The Globalist Obsession With Co-Governance

Observant Anzacs have noticed something very suspicious in recent years. Both the Australian and the New Zealand Governments have embarked on a push towards “co-governance”. This is a poorly-defined concept that manifests in boondoggles like the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament in Australia and Three Waters in New Zealand. This article explains what’s going on.

Like most inexplicably popular political narratives, the narrative that we need co-governance is pushed by globalist forces. Their ownership of the apparatus of propaganda enables them to get everyone talking about whatever issues those globalist forces desire. What they want is people talking about identity politics, and what they don’t want is people talking about class.

So the narrative doing the rounds in Anzac political circles at the moment is that there is an urgent need for some kind of “reconciliation” between the filthy, thieving white invaders and the peaceful, innocent brown and black natives. Without this reconciliation, we can only expect more violence and social discord.

This narrative is also being pushed in North America, proving its globalist origins. In Japan and Korea also, the globalist forces that try to make white Westerners ashamed of their ancestors are pushing the same narratives. Making people hate their ancestors, and by extension their families and nations, is a core strategy of subversion. People who hate their ancestors won’t fight to defend their families and nations.

Predictably, the globalist class pushes two truly shitty subnarratives and demands that we plebs choose between them when, in reality, for us to make any choice is to lose. This is their modus operandi, as seen previously in the “Christianity vs. Atheism” false dilemma (previously described as The Clown World Fork), the “men vs. women” false dilemma and the “Communism vs. Capitalism” false dilemma.

The two subnarratives we get are “Anti-white vs. racist”. Either you hate white people, or you’re a racist. In practice, this means that if you’re white and you don’t agree with your own disenfranchisement, you’re a racist. Moreover, if you’re brown and don’t agree with the disenfranchisement of whites, you’re a race traitor.

Pushing these subnarratives all but guarantees that the population fights with itself and ignores their globalist oppressors. Every parent knows that if you unfairly favour one child they will inevitably end up fighting with the others who resent them. The same logic applies to nations. Help one subgroup at the expense of others, and those others will attack the subgroup that was helped, while the nation-wreckers sit back and laugh.

The purpose of the push to co-governance is not only to weaken white people (although this is a goal that is thereby achieved) but also to pit them against Maori and Aboriginal people. As with children, all it takes is for Anzac governments to give money and privilege to Maoris and Aborigines that they don’t give to equally poor white people, and the end result will be the people fighting themselves.

Job done.

Revealing the fact that co-governance is not intended to help white people, they are browbeaten into accepting it by having ‘racist!’ screamed at them. If co-governance was beneficial to the nation, it wouldn’t need abuse to sell it – it would sell itself through simple logic. The fact that people get called racist for not agreeing to it is proof that it’s not in their interests.

The subdivision of whites into middle-class oppressors, who are thrust into the spotlight, and a working class, who are forgotten, is a bonus for the globalists. The white middle class understand the privilege of their position, and so fight for the status quo. The working class, the only one capable of producing men of true revolutionary sentiment, are completely disenfranchised and marginalised.

What the globalists are ultimately trying to engineer is a situation where the average working-class white Anzac and the average working-class Maori or Aborigine can look at each other in the street and see an enemy. The more animosity that exists between the constituent elements of the Anzac working class, the less animosity goes upwards to the rulers of that working class.

Divide and conquer – it’s a strategy as old as time.

The absolute last thing they want is a situation where working-class Maoris stand up and say that Maoris and whites need to team up against a corrupt government, as an 83-year old one recently did at Waitangi (before getting dragged away). Anyone who claims that the government is the mutual enemy of the working class is decried as a conspiracy theorist or stochastic terrorist.

Paying reparations on a racial basis will inevitably privilege middle-class Maoris and Aborigines above working-class whites, leading to discord and internal strife. True justice would involve, as VJM Publishing has argued before, that reparations be paid to the working class on the basis that they were the working class. The globalists don’t want that, though – they want us at each other’s throats, which is why they’re pushing the co-governance narrative.

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!

Three Political Axes More Useful Than Left Vs. Right

Mainstream political discourse is hopelessly divided into the two poorly-defined camps of left and right. Leftists believe they’re the good and nice people against the evil and nasty rightists, and rightists believe they’re the good and tough people against the evil and weak leftists. The truth is that both sides are fuckwits.

The left vs. right axis is bullshit anyway – it’s completely arbitrary. Leftists claim to be for the working class, then dump hordes of violent refugees into working-class neighbourhoods. Rightists claim to be conservatives, but have conserved nothing, being more than happy to sell their descendants’ inheritance at discount price.

The truth is that there is a multitude of different axes upon which we can divide people’s political attitudes. The left vs. right axis has been subject to so many lies over the decades that talking about it no longer conveys any useful information. But there are at least three political axes that are still useful.

First: Authoritarian vs. Libertarian.

Mainstream academia likes to pretend that there’s no such thing as left-wing authoritarianism. As anyone who has read The Gulag Archipelago knows, this is bullshit. Left-wingers are more than happy to dictate how others are allowed to live, as evidenced by the creeping spread of cancel culture.

Right-wing authoritarians exist, of course, in the form of theocrats, and centrist ones exist in the form of Nazis. But fighting against one or two of the three kinds, while ignoring the malice of the others, is foolish. All that can be achieved by such an approach is to let authoritarianism in through the backdoor.

George Orwell summarised this insight best when he wrote that “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” As a simple comparison of the American Revolution versus the French and Russian ones makes clear, libertarian revolutions tend to go much better than authoritarian ones.

Second: Globalist vs. Nationalist.

The received wisdom for most of the last 100 years has been that globalisation is inevitable. The reality is that increasing globalisation is dependent on increasing energy use, and we’re running out of the fossil fuels that have provided us with so much cheap energy. As this cheap energy declines, so too will the impetus for globalism, and nationalism will ebb back into fashion.

As with the previous axis, there can be left-wing globalists and right-wing ones, and the same is true of nationalism. A person’s position on the globalist vs. nationalist axis will tell you more about their position on issues such as immigration, free trade and military interventionism than their position on the left vs. right axis.

Globalist interests overlap heavily with authoritarian ones in the age of the World Economic Forum. In any case, there are plenty of left-wing reasons to be a nationalist, and plenty of right-wing reasons to be a globalist. So it’s more indicative just to say if you are a nationalist or a globalist. The truth is that many people use the labels of ‘left’ and ‘right’ to hide the fact that they are globalists.

Third: Materialist vs. Idealist.

People act as if someone’s position on materialism vs. idealism is just a philosophical whimsy, a private matter of faith with no import. The reality is that people who don’t believe in an afterlife behave predictably differently to those who do.

As Erwin Schroedinger realised, people who don’t believe in an afterlife have little moral incentive to act altruistically. If the brain generates consciousness, and if the death of the physical body means the extinction of consciousness, then all possible karmic debt for bad actions is annulled upon the death of the physical body. If no afterlife exists, then death wipes the slate clean.

Because many people who claim to believe in God actually don’t, and are just superstitious, it’s impossible to tell from a person’s assertions if they are an idealist or not. It’s possible to tell from their actions, though – if they act as if it’s possible to truly get away with fucking another person over, chances are they’re a materialist.

In summary, dividing people into left and right is low-IQ, and rarely helps a person make accurate predictions about people’s future behaviour. The left-right spectrum considers globalist neoliberals to be centre-right, and nationalist socialists to be far-right. It considers ultra-conservative theocrats similar to low-tax anarcho-capitalists. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

The next time someone claims to be proudly or staunchly left-wing or right-wing, ignore it, and ask yourself where they stand on the questions of authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, globalism vs. nationalism and materialism vs. idealism. That will tell you much more about them than their position on left vs. right.

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!

Whose Baby Is It Anyway? The Ethics Of Child Upliftment

The case of Baby Will has received international attention in recent weeks. Will needed heart surgery and his parents, quite reasonably, requested that the surgeons use blood that did not contain a Covid vaccine. The logic of Will’s parents was that the Covid vaccines have not been adequately tested, and therefore are not safe to put into an infant. The Government disagreed.

The Government’s position, as it always is, is that the Government decides what you’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. It doesn’t matter if you’re the one that ends up suffering from getting it wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got a postgraduate degree in the topic under discussion. Might makes right, and the Government has the might, therefore the Government is right.

The Government didn’t want Baby Will to be given unvaccinated blood. No official reason was given, but from unofficial statements it appears their chief concern was the logistical expense and hassle of needing to give unvaccinated blood to everyone who wanted it. As is often the case, the Government was reluctant to treat people humanely in case it set a precedent that they would be expected to live up to.

However, there was an impasse. Will’s heart surgery was urgent. Any delay waiting for official permission to use unvaccinated blood risked his death.

Rather than accede to the parents’ request, the Government uplifted Baby Will, sending Police officers in to rip him out of his mother’s arms. The surgery was performed with vaccinated blood, and Will was returned to his parents. As far as the Government is concerned, the story ends there. But questions remain.

If Baby Will had been given vaccinated blood, and if this blood turned out to have been harmful on account of that the vaccine had not been properly tested, and thereby may have had unexpected side-effects, the Government would have taken no responsibility for any of it. But Will’s parents – and Will – would be the ones who had to wear the consequences.

All the hypotheticals reduce to one question: whose baby is it anyway?

In the ancient Roman pater familias system, the fathers of the family exercised absolute control over the individual members. Not only did those fathers have the legal right to kill members of their own family, they were even obliged to in some cases, such as obvious deformities. Life was cheap in the ancient world.

Today we don’t have the same resource scarcity that Ancient Rome did. There is no longer a fear that feeding deformed children will lead to famine. So now we have a compromise position. The popular opinion today is that parents may exercise authority over their children, subject to certain exclusions that are widely agreed to cause harm.

Difficulty arises when it comes to areas where the existence of harm is not widely agreed upon. The real question is who gets to decide, in these edge cases, what constitutes harm. Like so many social issues, this question tends to break down into two sides: one authoritarian and the other libertarian.

The authoritarian position is that the Government should get to decide. In the case of Will, that means that the Government decides whether Covid-vaccinated blood is safe or not.

The libertarian position is, of course, that the parents, having the closest kinship bond with the child, ought to decide. It is the parents who will end up suffering the most if the Covid-vaccinated blood kills the child or not.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian side of social issues is in the ascendancy thanks to various recent outcomes like the cannabis referendum. With that referendum, a narrow majority of us said, yes, the Government can lock us up if we presume to decide for ourselves what goes into our own bodies. Because of outcomes like this, and others, the authoritarians within the Government have become emboldened.

As a result of the weak pro-freedom sentiments among Kiwis, the Government has seen fit to override the wishes of Will’s parents, reasoning that the New Zealand population will accept such authoritarianism. And we mostly have. The authoritarians in the New Zealand public howled for Will to be taken away and his parents prosecuted. So far, there have been no prosecutions, but a precedent has been set.

A predictable risk for the New Zealand people is that the same logic is next used for gender reassignment surgery. Globohomo likes to make the argument that denying gender reassignment surgery is risking that the trans person commit suicide. So in the eyes of the Government, denying gender reassignment surgery can carry a similar degree of risk to delaying Will’s surgery. And they were willing to uplift a baby over that.

Being torn away from one’s parents is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can go through. In order to justify it, the Government has to have excellent reason to believe that they’re preventing significant harm. In the case of Baby Will, the only potential for harm came from the Government itself. As such, they are very much the bad guys in this story.

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!

Left-Wing Nationalism, Right-Wing Nationalism, Left-Wing Globalism and Right-Wing Globalism

For many people – especially Germans – nationalism is equated with right-wing politics. We are told that nationalism is necessarily ethnosupremacist, and that nationalists must necessarily hate and want to destroy outsiders. Like most aspects of the popular narrative, this is total bullshit. This essay explains.

Following their victory in World War II, Communist forces realised that they could silence all of their enemies by calling them Nazis. So they did. Anyone opposing the globalist left – whether nationalist right, nationalist left or globalist left – was called a Nazi, and hounded into silence.

When those same Communists completed their Long March Through the Institutions at the turn of the century, and took control of the mainstream political narrative, the Communist weltanschauung was normalised, to the exclusion of all others. By today, we’re expected to believe that the left wing are inherently globalist and that the right wing are inherently nationalist.

The truth is more like the following:

The globalism vs. nationalism axis and the right vs. left axis are orthogonal. So it’s entirely possible to have left-wing nationalists and right-wing globalists. Having one Nazi/Commie right-wing nationalist/left-wing globalist axis only tells half of the story.

Nationalism comes from the word ‘nation’, which is a cognate with ‘natural’, ‘nativity’ and ‘nature’. It refers to the fact that, as tribes expanded beyond provinces, they came to organise themselves as nations, so that it was possible to speak of French, English, German, Russian etc. nations.

A nation, then, is the natural organisational model of a people.

Like everything else natural, a nation has a masculine, yang aspect and a feminine, yin aspect. In microcosm, this is reflected in the way that families have a father and a mother. Analogous to parents, there is a right-wing nationalism that reflects nationalist approaches to masculinity, and a left-wing nationalism that reflects nationalist approaches to femininity.

Right-wing nationalism, then, is about being a father for the nation. In the same way that the father of a family protects that family from external threats, and gathers the resources that family needs to survive, right-wing nationalism is primarily concerned with defence, immigration and economics.

That right-wing nationalists have a reputation for opposing mass immigration is not surprising. The father of the family is the one tasked with keeping dangerous outsiders away from the family home, and, by analogy, the right-wing nationalists are tasked with keeping dangerous outsiders away from the national home.

Left-wing nationalism, by contrast, is about being a mother for the nation. So in the same way that the mother of a family creates and nurtures the next generation, left-wing nationalism is primarily concerned with education, health and housing.

Taxation is not a concern for left-wing nationalists. Right-wing nationalists don’t like paying taxes, reasoning that it’s better for families to learn how to be self-reliant. But left-wing nationalists are happy to crank taxes up, reasoning that the children of the nation need taking care of now.

In any case, whether right-wing or left-wing, nationalism is the natural form of governance.

Globalism is an unnatural form of governance. Only in the case of empire does a person become subject to decisions made by others who are neither blood nor language kin. Indeed, it can be argued that globalist consciousness is inevitably the enemy of the natural, nationalist, consciousness.

Right-wing globalism is about plundering and exploiting the nations in the service of international capital. Right-wing globalists want low corporate taxes, few regulations and reduced barriers to the flow of international capital and labour. The more immigration, the higher the house prices and the lower the labour costs, so the greater the bank profits.

Modern slavery was created by right-wing globalists looking for people to exploit for profit. The transatlantic slave trade, involving African slaves, Jewish merchants and white plantation owners, was one of the first major globalist enterprises. The East India Company was another famous one. Both were concerned primarily with maximising return to shareholders.

Left-wing globalism is about plundering and exploiting the nation in the service of international communism. So the left-wing globalists will demand that the nations burden themselves with refugees, and will demand that local workers be taxed to pay for it. They will constantly push for refugee resettlement and foreign aid.

The left-wing globalists don’t use economic arguments to convince nations to take in foreigners, but rather moral ones. Much like Christians (their fellows in slave morality) left-wing globalists heap shame on those unwilling to accept their logic. Anyone who doesn’t want the refugee quota is labelled cruel and callous. The fact that people already in the country need resources is of no matter to the left-wing globalist.

What both right-wing and left-wing globalists agree on is importing foreigners. This always serves globalist interests because foreigners only rarely have true solidarity with their host nations, and so mass immigration reliably weakens national consciousness, and weakening national consciousness makes it more difficult for nations to organise to resist globalist depredation.

Nationalists don’t actually have a problem with foreigners in general, any more than someone who cares about his family has a problem with people outside his family. They merely demand that the foreigners that do come provide a net benefit to their host nation. In practice, this primarily means: no cheap labour driving down working-class wages and driving up working-class housing.

In summary, it’s entirely possible for a left-wing person to call themselves a nationalist, and to oppose both right-wing and left-wing globalism. Understanding this requires that people look past the crude Nazi vs. Commie narrative and realise that globalism vs. nationalism is the true political struggle of our times.

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!