VJM Publishing

The Elementalist Conception Of Time

As with many other philosophical questions, Elementalism has its own ideas about the question of time. Most people take it for granted that there is such a thing as time and that it just kind of ticks along. Upon thinking about it, though, things are no longer as straightforward. This essay explains the Elementalist conception of time.

Most people assume, as if naturally, that space and time exist and that we move around in them. Space is three dimensional (the x, y and z axes), and time adds another dimension of movement, so spacetime can be said to be the four-dimensional space in which we all live. We are born at one point in spacetime and, over the course of our lives, move through it.

This materialist conception of time brings with it a number of logical quandaries.

Quandaries such as: when did time begin? Time seems to run as an arrow flies, unstoppably from one point to the next, but when and how did it start? If time started some fourteen billion years ago, with the Big Bang, what happened before then? Did time exist? If not, how could the material universe possibly have started?

Is time an inherent property of the Universe or does it exist as the result of the will of some divine creator? If an inherent property of the Universe, what makes it progress at the speed it does, and not a greater or a lesser speed? Why progress at all? And – most frightening of all – if it begins and progresses then will it end?

All of these questions create a great number of logical dilemmas in the minds of materialists and non-Elementalists. But an Elementalist, who believes that consciousness is the prima materia and that it explores the Great Fractal to entertain the gods, has no such dilemmas.

To the Elementalist, time is an illusion. Simply put, it doesn’t exist. It’s an illusion brought about by the movement of consciousness through the Great Fractal at a certain rate. Because the perceptions that occur to consciousness appear to change in a rule-based manner, the impression is created that time exists and flows at a uniform rate. The reality is somewhat different.

The illusion of a moving picture, on film or on television, is made by displaying a number of frames every second (usually 25), in quick succession. If these frames are displayed rapidly enough, the image on the screen will appear like it is moving, an illusion known as beta movement. The images aren’t really moving – they just appear to, as if in a flipbook.

Our consciousnesses navigate the Great Fractal in a similar manner.

It sounds incredible, but the reality is that our perceptions cycle through a cosmically large number of static universes in extremely short order. Entire universes blink in and out of perception a such a speed that it feels like we’re moving through them fluidly. But in fact, this movement is no more fluid than that of a horse running in a motion video. It’s also an illusion.

The Great Fractal, in its unspeakably majestic, all-encompassing nature, is static. Because the fragment of consciousness that each of us possesses can only be aware of a tiny section of it, and because the tiny section that we are aware of keeps changing, it seems like time exists. And it does, in a sense. But not in the sense that most people are used to thinking of it.

In reality, there is only one ever-present and unchanging now, and consciousness exists there. In this eternal now, perceptions change, and that’s all that time is. The contents of consciousness are ever-changing, but consciousness itself is not, serving as an unwobbling pivot around which the entire drama of material existence unfolds.

This perception of time sounds entirely radical to the materialist mind, but for a Buddhist, a Taoist or a Hindu, everything written here so far is familiar. It has to be understood that the common Western perception of time follows naturally from the common Western assumption of materialism – and this assumption is neither accurate nor rational.

Dilemmas like the Grandfather Paradox are easily solved by the Elementalist. Not believing that time is one-dimensional, there is no “go back in time”. A world in which your grandfather lives and gives rise to one of your parents exists in the Great Fractal, and will always exist. Therefore, a life in which your grandfather gave rise to you is, and will forever be, lived by a fragment of consciousness somewhere in the Great Fractal.

Somewhere in the Great Fractal are worlds in which your grandfather is killed, but this doesn’t negate the fact that there are still an infinitude of worlds in which he was not killed. Therefore, you could kill your grandfather a million times and it wouldn’t change a thing. He would still exist in the Great Fractal, so consciousness would still be aware of him, and would still perceive lives in which he existed and gave rise to progeny.

Likewise, dilemmas about how time started and where it will end are easily resolved. To the Elementalist, there is only one eternal now, and in that now we navigate the Great Fractal. Knowing that time is an illusion, questions about how it started or where it will end are meaningless. Consciousness exists outside of time and is more fundamental than it. Therefore, time is a function of the contents of consciousness only.

In summary, Elementalists have an entirely different conception of time to that of the ordinary materialist. Not only do they not believe in time in the sense it is usually understood, but neither do they believe in any of the conclusions drawn by materialist philosophers of time. For the Elementalist, all these dilemmas really do have elemental solutions.

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!

Is It Time To Rename Arnold Schwarzenegger?

2020 has been the year of the revaluation of values. Many things once thought acceptable are being re-evaluated with a new mindset. One thing once thought acceptable is the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This article asks: is it time to rename him?

The name ‘Schwarzenegger’ evokes many sentiments in the modern Western mind – similar sentiments to Arnold’s former nickname “The Austrian Oak”.

Physically, one thinks of the superbly well-crafted physique that won multiple world bodybuilding titles as well as the role of Conan the Cimmerian. Mentally, one thinks of the preternatural will and ambition that took a teenage Austrian boy to Hollywood superstardom and from there to a successful term as Governor of California.

Linguistically, the name evokes other sentiments. ‘Schwarz’ is German for ‘black’, and ‘neger’ is German for… well, you guessed it. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name literally means ‘black nigger’.

A white man going around calling himself “black nigger” cannot be acceptable under today’s moral standards. It’s no different to a white man conducting his daily affairs entirely in blackface. The name Schwarzenegger must be cancelled.

Perhaps Schwarzenegger could instead be called Arnold von Osterreich, a name that respects the black community while still evoking Arnold’s heritage. American President Donald Trump should pass a law renaming him as soon as possible in the hope of appeasing the black rioters currently rampaging through American inner cities.

Note: this article is a pisstake! If you really thought that we support the renaming of Arnold Schwarzenegger, you’re stupid!

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 ‘White Erasure’?

All over the West, destruction reigns. Statues are coming down, cities are being renamed, history is being rewritten. The destruction can seem so mindless, but there’s one thread running through it all. This article discusses that thread: the concept of ‘white erasure’.

White erasure, in short, is the genocide of white people. This occurs in four sequential stages.

The first is the demonisation of white people. This is achieved by preventing people from speaking favourably about white people (by calling it “racist”), while encouraging people to speak disfavourably about white people. Speaking disfavourably about white people involves insinuating that all white people are racist, and that their history is one of evil.

There are many examples of this in today’s world. Most notable is the outrage generated by the expression of innocuous statements such as “It’s Okay To Be White” or “White Lives Matter“. In both cases, the men making these statements were slammed as racists by their national mainstream media, the first even being compared to Christchurch mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant.

The latter case is especially incredible, as the statement about white lives was made days after a racist terror attack in Reading, England, that claimed the lives of three white people. The end point of the demonisation of white people is that anyone claiming that white people have a right to exist is a racist.

The second stage is minimising white influence in the institutions. This occurs in a variety of ways depending on the institution in question. In all cases, however, it begins with a commitment to diversity, where diversity is defined as a minimum of white people.

In the universities, it starts with offering scholarships to non-white people on the basis that they are not white. The usual argument given is that non-white people are poorer than whites, and therefore deserve help more, but this ignores the fact that working-class white people are also poorer than the white average, and there is no help for them.

A similar phenomenon exists in government. It’s now considered extremely important that the government supports diversity, so much so that even the conservative parties are judged on how many non-white members they have. Again, diversity here is not defined as viewpoint or ideological diversity but simply as an absence of white people. A black person who thinks the same way as middle-class whites is better than a working-class white who thinks differently.

The third stage is minimising the proportion of white people in the population. This is achieved in two major ways: mass non-white immigration and the suppression of white birth rates.

Mass non-white immigration inevitably leads to a lower and lower proportion of white people in the local population. The Brazilianisation of formerly white societies causes white people to fall back into gated communities, ceding public spaces. It has also led to the idea, now popular in Europe as well as in the New World, that Western countries are not inherently white ones. They are the common property of the whole world.

The suppression of white birth rates is achieved by the manufacture of an economic environment in which raising a family is all but impossible. In order for it to be possible, the minimum wage has to pay enough that a man can afford shelter and food for a family of at least two children, a wife and himself – on one wage. This seems ridiculous now, as it is a long way from the case today, but it was once standard.

Mass immigration plays a direct role in this, by destroying the negotiating position of the white working classes. The more desperate they are, and the more imported cheap labour they have to compete with, the lower the wage they will be able to negotiate. The lower the wage, the more precarious their condition, and the fewer children they will be able to afford to bring into the world.

The fourth stage is changing the environment to remove any trace of white influence or presence. This is a multifaceted approach, which simply seeks to erase any sign of white people.

This is all over the world today, especially in the frenzied and ongoing efforts to pull down all statues of white men. The logic is that all white men are guilty of the collective historical sins of the white race, and therefore no memorials to them can be left standing. Everything that reminds of white people is to be erased.

The problem is, as Solzhenitsyn put it, that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. This means that there are no men who are perfectly innocent. Every historical figure is guilty of at least some sins. So sins can be found in any historical figure, as long as there is sufficient will to uncover them. Anyone can be cancelled.

Another major component of this stage is the movement to rename colonial streets, cities or territories. The idea here is that the “real name” of a place is the indigenous one, such that even native speakers of English are obliged to use it when speaking English. The ultimate goal of this is to remove all trace of white people, as if they had never been present.

The most difficult thing to grasp about all this is why white people are doing it to themselves. It isn’t easy to understand why – it seems at least masochistic, if not outright suicidal. This has caused a number of conspiracy theories to arise, including the usual anti-Jewish ones.

The brutal reality is that this is how life is at the end of an empire. The Roman Empire went through it, when the Christian mobs destroyed all the temples and holy places of the Greco-Roman religion. Their gods destroyed, the citizens lost touch with their conceptions of good and evil. A Dark Age, lasting centuries, was the result. It may be the same for us.

History goes in cycles, and the measure of the swing of the Great Pendulum of history to the left is the measure of its swing to the right. The last five hundred years has seen white people assert themselves upon the world with only the scantiest resistance. The next five hundred might see the world assert itself upon white people.

White erasure may end with a Holocaust of white people, or it could end with their gradual replacement, or it could lead to a resurgence of will that strikes a death blow to Clown World. There’s no way to know yet.

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!

If You Thought Race-Baiting Was Bad In New Zealand Now, You’re Not Ready For What’s Coming

Many Kiwis have never seen serious race-baiting in the mainstream media, and so they have been appalled by the levels it has reached in recent weeks. Maori Party co-leader John Tamihere has been featured, claiming that all non-Maoris are racists. The sad and bitter truth is that race-baiting in the media is about to get worse over the next three months. A great deal worse.

If you thought to yourself, upon hearing Tamihere’s outburst, that there’s no way the mainstream media would platform a white person making a blanket insult about Maoris, you might be in for an inkling of what’s coming.

The example has been set by America, where any accusation of racism is held up by the mainstream media as if it were major news. In America, anyone can get 15 minutes of fame simply by making a big enough fuss about how something is racist. That thing doesn’t have to actually be racist – it’s only necessary to get some hysteria about it started and the mainstream media will throw itself in behind you.

America has fallen into such an advanced state of race neurosis that a mere accusation of racism is enough to cause paroxysms of guilt, fear and rage. These powerful emotional reactions prime a person to respond to advertising suggestions. So the profitability of race-baiting has led to a spate of it – and now it’s coming to New Zealand.

The race-baiting in America is more sophisticated than simply letting two sides throw excrement at each other. The 21st Century way to do it is to let one side throw excrement while excoriating the other side for defending itself. The old way had a tendency to lead to both sides becoming friends, in the manner of drunks after a fistfight. The new way guarantees lasting and bitter hatred.

New Zealand, as ever, is following America’s lead here. In America, it has been proven that shameless race-baiting is a successful method for getting media attention. If a talking head on the television says that the existence of some law, policy or monument is racist, then a shitfight will begin.

The Maori Party, noting the example set by American race-baiters, are going full steam ahead in imitation. John Tamihere seems eager to complete the negrification of the New Zealand Maori, adopting wholesale the slavery-and-struggle narrative of the American blacks. Not for him the narrative that white people and Maoris struggled together for over a century, from New Zealand to Northern Africa, and won a great peace for each other.

The Maori Party narrative is that Maoris and non-Maoris are enemies.

They have now abandoned any pretence of impartiality. “Upsetting the rednecks” is their now stated aim. The race-baiter’s narrative is that a state of war exists between Maoris and non-Maoris, and that any defeat for the latter is a win for the former. The angrier a given policy proposal makes non-Maoris, the better it is.

The claim that a state of war exists between two groups who share the same public space is obviously not a peaceful one. As can be seen from the state of affairs in America, adopting a racial conflict narrative will lead to a worse time for everyone, with more paranoia, hate and violence all round.

The problem is that the Maori Party’s main goal, of dividing the New Zealand people in order to claim a chunk for themselves, coincides perfectly with the mainstream media’s goal of dividing the New Zealand people so that they cannot resist the Establishment. As such, the media will be more than happy, over the next three months, to give attention to any and all race-baiting efforts made by the Maori Party.

Because the Maori Party is more than willing to supply the mainstream media with race-baiting content, the mainstream media never has a shortage of it. Consequently, we can expect a barrage of it between now and the General Election (and beyond). It will be wall-to-wall racial grievance mongering.

We can expect Tamihere and co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to come out and say all kinds of ridiculous shit over the next three months. Expect to hear calls for every city and street to be renamed, for every Government and council agency to make a grovelling apology and for Maori quotas in everything, from Parliament down to Parent Teacher Associations.

No matter how ridiculous, the maintream media will broadcast it all into the homes of every Kiwi, alongside the implication that anyone objecting to any of it is a filthy racist who effectively stands with Hitler a traitor to the nation.

It can be expected, also, that Tamihere and Ngarewa-Packer will avoid making an effort to solve real problems facing Maori people. They will avoid mentioning the benefits to Maori of cannabis law reform, just as the gutless Tamihere shied away from the issue while a Labour MP. This is despite the fact that the imposition of cannabis prohibition onto the Maori people was one of the greatest crimes the New Zealand Government ever committed.

Genuine issues don’t concern the race-baiters, because they win not by alleviating the suffering of their people but by stirring up racial animosity. This animosity gives them more attention and, so they hope, more votes. Over the next three months, it can confidently be predicted that the race-baiting in the media will increase, the quality of public discourse will decrease, the New Zealand people will lose, and our enemies and our exploiters will win.

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!