Claim. The ‘Three Subjects Principle’ — True Parent, True Teacher, True Owner — is offered as a God-centered ideology that supplants Kim Il-sung’s human-centered juche (autonomy, creativity, consciousness) because juche lacks the doctrine of the Original Being.
Elaboration. SMM constructs an explicit ideological alternative to North Korean juche: ‘In the future, we can use as a bulwark the ideology of True Parents, True Teacher and True Owner. These three roles form the Three Subjects Principle’ (Section 6. True Parents and the Nation Why have we sacrificed until now? It). True Father and True Mother occupy all three roles simultaneously: they are True Teachers ‘by virtue of their true love,’ having taught ‘heavenly secrets and earthly secrets in full detail,’ and True Owners as the Lord of lords when the right of kingship is restored.
The structural mapping onto national governance: a nation has the president at the center (parent/master), an education ministry (true teacher function), and an administration (owner of the nervous system). Education ministry and administration stand in ‘a reciprocal relationship… compared to that of Cain and Abel’ — when these become one under the vertical Parent, ‘this right of kingship will become an eternal and indestructible right of kingship.’
The head-to-head with juche is named explicitly: ‘Kim Il-sung has his own version of three-subject ideology, which is autonomy, creativity, and consciousness. However, this is human-centered; it cannot be considered a complete ideology, for it lacks the doctrine of the Original Being. They do not know God.’ The polemical context is the early-1990s Korean peninsular situation; SMM positions the Unification Church’s ideology as the providentially-mandated answer to communism’s most sophisticated indigenous form.
This is one of the cleaner examples of SMM mirror-imaging a rival ideology and claiming the higher ground via theological completeness. The argument has obvious force in the South Korean anti-communist context of the period but raises a question worth following up: does the Three Subjects Principle continue to do work in post-Cold-War UC ecclesiology, or has it become primarily a historical artifact tied to the juche confrontation?