Infantilisation, Feminisation, Negrification, Uglification, Stupefaction, Pacification

Observing the collapse of the West into Clown World, six sociological trends stand out above all others. Each of these trends has been deliberately engineered by the ruling class to make their subject populations weaker and easier to control. All of them involve promoting one set of behaviours and attitudes over another, to the detriment of the subject population.

The first trend is infantilisation.

Infantilisation involves keeping people in a state of helpless dependency even into adulthood. In particular, this involves inducing them to think and behave like adult children. Emblematic of this trend is the 40-year old collector of Star Wars figurines. Infantilised people are encouraged not to solve their own problems, but instead to tug the skirt of the local authority. This is also true of scientific disputes. Independent thought is strongly discouraged.

It’s essential here that people be kept ignorant about the true nature of reality. Instead of being informed accurately about the scientific nature of humankind and of the world, people are presented with a Disneyfied, Tellytubby version of affairs. It is never admitted that life is suffering and that the good guys die in the end just like the bad guys.

The second trend is feminisation.

This involves forcing women and feminine energy into male spaces. Anything traditionally masculine has to give way to feminine involvement. This trend is why one sees so much mainstream media decrying “not enough women in X” or praising “first woman in X”. All male spaces have to be broken open.

Today this can be seen most obviously in sport. The obsessive promotion of women’s sport has had the effect of removing an avenue for masculinity. Now there are even female referees and commentators in male games. The forcing of women into the military is a more extreme, if less obvious, example. The end result is a generation of feminised males unable to inspire any physical resistance.

The third trend is negrification.

It’s rare to see a white family in the mass media nowadays. A long-running series like Friends, without token diversity, would be impossible today. Much as children have been forced into adult spaces and females have been forced into male spaces, so too have non-whites been forced into white spaces. This is also accompanied by propaganda about “not enough non-whites in X” or “first non-white in X”.

Following from the increasing proportion of non-whites in traditionally white spaces is a lowering of general standards. As a result, r-selected behaviours and attitudes are driving out K-selected ones. The growing cultural obsession with analingus is perhaps the most telling example – arse fetishism is almost non-existent in fully white countries.

The fourth trend is uglification.

This can be seen most clearly in music and architecture. Today’s popular music is almost antithetical to the high culture of Beethoven and Vivaldi. Orchestral music has been replaced with crude jungle beats that appeal to the brain stem. A similar phenomenon has taken place with architecture. Brutalism is a name given to the architectural style that emphasises minimalism and concrete, but it’s so common today that most people think it’s normal.

Uglification can also be seen in fashion. The most notable example today is the promotion of Lizzo, a monstrously obese woman, as a model of beauty. Genuinely beautiful women are starting to become rare in mainstream media. The combined effect of the uglification of music, architecture and fashion is that people have lost their conception of what beauty is. This has had severe moral consequences.

The fifth trend is stupefaction.

In the early days of the Internet, it was possible to easily find information about any subject. These times were known as the Golden Age of the Internet. But as the information superhighway became more commercialised, hobbyist and enthusiast sites were pushed to the bottom of search results in favour of big advertisers. As the ruling class put more and more advertising between the people and the information, the masses became dumber and dumber.

Part of stupefaction involves the promotion of unqualified people as authorities. Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”, only has a Bachelor’s degree, and is therefore less of a scientific authority than the author of this article. Unqualified people are promoted as experts everywhere in the mass media, lowering the quality of public discourse and popularising misconceptions and falsehoods.

The sixth trend is pacification.

Aldous Huxley warned that the ruling class would one day train the masses to love their servitude, and that’s exactly what has happened. We have been pacified by having just enough of our material needs met to prevent any real discontent. No-one really has to go without food or entertainment nowadays, and this has led to an oversatisfied population that is willing to accept all kinds of human rights abuses.

Pacification is the end result of the infantilisation, the feminisation, the negrification, the uglification and the stupefaction of the masses. All of these trends have created a population that is utterly incapable of resisting the abuses of the ruling class – this being, of course, the ultimate reason why they were all pushed.

In the tyranny to come, no adult spaces will be allowed to exist, no male spaces will be allowed to exist, no white spaces will be allowed to exist, no beautiful spaces will be allowed to exist, no intelligent spaces will be allowed to exist and no space for courage will be allowed to exist. In short, no place of order will be allowed to exist, because any order among the masses provides the basis for resistance.

Much of the logic behind Clown World is about forcing chaos into orderly spaces for the sake of destruction. The more the ruling class can sow chaos among their lower-class enemies, the less the lower classes are able to resist the depredations of the rulers. And so, the more infantilised, feminised, negrified, uglified, stupified and pacified society becomes, the harder it becomes to own a home and to raise a family on one wage.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, 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!

The Geopolitical Order Of The Coming Age Of The World

A medieval map of the world conceptualised it as a cloverleaf, in which Jerusalem occupied the central node, with three major areas of political influence spreading out from it. In the 16th Century, it seemed like the three major areas of the world were Europe, Asia and Africa, with America looking on from afar.

Occupying a place at the confluence of several major trade routes was the basis for Jerusalem’s rise to prominence. It allowed them to gather massive amounts of taxes, and to easily send Abrahamic missionaries to all parts of the world. Eventually, so many of those missionaries had reached Europe that it fell under the dominion of the God of Abraham.

In the World Age stretching from the end of the Egyptian Age to now, otherwise known as the Age of Pisces, the God of Abraham reigned triumphant, and the world seemed to be centered on Jerusalem.

The Age of Pisces, however, is ending, and the Age of Aquarius is beginning. This term refers to a new spiritual age, but, as per the Second Hermetic Principle, these spiritual changes will be reflected in the material world. A new spiritual order will mean a new geopolitical order. There are several clues as to what that new order might look like.

The coming geopolitical age of the world will have a similar structure to the old, in that there are three major powers, each of which is either allied or at war with the other two. The major difference is that the new geopolitical order will be based around the East instead of the West.

The shape of this new world will be like a three-leaf clover based around Singapore. Instead of Jerusalem, Singapore will be the highly wealthy trade hub at the centre of the world. Instead of Europe, Asia and Africa, the world powers will be China, India and the Anzac Empire.

That Singapore will be the centre of the new age of the world is guaranteed by the fact that whoever controls Singapore controls the Malacca Straits, and whoever controls those straits controls a chokepoint that not only connects the Pacific and Indian Oceans but which also oversees half of the world’s shipping. The Malacca Straits are the Levant of the new age – they are where worlds collide.

That China and India will play major roles in the new order of the world is appropriate for two major reasons: their vast populations and their previous historic influence. At time of writing, in 2021, both of these nations possessed immense untapped potential.

The populations of China and India will wane as they continue to become wealthier. The Chinese birthrate is already below replacement level, and below one child per woman in major centres like Shanghai and Beijing. The Indian fertility rate has fallen to replacement level, and looks set to fall below that in coming decades.

Both of these major powers will be moderately economically advanced by the time the new age of the world is underway (instead of being highly advanced in the cities and backwards elsewhere). Their great power and influence will come from their vast populations, which should still be around a billion each by the end of the century.

The birthrate of Anzacistan has also stabilised (although it’s higher than that of wealthy Chinese and Indians), but the Southeasterners have one crucial advantage over India and China: they can take mass amounts of immigration.

The population of Australia and New Zealand combined is, in 2021, only 30 million, but that is similar to the American population of 1860. So although the combined Anzac GDP might be only 1.6 trillion, compared to India’s 2.6 trillion and China’s 14.8 trillion, the Anzac Empire has vast untapped potential in the form of underpopulated land.

By 1890, the American population had grown to 60 million, and by 1930 it had swelled to 120 million. If the Anzac Empire would enact policies that allowed for a similar level of population growth, then, assuming the average quality of the genetic infrastructure was maintained, it could be a force as powerful as today’s Russian Federation by the end of the 21st Century.

Africa and Europe will continue to decline into irrelevance. As of today, both Britain and France could project more power into Singapore than any of China, India or an Anzac Empire. In the new age of the world, both Britain and France will fall away, ruined by their suicidal decision to accept mass Muslim and African immigration. Africa doesn’t have the genetic infrastructure to ever become a power.

In the beginning of the new age, the Anzac Empire would work very closely with America. This is a natural alliance on account of the shared culture, history and values of the two nations. It would also work very closely with Singapore (New Zealand’s ban on foreign buyers of property has two exemptions: Australians and Singaporeans), for similar reasons.

As the new age progresses, the Anzac Empire will become a great power in its own right, and America will once again take more of a support role in a wider Pacific sense. The basic geopolitical order of the new age of the world is all but certain at this point, barring any major upheavals.

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!

The 24 Powers Before The Throne

The following essay expounds an alt-centrist way of conceptualising political space. The fundamental idea is that the Will of the Divine rules over all the material world, and before this mighty Will stand 24 governors, each one of which corresponds to one of the elementary political positions.

The original conception of political space speaks of a monarchist right and a republican left. This conception dates back to the French Revolution and the composition of the then government, in which supporters of the monarchy sat on the right wing of the French National Assembly while supporters of reform sat on the left wing.

Making the crudest possible distinction, political space is divided into a right wing that wishes to maintain power and privilege and a left wing that wants power and privilege redistributed. These two wings, along with the centre that tries to get them to co-operate, constitute the first three powers before the throne.

In modern Western democracies, this post-monarchical arrangement has evolved into the Establishment. Today, the entirety of the leadership of both the left and the right is comprised of the same ruling class that leads the centre. Economic imperatives have overridden all other concerns; status quo or change matters not at all.

In response to this oligarchical arrangement has risen the anti-Establishment. It first arose in the form of the alternative right that took control of Central Europe after World War I. In the aftermath of World War II rose the alternative left, which currently exerts more social power than any other position. Today the alternative centre is rising.

This political hexad (of the Establishment, the anti-Establishment, and the three divisions of each) has been discussed at length in The Five Rejections and The Five Acceptances. It constitutes the basic foundation of alt centrist thought.

Each of these six positions can themselves be divided into four attitudes. These attitudes answer the two basic political questions, which are essentially: who gets it? and how hard?

Answering the question of “who gets it” divides the six positions into two further positions each: nationalists and globalists.

The nationalists are those who identify with a particular nation, and who believe that the nation is the natural organisational unit of the world stage. They believe that benefits such as welfare ought to be reserved for members of the nation, and that questions around immigration and defence ought to be settled with a view to the benefit of the nation. In short, they believe that only the nation should “get it” (the rewards of the nation’s operation).

The globalists believe that anyone can get it. Globalists have no time for the argument that the resources of the nation belong to the nation. Their position is that any resource, anywhere, is the property of whoever pays to own it. That anyone risked their lives defending those resources in the past is irrelevant. Globalists owe no loyalty to any land or nation.

The majority of the Establishment is globalist right now, but that isn’t inevitable. There are nationalist sentiments within all three Establishment positions – the monarchist right considers itself the representative of its nation, the working-class left wants national borders to prevent the importation of cheap labour from driving down wages, and the rent-seeking centre wants to lock down the national market against foreign competition.

Answering the question of “how hard do they get it” divides the above twelve positions into two further positions each: authoritarians and libertarians.

The authoritarians argue that people ought to get it hard. They don’t care about freedom as a virtue. Authoritarians tend to be verticalists, in that they believe the natural organisational model of the human species is a dominance hierarchy in which the upper ranks have complete authority over the lower ones.

The libertarians, by contrast, argue that the government ought to be gentle. They believe that authoritarianism is inherently unstable because it provokes resentment which leads to disorder. Libertarians are morally appalled by complete authority over other people, and therefore they don’t believe in banning things such as cannabis or homosexuality.

So within all of the six political positions of alt centrism (Establishment Right, Establishment Left, Establishment Centre, Alternative Right, Alternative Left, Alternative Centre), there are four composite attitudes (Authoritarian Globalist, Authoritarian Nationalist, Libertarian Globalist and Libertarian Nationalist). This gives us a total of 24 different political positions, all vying for control of the state.

These are the 24 powers before the throne. At any given time, in any given jurisdiction, one of these 24 powers will govern.

The ruling power in the West right now is the globalist Establishment, which is an alliance of all of the right, the left and the centre. It is currently transitioning from libertarian to authoritarian as its perceived legitimacy collapses. They are firmly globalist, being an alliance of the victorious anti-nationalist powers of World War II.

The anti-Establishment is all four of authoritarian, libertarian, globalist and nationalist. The authoritarians range from tankies on the left to theocrats on the right. The libertarians are rising in opposition to the increasingly authoritarian measures of the Establishment. The globalists generally think that the Establishment hasn’t done enough to open borders. The nationalists recognise that the vast majority of the Establishment are globalists.

All of these 24 powers have risen and fallen in influence at the various times and places in world history. The course of history could be said to be nothing more than the patterns of that rising and falling.

The authoritarian nationalist anti-Establishment is perhaps best represented by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi movement. They rose in opposition to the strictures of the Treaty of Versailles, and to the globalist Establishment that had imposed them.

The authoritarian globalist anti-Establishment left is perhaps best represented by the Communist and Bolshevik movements that swept the world in the early 20th Century. The authoritarian globalist left has now become part of the Establishment, leading to today’s cancel culture.

VJM Publishing represents libertarian nationalist alt centrism. We are an anti-Establishment collective that repudiates both the weakness of the left and the cruelty of the right, as well as the greed of the globalists and the mindlessness of the authoritarians.

Understanding these 24 powers before the throne is the key to understanding the movements of political arena. As some of the powers gain in power, and others lose, the landscape changes.

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!

Understanding New Zealand 3: Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020

Vernon Tava’s Sustainable NZ party made a transparent attempt to target the center of the political spectrum. The logic was that they would be an environmentalist movement that wasn’t tarnished by the social justice obsession of the Greens. In the end, they received 1,880 votes, which amounted to less than 0.1% of the total.

Variable	Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Voting ACT in 2020	0.54
Voting National in 2020	0.50
Voting Greens in 2020	0.26
Voting New Conservative in 2020	0.37
Voting The Opportunities Party in 2020	0.32
Voting Labour in 2020	0.02
Voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2020	-0.41
Voting Maori Party in 2020	-0.46

Sustainable NZ may not have won many votes, but they succeeded in positioning themselves somewhere between the National Party and the Green Party. The correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting National in 2020 was 0.50, and with voting Greens in 2020 it was 0.26. Both are significantly positive.

The correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 was not significant, at 0.02. This suggests that Sustainable NZ was successful in avoiding the label of ‘left-wing’. In fact, there was even a correlation of 0.37 between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting New Conservative in 2020.

The strongest negative correlations with voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 were with voting for the parties representing disadvantaged demographics, such as the ALCP (-0.41) and the Maori Party (-0.46).

Variable	Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
< $5,000	-0.17
$5,000-$10,000	-0.11
$10,000-$20,000	-0.37
$20,000-$30,000	-0.18
$30,000-$50,000	-0.32
$50,000-$70,000	0.23
$70,000+	0.44

The general rule is: the wealthier the voter, the more likely they were to vote Sustainable NZ in 2020. The reason for this, as it is for the Greens and The Opportunities Party, is that environmental issues are high up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and people suffering from housing or income insecurity will vote on the basis of that instead.

The strongest support of any income bracket for Sustainable NZ came from the $70,000+ bracket. The correlation between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having a personal income of over $70,000 was 0.44. This is a curious result, given that votes for alternative parties are normally cast by disenfranchised people, and disenfranchised people normally vote for left-wing parties. This paradox may explain why Sustainable NZ got so few votes.

The financially disenfranchised avoided voting for Sustainable NZ. The correlation between having an income between $10,000 and $20,000 and voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 was -0.37.

Variable	Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
No qualifications	-0.46
Level 1 certificate	-0.22
Level 2 certificate	-0.31
Level 3 certificate	-0.24
Level 4 certifiate	-0.30
Level 5 diploma	-0.20
Level 6 diploma	0.55
Bachelor’s degree	0.36
Honours degree	0.40
Master’s degree	0.34
Doctorate	0.34

As with the Greens, ACT and The Opportunities Party, highly educated voters were more likely to vote Sustainable NZ than poorly educated ones. There was a significant positive correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having any of the university degrees. On the other hand, there was a correlation of -0.46 between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having no academic qualifications.

Unlike the Greens, the correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having a highest educational qualification of a level 3 certificate was significantly negative. This reflects the fact that the Greens have broad appeal among university students, a niche that Sustainable NZ were unable to gain entry to.

From these three sets of correlations, we can see that Sustainable NZ voters were considerably more privileged than the average voter.

Variable	Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
No children	0.19
One child	-0.02
Two children	0.39
Three children	-0.05
Four children	-0.46
Five children	-0.62
Six children	-0.64

Sustainable NZ voters walked the talk when it comes to the sustainability of their breeding. The strongest correlation between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having any number of children was two (0.39). There was also a positive correlation of 0.19 between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having no children.

On the other hand, there were significant negative correlations between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having four, five or six children. All three of these correlations were at least as negative as -0.46. Sustainable NZ voters are clearly aware that having more than two children is unsustainable.

Variable	Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Working as a manager	0.45
Working as a professional	0.31
Working as a machinery operator or driver	-0.52
Working as a labourer	-0.45

A curious outcome of the election is that there was a significant positive correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and both working as a manager and working as a professional. Working as a manager and working as a professional are the archetypal occupations of National and the Greens, respectively.

The working-class occupations, by contrast, were relatively less likely to vote Sustainable NZ in 2020. As mentioned above, people who are worried about housing affordability generally consider environmentalism to be a luxury concern.

In summary, Vernon Tava and his Sustainable NZ movement were successful in positioning themselves in the “blue-green” space that appeals to educated, long-sighted people, whether managers or professionals. The problem is that they failed in the much more important objective of obtaining enough votes to threaten the 5% threshold.

This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.

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!