Why The West Should Replace China With India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No such bond is shared with China.

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

If you 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!

Clown World Chronicles: What Is An ‘Ethnostate’?

The term ‘ethnostate’ comes up again and again, and it will come up even more often as Clown World intensifies. People like talking about whether instituting one is possible, and they like arguing about who would be let into one if it existed. This article tells you what you need to know.

Of all the thoughtcrimes that people get accused of nowadays, being a racist is the worst. Of the all the racist thoughtcrimes one can commit, the worst is supporting an ethnostate (one would think that supporting genocide would be the worst, but in Clown World overt hatred is sometimes not considered actual hatred, for reasons mysterious).

An ethnostate is a country where citizenship is limited to members of one particular nation or ethnicity. The countries of Europe started out as ethnostates, as did most of the nations of the Old World. It’s only in empires, such as Rome or the countries of the New World today, where different races are tasked with living in harmony.

America is not an ethnostate, and nor is any other Western nation today. As such, the concept only exists as an ideal – one that existed in the past, and which some wish would exist in the future.

The ethnostate is usually thought of as an imagined liferaft that will keep white people safe from The Muttening. This term refers to the continual increase of people with undefinable ethnic ancestry, to the point where Western nations are no longer identifiable separate breeds but rather a mass of mongrels.

In its American conception, the usual idea is that white people would pull back to the Pacific Northwest, this being the furthest away from where the bulk of the blacks and Hispanics live. The reasoning is that this part of North America is so cold and rainy that only white people could handle living there. This would also allow for California to be used as a buffer zone.

In its European conception, the usual idea is that all non-natives will be encouraged to leave, otherwise expelled. An ethnostate will thus be created from within. In principle, it doesn’t really matter where the non-natives are expelled to, but the usual idea is “back to the Middle East and Africa.”

The Alt Right, in particular, is obsessed with the idea of an ethnostate, believing it to be the solution to most of society’s problems. They believe in resegregation, which would entail American whites and American blacks living apart from each other. For the Alt Right, blending together different human groups is a recipe for social chaos. Segregation is as necessary to good order as private property laws.

They are particularly fond of quoting crime statistics that demonstrate black Americans committing homicide at a much higher rate than white Americans. “13/52” is a popular phrase, referencing the fact that blacks make up some 13% of the American population but commit some 52% of the homicides. Multiple studies show that American blacks are some six times as murderous as American whites.

They are also fond of quoting sex crime statistics. In Sweden, native Swedes make up some 97% of victims of sexual homicides but at most 58% of the perpetrators. A Norwegian study found that 36% of rapes in Norway are committed by men born outside of it. Another study showed that the number of first-generation immigrants in a European country was significantly positively correlated with the number of rapes in that country.

The Alt Right argues that if Western nations would simply get rid of all their non-whites, everything would be golden. Removing this 10-15% of the population would reduce by half the number of sex crimes and homicides, they argue.

It’s certainly true that there are scientifically documented disadvantages to a lack of cohesion.

As Aristotle described, a lack of commonalities leads to infighting within groups that would otherwise be harmonious. Diversity leads to factionalisation, which is when one subgroup starts putting its own interests above that of the wider group. This inevitably leads to everyone else doing the same, meaning that overall social solidarity and trust are lessened.

Even worse, diversity gives tyrants the ability to play factions of the people off against each other. Aristotle noticed already 2,300 years ago that multicultural societies were inevitably ruled by tyrants, as their inability to agree on anything was exploited by demagogues. It’s often as simple as favouring one group unfairly, and the whole population can be induced to fight itself.

Despite all this, problems with the ethnostate idea are multiple.

For one thing, many non-whites occupy a lowly niche in Western societies that would otherwise be filled by whites. In Western countries, there’s a need to completely shit on one segment of society, so as to induce the others to stay in line. This is usually the cheap labour segment, which must necessarily be filled by whites in any white ethnostate.

This is true at the other end of the scale as well. If all of the Jews were kicked out of the West, the niches that they currently occupy would end up being filled by white people. Evidence for this comes from the fact that Japan and South Korea have also descended into Clown World, in many ways even worse than what the West has. But Japan and South Korea already are ethnostates, with hardly a Jew to be seen anywhere.

Even more crippling to any ethnostate proposal is the fact that, even with a will to institute one, the existing presence of mixed-race people would make it impossible to draw ethnic boundaries that could be agreed upon. Apartheid in South Africa had the advantage that whites and blacks were distinct people. But in America, the number of mixed-race people is so great that no clear lines could possibly be drawn.

If there is to be any hope for future dreams of an ethnostate, it might have to be run on a Selectionist basis. Some dwellers of cyberspace joke about a “Hapa ethnostate”, but the groundwork for one has already been laid in Hong Kong, Singapore, British Columbia, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland and a few other places.

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

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!

Conservative Parties In Every Western Nation Will Eventually Become White Parties

The National Party has revealed its party list for this year’s General Election, stoking outrage. In an age when it’s not okay to be white, the racial composition of their top ten list candidates is unrepentantly vanilla. This essay will argue that this outcome was not only inevitable, but is likely to intensify in the future.

In the age of social justice, racism is the Original Sin of the white race. The fight against racism, many believe, is one of the most pressing of all social issues. Anyone who doesn’t think so stands alongside Adolf Hitler as a public enemy motivated by sadism. Practically any action can be justified, no matter how ludicrous, if the intent is “anti-racist”.

The social justice warriors seems to think that the best way to fight racism is to minimise the number of white people in positions of power. The best way to achieve this is to oppose white people at every turn. Consequently, Labour and the Greens have become openly anti-white parties.

18 out of Labour’s 46 current MPs are non-white – 39% of the total. This is a much higher percentage than the percentage of non-whites in New Zealand, which is 29%. 11 of those 46 are Maori – 24% of the total. This is also a much higher percentage than the percentage of Maoris in New Zealand (16%). These figures are even more remarkable if one accounts for the size of the Maori presence in the New Zealand First, Maori and Mana parties.

There is nothing wrong with having Maori MPs (or white ones). But if the Labour Party wants to have a disproportionately high number of non-white or Maori MPs, then no-one can be surprised if their opponents in the National Party have a disproportionately low number of non-white or Maori MPs.

This essay predicts that things aren’t going to end there. The problem is that it’s now all but inevitable that National eventually becomes the white person’s party.

As diversity increases in any white country, the in-group solidarity of the white people in that country also increases. This can be extrapolated from known laws of social psychology. As the position of white people gets weaker, and closer to minority status, the more this in-group solidarity will intensify out of a concern to protect their position. Hence, the strongest white in-group solidarity is seen in places like Brazil and South Africa.

As all other Western counties become more like Brazil and South Africa, the white people in those countries will come to face a certain calculus: the more their local social democrat party becomes non-white, the more it makes sense for them to rally behind the local conservative party. This calculus explains why the National top ten is now all white.

This phenomenon is perhaps most advanced in America, where the Republican Party is now the White Party in all but name, while the Democrats are the Party of The People of Colour. The image at the top of this page shows the reality clearly.

If only non-white Americans voted in Presidential Elections, the Democrats would win every single Electoral College delegate. Something similar is true in all other Western countries – namely, that if only non-whites voted, the social democrats would always win. It is certainly true in New Zealand, as Dan McGlashan showed in Understanding New Zealand.

Conservatism has always been about maintaining the status quo. The logic is that things came to be the way they are by way of the collective applied wisdom of our ancestors. But if progress is equated with a smaller and weaker white presence, then conservatism will necessarily come to be equated with maintaining and protecting that presence.

The National Party top ten might be all white, but this is hard to avoid when Labour positions itself as the brown party. What’s also hard to avoid is that increasing anti-white aggression on the part of Labour and the Greens will intensify these sentiments, making National come to seem like the white man’s last stand.

What would really be a coup, from the perspective of Todd Muller, would be for National to take advantage of these pressures to win working-class whites to their side. If National accepted the inevitability of the grim calculus outlined above, they might realise the need to act upon it immediately, rather than be acted upon.

The Labour Party was founded by working-class whites for working-class whites, but its grip on that constituency has never been weaker. The Labour movement has turned its back on working-class whites all throughout the West, preferring to champion middle-class browns and blacks. This has made it highly vulnerable to being split in two, as it has been in places like Sweden.

The National Party could swoop in here – not from introducing racist measures themselves, but from winding back previously-introduced measures that were motivated by anti-white racism. A broad commitment to get rid of all policies based on skin colour and not need would be a good start.

If the National Party promised to scrap the Ministries of Maori and Pacific Island Affairs, as well as to scrap race-based education and health funding, as well as to scrap all race-based differential treatment in the Justice System, they would steal a march on a Labour Party that expects working-class white people to go to the back of the queue behind recent immigrants.

It would provoke fury from the globalist mainstream media, who are committed to propagandising for cheap labour and its importation. However, it might benefit National’s electoral chances, as did Don Brash’s Orewa speech in 2005. More importantly still, such a move is bound to entertain the gods, upon whose favour we all rely.

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

Have Western Elites Secretly Converted To Islam?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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