganda. A system set up on the basis that people are perfectly altruistic will inevitably collapse into corruption and widespread distrust when rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

Capitalism is failing because its architects failed to understand that people would rather drop out of the system than get worked to death paying for rents and taxes. A system set up on the basis that workers can be employed for 50 hour weeks without the ability to own homes, yet will still have the motivation to work, also doesn’t match reality.

Historically, political philosophy has not been grounded on an accurate view of human nature, because there was no formalised science of understanding human nature. Machiavelli might have been correct when he said that human nature doesn’t change from time to place, but not enough people listen to Machiavelli.

Today’s psychological science, however, can predict human behaviour with frightening accuracy. The Amazon, Google and FaceBook algorithms can predict your next purchase before you even think about it. They can tell you who you’re going to vote for before you’ve even decided. It’s a thousand times more advanced than the knowledge Karl Marx would have had access to.

A modern political philosophy must be grounded in what we now know about human nature. This means: grounded in a psychological science that has a particular emphasis on man’s origin as a naked ape (hat tip to Desmond Morris).

Fundamentally, such an approach understands that the human animal evolved social structures as part of the battle for resources that all animals must engage in. It has to be made explicit that political questions are usually just questions of resource distribution, the same questions that man-ape chieftains would have wrestled with even before civilisation. Unfair resource distribution stirs up very deep, primal instincts that can rapidly become destructive. Therefore it’s important to get politics right.

It has to be taken seriously, and that means scientifically.

The curious thing is that a properly scientific approach appears to favour neither the left nor the right.

Developmental psychology tells us that hitting children, and most other forms of corporal punishment, have extremely bad outcomes for those children. There are strong correlations between getting hit as a child and ending up with antisocial personality disorders or suicidal depression. Hitting kids is right up there with fucking them as one of the worst things you can do. Therefore it ought not to be legal.

Developmental psychology also suggests that societies would benefit from making life less financially stressful for mothers of newborns. In America, where it’s sink or swim, mothers of newborns are often put under extreme financial stress. This leads to much higher rates of child abuse and neglect in comparison to, say, the Scandinavian countries, where mothers of newborns receive adequate financial aid. The end result is more mentally damaged people. So a slight tax increase, with the money invested into early child care, is likely to pay for itself many times over.

Such findings might favour leftist policies, but other findings don’t.

Psychometrics tell us that intelligence is about 80% genetic, and therefore education can only raise it to a limited degree. So importing people from countries where the average IQ is 85, and expecting their kids to turn out the same as ours just because we put them in the same schools, is a recipe for national suicide.

Western immigration politics since World War II has been based on the assumption that all human groups are genetically the same, therefore can be exchanged for each other like so many replaceable parts. Psychometrics has given us a blackpill that we need to swallow: many populations with average IQs under 100 are never going to adjust to modern Western life. We have to stop importing them.

Evolutionary psychology says that multiculturalism is bound to fail because people stop co-operating once they no longer have meaningful bonds of kinship with their surrounding population. So large, multicultural cities like New York, Los Angeles or London could have been predicted to have ended up soulless free-for-alls, as they did.

Evolutionary psychology also tells us that individuals within the same family can vary greatly in IQ thanks to genetic recombination. Even if a group of parents all had IQs of 100, some 2% of their offspring would have IQs above 130, and a similar number would have IQs below 70. Their children might have a mean IQ of 100, but individuals will vary a lot from this average.

This natural variation in individual intelligence means that we cannot have, for instance, families in which every member was expected to become a doctor. Neither can we have racial exclusions such that members of certain races were banned from, or restricted to, certain professions. Such arrangements would be monstrously inefficient given natural variation in intelligence.

Ethology shows us that many different animals use drugs to get high, therefore a War on Drugs is unnatural. Altering the contents of consciousness through the use of psychoactives seems to be as natural as anything else is, perhaps reflecting the Elementalist belief that the world was dreamed up to entertain the gods in the first place. Banning the use of drugs, then, is as futile as banning sex. People will do it anyway.

Grounding a new vision of politics in psychological science could solve many problems. First and foremost it would solve the problems arising from basing a political philosophy on an inaccurate conception of human nature.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Notes From The Second Intifada

I lived in Europe during the Second Intifada, which took place from 2000-2005. Although the Intifada did not take place in Europe it nonetheless had a major effect. This was partly because of the large numbers of Palestinian refugees in Sweden, where I lived. It was also because of the deep interest in foreign affairs that my then-acquaintances possessed.

Being a double outsider – someone who was not only outside the Israel-Palestine conflict but also outside Europe – I had an unusual vantage point. Few people in Sweden were familiar with New Zealanders, and so people were more open with me than they would have been with most other nationalities. This meant that people told me all sorts of things they would normally have kept secret.

Not having ever been to the Middle East, I didn’t have any direct knowledge of the conflict. Therefore, it was impossible for me to take a side in it. But I was able to glean direct knowledge of the psychology of the participants through meeting so many of them in Europe.

What Westerners usually don’t understand is that Muslims believe, with absolute certainty, that their religion is destined to rule over the entire world one day. They believe this like Westerners believe that the Sun will one day swallow the Earth, or in the Heat Death of the Universe, i.e. it’s essentially never questioned.

The difference is that Muslims also believe that this conquest is a moral imperative that outweighs all others. Any action taken to further the Islamic conquest of the world is morally acceptable. Any action taken to hinder the Islamic conquest of the world is morally unacceptable. All other moral beliefs are secondary.

Therefore, all Muslims supported all actions against the “Zionist entity”. Any amount of murder, rape or mutilation was acceptable as long as it was directed against that enemy. No act of cruelty against that enemy was even a crime. For the Muslims in Europe, news that some Israelis had been killed was like for a New Zealander to hear that the All Blacks had won. It represented a triumph in the great battle.

None of this is to say that the Israelis are any better.

The Israelis have entirely internalised Rabbi Yaacov Perrin’s notion that “A million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” For them, only other Jews have value. Everyone else is at best a tool, at worst an enemy. Understanding this extreme hostility to outsiders is necessary to understand the Palestine-Israel issue.

In 2001, when I first came to Europe, the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre was still fresh in the minds of many. People knew how the massacre was celebrated in Israel. Thus, any talk of the Israelis being blameless was nonsense. In contrast to the Anglo world, where Jews are considered morally perfect, in Europe they’re generally considered imperialist invaders.

This extreme xenophobia on the part of the Jews means their behaviour is almost identical to that of their enemy, despite the Jews’ higher IQs. Just as with the Muslims, the Jews completely ignore any atrocities committed by their own side. The killing of any Palestinians is forgotten before the bodies are even cold. Also just as with the Muslims, the Jews expect you to take their side and will hate your guts if you don’t.

Jews believe they are the teachers of mankind. The concept of tikkun olam means that they consider humanity a wretched mass of brainless animals until perfected by Jewish domination. Again as with the Muslims, and their beliefs in their own superiority, this idea is never questioned. If you, as an outsider, disagree with it, you are either stupid or evil.

To not be a Jewish supremacist is to be a Nazi. In the Jewish mind there are only those two categories. Either you worship Jews as divine and perfect educators of the sinful human race, or you’re a Nazi that demands their total destruction. Yet again as with the Muslims, there is no middle ground. George W Bush’s dictum that “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” applies to both sides.

Having observed such attitudes, I knew by the end of 2003 that there is zero hope of any peaceful settlement between the two sides. One will eventually wipe the other out. Any talk of peace merely delays this inevitability.

Many Westerners have been surprised by all of the pro-Palestine/Hamas protests in recent weeks. Evidently there exists a widespread delusion that the Islamic refugees the West has let in over the past 20 years must feel an obligation to integrate, and to leave the petty squabbles of their homelands behind. In reality, they (like the Israelis) are doing everything they can to drag the entire rest of the world into the conflict. Both sides are masters of propaganda, and shamelessly pump it into the collective consciousness.

In summary, the Second Intifada taught me that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a problem that can never be peacefully solved. Both sides are full of hate to a degree that is incomprehensible to any normal Westerner. Neither side has enough basic humanity to even desire peace, let alone achieve it. And consequently they will kill each other until only one side is left.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Old Poverty vs. New Poverty

There is a popular distinction between Old Money and New Money.

Old Money is what everyone is familiar with. It’s what you have when you’re a prince or an aristocrat. It’s when you grow up learning how to manage an estate, rather than learning skills to trade for a wage. Old Money is when you have a pedigree. Most of your ancestors did well and most of your family are doing well. There are monuments/parks/buildings/roads named after your relations.

New Money is what you have when your parents escaped from the working class. Maybe one started a business and got rich, maybe one became a sports star, maybe one won the lottery. Maybe your parents are old enough that they could escape the working class by studying and working hard. Probably the rest of your family is poor, and you might have a lot of criminal cousins.

A behavioural difference is apparent. New Money is much flashier and ostentatious than Old Money. This is a function of New Money’s underlying insecurity – the inescapable suspicion that they achieved their position through luck, and that it won’t last. Being insecure, New Money is more likely to bully. It lacks grace, dignity, gravitas and the other qualities associated with good breeding.

Old Money is secure. Old Money knows that if it fucks up, some uncle or great-aunt will be there to provide a cushy job for a quick rebound. Even in cases where help from close relatives isn’t enough, it can usually rely on the reputation of the family name to seal a good deal. And if that doesn’t work, Old Money can always rely on the qualities of their breeding to see them through.

When the economy expands, the central struggle is Old Money vs. New Money. This occurs when the descending aristocracy, on the way down, meets the ascending merchantry. This is the same as what George Orwell called the High vs. the Middle. It’s a natural historical division that most people know about.

When the economy contracts, however, you have Old Poverty vs. New Poverty.

For example, I’m Old Poverty. I’m used to being poor. I was raised by a single mother on welfare, and although my grandparents were great people they were always broke. These grandparents brought me up on stories about the Great Depression, and how they learned to “make do”. Many of the stories began with “we didn’t have a…”

Old Poverty makes it easy to live on a Student Allowance or other benefit, as it usually isn’t much less money than you grew up on anyway. You naturally know how to make do when you’ve been raised by grandparents who were also poor. Poverty doesn’t cause as much anxiety when it’s the natural state, so is not resented as much. Actually having money, on the other hand, is seen as a bonus and is not taken for granted.

In coming years, we will see a lot more of a phenomenon that has hitherto been rare: New Poverty. This has never previously existed in any large number because the economy has kept expanding. But in coming decades, as we hit the limits of growth, we will have economic contractions.

New Poverty is when your parents were able to buy a house and raise a family on their wages – and you can’t. It’s when your parents keep asking you when you’re going to give them grandchildren, and you have to keep explaining that the maths doesn’t add up. It’s when you hit 40 and still haven’t paid off your student loan. It’s when you’re constantly asking yourself how things turned out so bad.

New Poverty is different to someone born into money who crashes out through their own bad decisions. New Poverty is when you do everything (or almost everything) right and still end up renting. You study hard, you don’t get a criminal record, you don’t do Class As, and you still find yourself making $60,000 a year and needing a $900,000 mortgage.

It remains to be seen how Western society deals with the phenomenon of widespread New Poverty.

One of the features of New Poverty is that it’s likely to lead to a massive increase in dissent. Not having expected to become poor, many of those falling from the middle class into New Poverty will become resentful about their miserable station. Already there is a widespread incel movement in the West comprised of men who demand the very best.

In the past, the coming of New Poverty portended revolution. Old Poverty can handle being poor, but New Poverty tends to become bitter. So in times when middle-class or upper-middle-class people are cast down into the working class, we can expect them to fight to get back to their original position. Here it’s worth recalling that many revolutionaries started out in the minor aristocracy.

If we don’t get revolution, we might get what Aldous Huxley predicted – a world where everyone is zombified by pharmaceuticals. Maybe the vast masses will be paralysed by a matrix of screen propaganda, prescription pills and long working hours, lacking the energy to revolt against the technologically-empowered ruling class.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!