VJMP Reads: Religion, Property, Violence I

The next edition in the VJMP Reads column is Religion, Property, Violence: A Revolutionary Idea For Society by Horst Niclaus. This book was purchased cheaply from TradeMe. The back cover asks the question “Is the creation of God the reason why equality between human beings has not been achieved yet?”

After a short introduction, in which Niclaus recounts his early upbringing in wartime Germany, the first chapter begins. It is called ‘Does God exist?’

Niclaus mentions here that God was silent during the Holocaust and that “he” has no problems with things like the mass child rapes of the Catholic Church. It’s apparent that Niclaus is arguing against a conception of the Abrahamic God, in particular the Christian one. He lists a number of Biblical contradictions here.

In this chapter Niclaus cites Albert Einstein as saying that the Jewish religion is “an incarnation of the most childish superstition.” He then cites a list of arguments against the Abrahamic God and against religion in general, such as the fact that ignorance and fear underpins much religious belief. These arguments all proceed from a materialist perspective, and should be convincing to someone who has fallen at the second hurdle.

This list of arguments is duplicated from elsewhere, and any materialist ought to find them agreeable. One of the arguments copied here is Epicurus’s one, that makes that claim that if God has the power to end all suffering, but not the Will, then God must be malevolent.

The problem here is that Epicurus makes the assumption that the end of suffering is the highest value. The reality is that God encourages an unpredictable degree of suffering for the purposes of entertainment, on account of that infinite bliss is infinite boredom, and therefore more suffering than a the madcap mix of pleasure and pain that is life on Earth.

Many of the arguments listed here suffer from similar problems. They are attacking a Christian conception of God and therefore attack the characteristics that Christians claim that God has. These arguments do not address (e.g.) Luciferian or Hindu conceptions of divinity. As is true of many Western commentators, Niclaus appears to believe that disproving the Abrahamic conception of God is sufficient to prove the non-existence of God.

Most of the arguments in this chapter proceed on this basis, i.e. they are worthwhile criticisms towards Christianity or Abrahamism, but no more. The quoted section makes one cutting observation of missionaries in particular: while their work is risky, the rewards are to be worshipped by those who accept his guidance.

This chapter ends with the mention of some scientists who advanced the materialist world view, and then some letters to the Christchurch newspaper The Press arguing against Christianity.

*

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.

Where In The World Does New Zealand Rank On Cannabis Law Reform?

New Zealand was once looked to for moral leadership. We were the first country to give women the vote and the first to institute a universal old-age pension, but these were 19th Century issues. On 21st Century issues, such as cannabis law reform, we are no longer close to the frontrunners. This article attempts to determine how far we have fallen.

Perhaps the first major crack in the cannabis prohibition dam came with the legalisation of medicinal cannabis in California in 1996. In the near quarter-century since then, a tidal wave of cannabis law reform has rolled around the world. New Zealand has made a determined attempt to resist this wave, and has stayed loyal to the idea that cannabis users are scum who should be persecuted.

Cannabis is now recreationally legal in California, as it is in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Colombia. That makes for 12 places in just one country that are more enlightened than New Zealand on the cannabis issue – over 100 million people.

Even if a person would say, uncharitably, that all these places are just one country, there are now several other countries that have legalised recreational cannabis. Uruguay did so in 2013 and never looked back. Canada did so in 2018. Georgia and South Africa have also legalised recreational cannabis for possession and consumption (although not yet for sale).

So that makes five countries that have legalised recreational cannabis to some extent – but they’re not the only ones ahead of New Zealand on cannabis law reform.

Many other countries have legal arrangements where cannabis is tolerated without being fully legal. The most famous example is the Netherlands, where cannabis is openly sold from licensed cafes, on the proviso that the cafe is willing to operate under a strict set of conditions. This is not de jure legal, but there is an understanding on the part of the Police that such activity is to be tolerated (provided it stays within certain limits).

Spain has a similar arrangement, where cannabis is legal if kept to private areas such as the personal home or in cannabis social clubs. In this sense, many countries have decriminalised cannabis to a greater extent than what New Zealand has done.

Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovenia, Switzerland and Trinidad and Tobago have all decriminalised cannabis to some degree.

It might come as a blow to the Kiwi ego that several Third World countries are now more advanced than us when it comes to a major moral issue such as cannabis law reform. But it gets worse – even Australia is ahead of New Zealand in this regard now. Cannabis will be legal in the ACT as of next week, and it has already been decriminalised in the Northern Territory and in South Australia.

So that makes 40 countries that have either legalised or decriminalised cannabis to some degree – but the true picture is even worse than this, because New Zealand doesn’t even have medicinal cannabis yet.

Since becoming legal in California 24 years ago, medicinal cannabis has now become legal in a further 32 American states and four territories. Even if we apply the rule from above (according to which all these states and territories only count as one country) there are still many other countries with more tolerant medicinal cannabis laws than New Zealand.

Even Zimbabwe has more enlightened medicinal cannabis laws than New Zealand does – they legalised it in 2018. It might sound incredible to some Kiwi ears that a place with the reputation for corruption and backwardsness of Zimbabwe could be ahead of New Zealand in a major area of medical knowledge. Alas, it’s the truth.

In reality, every single country already mentioned is ahead of New Zealand when it comes to cannabis law reform. We have neither legalisation nor decriminalisation of recreational cannabis, and medicinal cannabis is de facto illegal on account of that virtually no-one can afford what’s on offer.

We were first in the world to repeal the prohibition on women voting. When we eventually get around to repealing elements of cannabis prohibition, we will be no earlier than 70th in the world to have begun to do so. If you count the American states separately, New Zealand will be no earlier than 100th or so.

It might not be easy for the Kiwi ego to accept, but not only are we years behind backwards American states like Louisiana and Alabama, but we are also years behind Third World nations such as Uruguay, South Africa and Zimbabwe. If we ever had any special ability to read the winds of change, or to provide moral leadership to a world desperately in need of it, that is now gone.

By 2020 New Zealand is, morally speaking, right back in the pack. Far from being leaders, we now respond with sheep-like herd instinct to patterns that we’re not intelligent enough to understand. The only way to lift this state of disgrace is to legalise cannabis immediately and across the board.

*

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.

Narcissistic Sadism And Narcissistic Masochism

Narcissistic people pose a number of challenges for the societies in which they reside. Their selfishness is liable to cause suffering to those around them, and the indifference that the typical narcissist shows to this suffering is liable to cause violence. As this essay will examine, however, there are two distinct types of narcissism.

Narcissistic sadism is what most people think of when they think about the problems that narcissism causes. This is when a person puts their own ego above all other considerations, to the point where they harm others for no good reason. Narcissistic sadism is behind most cases of bullying and many cases of physical abuse.

At its most extreme, narcissistic sadism manifests in conditions such as psychopathy, in which other people are considered nothing more than tools for gratification. Psychopaths act as if the suffering of others is entirely meaningless, particularly when it stands in the way of the desire of the psychopath. People like this are all but indistinguishable from demons, as if brought to Earth specifically to wreak misery.

There is, however, another form of narcissism that arguably does just as much damage, if not more. This is narcissistic masochism – when one sacrifices oneself unnecessarily to glorify one’s own moral rectitude or fortitude. It is the act of putting oneself first by putting oneself last.

At first, this doesn’t sound like that much of a problem, considering that masochism primarily does damage to oneself. However, the fact that all individuals are part of a countless number of overlapping systems means that, in much the same way that it’s impossible to remove one knot without damaging the whole net, it’s impossible to damage oneself without damaging other people.

The most striking examples of narcissistic masochism right now are the repeated displays of feet-kissing by Pope Francis. These performances are supposed to broadcast the humility of the Pope to the entire world – but, naturally, Francis only does them when the cameras are in position and rolling. In his abject submission, Francis supposes that he’s demonstrating his superior moral sophistication to the world.

All kinds of martyr complexes could fall under this rubric of narcissistic masochism. The common element is that narcissistic masochists will glorify themselves as they are destroyed, usually in the belief that they have established some kind of moral supremacy over the rest of humanity. They believe that their destruction has occurred on account of that they are too good or pure for this world.

A more nefarious example of this phenomenon is collective narcissistic masochism. This is most obviously seen today in the form of ethnomasochism.

In particular, there is a strain of ethnomasochism that is constantly berating itself for its supposed role in various historical crimes, in particular colonialism and slavery. This strain believes that collective narcissistic sadism (which perhaps reached its apogee in Germany between 1939-45) is the world’s foremost danger, so much so that we ought to go as far as possible in the opposite direction.

This strain of narcissistic masochism leads to people supporting the mass importation of “refugees” from various disadvantaged parts of the world. Even when these people are told that these imports will commit a massively disproportionate amount of sex crimes, this is waved away as some kind of karmic payback for the nebulous historical crimes of the white man.

The psychology involved here is very similar to that of a masochist who pays a dominatrix to beat him on the grounds that he has misbehaved terribly in the past. In principle there’s little difference between someone grovelling before a dominatrix and someone grovelling because they believe that they have inherited the sins of their ancestors. The brain circuitry that inspires either action is broadly the same.

The archetypal narcissistic sadist is little more than an overgrown toddler. They never grew past the phase of responding primarily to egoic desires. Although their actions may have become more complicated and sophisticated as they became adults, the basic motivation is the same aggression that motivates small children and wild animals – an instinct that puts itself first before any other consideration.

The archetypal narcissistic masochist is the one who hates his family, hates his neighbourhood, hates his city, hates his country and hates his race. He will not admit to hating the world, because that doesn’t give him the opportunity to glorify himself. Anything associated with himself, however, he hates. Therefore, he derives gratification from destroying himself and anything associated with him.

The major difference between the two is that the sadist is other-focused, whereas the narcissist is self-focused. Although both are self-centred, the sadist focuses on destroying the other, whereas the masochist focuses on destroying himself (or any group that he may belong to).

If men like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer best represent narcissistic sadism, perhaps people like Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Pope Francis best represent narcissistic masochism. The latter group of people – although most don’t realise it – cause just as much suffering and misery as the former, if not more. They also cause it for equally narcissistic reasons.

*

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.

The Gentlemen Shows That The Normalisation Of Cannabis Is All But Complete


Guy Ritchie’s latest crime caper film, The Gentlemen, is the rollicking, romping gorefest that one has come to expect from the director of Snatch. Behind the larger-than-life characters and the brilliant dialogue, however, are a few hints about where society is going, and a few things made to look normal that aren’t usually normalised. This article explains.

Cannabis users who stopped to think about it may have noticed a few things in The Gentlemen that are different to the usual messages contained within big-budget films. Normally alcohol, tobacco, adrenaline and oxytocin are all portrayed as acceptable forms of enjoyment, but cannabis is not. Cannabis tends to get lumped with opium and heroin as a drug of despair.

The hero of the story, Mickey Pearson, is a British cannabis tycoon. The character, played by Matthew McConaughey, is in charge of an empire that produces 50 tons of skunk every year. Yes, he has done some bad things on the way up through the underworld, but he’s very much a moral player, someone with far more class than the average criminal.

This weed-dealing protagonist is presented as the good guy, who the audience is invited to sympathise with. Not a good guy – because he’s certainly capable of violent crime still – but the good guy. This makes a change from the usual popular culture treatment of cannabis users. Aside from this central fact, several scenes in the film serve to normalise the idea of cannabis in the eyes of the audience.

In one scene, Mickey speaks to a Chinese gangster and heroin dealer named Lord George. Mickey makes the point that the drug he himself deals doesn’t kill anyone, unlike the heroin that George deals. It’s uncommon for a popular culture film to draw a distinction between cannabis dealers and “other” drug dealers. Usually the two are lumped in together, but here Lord George is presented as distinctly less moral than Mickey.

In another scene, Mickey’s henchman Ray (played by Charlie Hunnam) smokes a joint while expressing his disgust for heroin users. While rolling it up he expounds upon his weed preferences, including his belief that the right mixture of cannabis and tobacco is 50:50. In this scene, we are invited to sympathise with the cannabis-smoking Ray, whose classy demeanour presents him in sharp contrast to the heroin users around him.

In yet another scene, the major antagonist is trying to bargain Mickey down on the selling price of Mickey’s business. The antagonist makes the point that cannabis will become legal soon and therefore his enterprise would have to compete with the legal market, which inspires Mickey to demonstrate that his business has been future-proofed already.

The point that cannabis will become legal soon, and therefore that the relative values of positions in the cannabis market will change soon, is made with certainty. Guy Ritchie has his finger on the pulse well enough to know which way things are going, and it’s obvious from the international trends that moves towards cannabis liberalisation will soon occur everywhere. People have thought through most possibilities already.

This means that the plot of The Gentlemen is realistic enough to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. It’s a great film – and for cannabis users eager to see an end to the prejudice against them, it’s great to see cannabis use normalised in popular culture.

*

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.

Clown World Chronicles: What Is An ‘Incel’?

The history of Clown World has two major phases. The first is the decline into ever-increasing levels of depravity, something that we can call the Weimar Stage. The second is the self-immolation, involving ever-increasing levels of violence and brutality, something that we can call the Nazi stage. This essay discusses a phenomenon that can be found inbetween those two phases: the incel.

‘Incel’ stands for ‘involuntary celibate’. Here ‘celibate’ is used to mean someone who doesn’t have sex, and ‘involuntary’ means that they’d rather be having sex if they could. Of those who abstain from sex involuntarily, some are disfigured or infirm, but others are forced to abstain on account of that they aren’t physically or socially attractive enough to find sexual partners.

‘Incel’ stands in contrast both to a sexually active person and to those who have chosen to abstain from sexual activity. The latter are known as ‘volcels’, which stands for ‘voluntary celibate’. Volcels and incels occupy entirely separate worlds. Whereas the volcel is like a monk or shaman who has transcended the sexual impulse, the incel is like a horny dog who is dominated by it.

In practice, only men are referred to as incels. The reality is that almost every female can get laid if they want to, even if they’re unusually ugly. Some women may be celibate on account of that they’re unable to form an emotional connection with men, but even such women can still get laid if they can get their heads into it.

Internet dating apps have led to something called the “Incel Epidemic.” Because the human mating process is gynocentric – i.e. women hold the vast bulk of the decision-making power – the bottom 50% or so of men now have little chance of finding a satisfying sexual relationship. Women can simply choose that their Internet dating profile doesn’t get seen by (for example) men shorter than six feet tall – and they do.

This epidemic has been accelerated by the further breakdown of society. Ever more young men are autistic, and these men often have too much trouble interacting with women to ever get laid. Many of these young men have been rejected enough times that they have become bitter. Having become bitter they have turned away from women, and from the social occasions that offer chances to meet them.

The icing on the cake is the easy availability of competing pleasures. PornHub can deliver the most intense, hardcore and depraved pornography ever recorded in human history direct to the visual synapses of every 13-year old with an Internet connection. So if women seem like too much hassle, there are plenty of alternatives. Some will say that porn isn’t real, but the incel would retort that most of the dating scene isn’t real either.

All of these things have combined to make the proportion of young men not having sex higher than ever before. There have never been more incels in Western society. The danger with this is clear: not getting laid can lead to incel rage. Perhaps the most infamous example was that of Elliot Rodgers.

On May 23, 2014, Rogers went on a killing spree motivated by incel rage, claiming six lives and wounding 14 others. He left a manifesto detailing his motivation for the killings. In it the explained that he was angry at women for rejecting him, and jealous of sexually active men for sleeping with those same women. This deep-seated resentment exploded in violence, as it so often does.

Many people are concerned that, as the proportion of incels continues to increase, the risk of other young men doing an Elliot Rodgers increases. Many incels have yet to do so because they still believe that they can get laid. But as society disintegrates further, more and more of them will turn away from society in resentment. The incel epidemic promises to get worse and worse.

The nightmare scenario is that another Hitler rises up to channel the incel rage against their enemies. The original Nazi movement was partially motivated by the everyday man’s horror at how slutty and degenerate the everyday Fraulein had become under the Weimar Republic, and a future totalitarian movement could use incel rage to gain power. A new Hitler could blame Jewish media influence for why young men can’t get laid any more.

As this magazine has written about previously, the incel problem is older than the human species. As civilisation has developed, we have also developed a number of solutions to this problem, some more effective than others.

The Abrahamic solution to the incel problem, favoured by many men still today, is to make women into second-class citizens. In practice, the physical dominance of men will always make this option possible. This solution arranges things so that every man gets one woman, and if she doesn’t like it she gets beaten or raped into submission. It appeals naturally to those of a Semitic mindset, but does not appeal to those of an Indo-European one.

Another solution that people joke about, some more jokingly than others, is state-mandated girlfriends. This solution appeals to those men who work, but whose income is not sufficient to really impress women – in other words, whose income enough to raise a family on. It also appeals to the autistic segment of the male population that cannot into charming women.

Yet another solution is to allow rich men to marry multiple women. This solution has been used by many different cultures at different times, usually after a great war has caused a shortage of suitable men. It could be argued that the West is in the process of losing a great spiritual war, and therefore many men are already spiritually dead. It might be better, then, to allow spiritually extant men to marry multiple women.

The ultimate outcome of the incel epidemic is not clear. What is known, however, is that sexual frustration regularly manifests as violence in countless numbers of vertebrate species. There’s every chance that, as the incel epidemic increases in magnitude, the incidence of incel rage-based chimpouts increase in frequency. The energies involves may even contribute to a great collective chimpout.

*

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.

How The Left Snookered Itself Into Supporting Hatred

The Western Left has, by 2020, wedded itself to blank slate theory. Not only is it dogmatically true among most leftists that all human subgroups are precisely identical in intellectual capacity, but it’s also dogmatically true that if you believe that human subgroups differ in intellectual capacity you are evil. As this essay explains, the Left has snookered itself thanks to the rigidity of its own ideology.

Inherent to modern leftist theory is the belief that the under-representation of black, brown and Muslim people in prestigious positions in Western business, academia and politics can be best explained by white supremacy. The inherent racism of the white man, we are told, induces him to keep black, brown and Muslim people out of these high positions. The presence of inequality is taken as evidence of the existence of prejudice.

Part of this leftist theory is the adamant denial that white people might be wealthier than other races because of a higher IQ. All the science that suggests that an academic achievement gap – roughly equal to one standard deviation – exists between black and white students, is racism. Any scientist arguing for such an explanation is a racist.

Also part of this theory is an adamant denial that white people might be wealthier than other races because of a culture that leads them to study hard, and thereby to earn high positions on merit. Leftists are not keen on the idea that the Enlightenment of the Ancient Greeks lit the torch for the intellectual achievements of the entire Western World for the past 2,500 years. Much simpler to blame any difference in outcomes on racism.

If you’re the sort of slave-minded person who resents anyone better than you, this philosophy intuitively appeals. There are few things that the weak like to do more than think up reasons why the strong are immoral. Any explanation that ascribes immorality to those who excel will appeal nicely to the vanity of those who have not excelled.

Adopting this belief brings with it some probably unforeseen consequences.

If you say all human groups are precisely equal, the greater over-representation of Jews in high positions in politics, media and academia can only be explained by nepotism and/or an extreme ingroup bias. If it cannot be down to a genetic or a cultural advantage, it can only be explained by Jews weaseling their way into high positions and then corruptly holding the door open to other Jews on the basis of their shared identity.

Something similar applies to Far East Asians in the West, whose achievement often exceeds that of even Jews. In many American universities, Asian students need to get higher marks before they will get accepted – not only higher marks than blacks and Hispanics but higher than whites as well! These universities discriminate against Asians because they are forced to in order to remain ideologically coherent (to the extent that this is possible).

It’s unfair to assume that someone’s excellence is necessarily the consequence of immorality, but this conclusion is now unavoidable for leftists. If Jews in America and Northern Europe have average IQs of around 107-108, as estimated by the world’s foremost intelligence researcher Richard Lynn, then some proportion of over-representation in high positions is all but inevitable (at least while the average IQ of the host population is less than 107). Therefore, leftists are bound to end up hating them.

This was demonstrated by Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign for the British General Election last December.

If you believe in blank slate theory, the different outcomes for groups with different IQs cannot be the result of anything that could be attributed to an inherent superiority, whether that superiority be natural or learned. Therefore, anyone who ascribes to strict egalitarianism ends up snookering themselves into defending positions that, if presented to them in isolation, they would reject.

The more horizontalist a person’s moral viewpoint becomes, the more necessary it becomes to ascribe moral impropriety to anyone who excels. If all human subgroups were precisely equal, then any subgroup that dominates must therefore be exploitative or aggressive than the others. The more they dominate, the more exploitative or aggressive they must be. Therefore, it’s fair to hate any group that excels.

This is every bit the slave morality that it sounds like.

Some leftists have twisted themselves into comically inconsistent positions on account of this dogma. There is a strain of them that will tell you that the underachievement of browns and blacks is the fault of white supremacism, but the overachievement of Jews is, at the same time, best explained by genetic or cultural reasons inherent to Jews.

The problem here is that said leftists have merely adopted an anti-white position, and are therefore just as hateful as any Nazi. The only consistent thing about believing that Jews earned their position by merit but that whites cheated their way to their (lesser) position is a hatred for white people. And anti-white hatred, despite its current fashionability, is not a morally superior position.

The only truly loving conception of reality is one that sees it accurately. Firstly, this means to see it accurately despite the egoic temptations to view it in a way that makes you seem genetically, culturally or morally superior. Secondly, this means to see it accurately despite the egoic temptations to deny that fact that you are genetically, culturally or morally superior when you really are.

This double balancing act is the essence of metaphysical gold. Anyone who can stave off both the traps of narcissistic sadism and narcissistic masochism is a true philosopher.

*

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.

Slavedrivers Of The Realm Of Silver

Slavedrivers have always been naturally of the realm of iron – or so it seems. The whips and chains and other sadomasochistic accoutrements of the slavedriver all appear induced to cause physical suffering. As this essay will explain, however, there is an entire niche of people adapted to do the same thing, only they use psychological suffering. They are the slavedrivers of the realm of silver.

The slavedrivers of ancient Egypt, of the medieval Arabs and of the American South were all of the realm of iron. They had learned that the slaves would become compliant after enough beatings, and so their niche was to use violence and the threat of pain to induce compliance. The main purpose of this was to get them to work.

Another main purpose of the slavedrivers of the realm of iron is to make sure that the slaves don’t leave the plantation. The slavedrivers made sure that the slaves are restricted to clearly defined physical boundaries. Straying outside of these, whether by refusing to do something or by doing the wrong thing, resulted in punishment, or was simply made impossible from the beginning by use of chains.

The purpose of the slavedrivers of the realm of silver is to make sure that the slaves don’t leave the thought plantation.

Joseph Stalin once said “Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t let our enemies have guns, so why would we let them have ideas?” This summarises the ethos of the slavedrivers of the realm of silver. Their objective is to make sure that the slaves do not have ideas that threaten the objectives of the slave owners, by keeping them within the clearly defined boundaries of the thought plantation.

The first of these slavedrivers that people encounter are teachers. The education system works on the “give with one hand, take with the other principle.” They give people useful knowledge about mathematics, science, grammar and logic, and in exchange they take away the intellectual independence of those people by enforcing conformity of thought.

A person’s teachers will tell them where the boundaries of the thought plantation are. They will cause psychological suffering to any student who strays outside those boundaries, primarily through belittling them. It will be implied that any unapproved thought is stupid, and that any student entertaining an unapproved thought is stupid.

When a person becomes an adult, their teachers are replaced by “experts” on television. These talking heads are the ones tasked with keeping adults on the thought plantations. Because less than 10% of the population is educated enough to understand a scientific paper, and therefore to determine truth from falsehood, television experts are the final authority on whether certain claims are true or not.

The television experts tell people what’s real and what isn’t. The people then parrot the statements of the television experts to each other, and after they’ve heard them parroted often enough they come to be accepted as the truth. The slavedrivers of the realm of silver are the ones who cause people to believe what they do. In the 21st century, they are in charge of the apparatus of propaganda.

The main objective of the slavedrivers of the realm of silver is to induce people to submit to the way that they’re being ruled. They don’t use whips, as do the slavedrivers of the realm of iron, so they have to cause suffering in more subtle ways. They manipulate the way that humans have evolved to cause them pain in social, intellectual and spiritual domains.

One major tactic is to play on a person’s fear of feeling stupid. Because the slavedrivers of silver are always in a position of social authority, their words carry weight. Therefore, teachers and television figures can make people feel stupid for holding any unapproved ideas.

The other major tactic is to play on a person’s fear of ostracisation. No-one wants to get kicked out of their peer group, and if the peer group comes to believe something you better come to believe it as well or risk your position. The slavedrivers of the realm of silver will tell people that “everyone thinks X” or “the group thinks X”, and so anyone thinking differently is guilty of violating social norms, meaning that some aggression against them may be justified.

Both teachers and media pundits encourage people to bully freethinkers as “the idiot who thinks Y”, where Y is a thought proscribed by the plantation owners. In practice, Y could be almost literally anything. American students are bullied today for not having been subjected to male infant genital mutilation, so in theory any perversity can be normalised.

The slavedrivers of the realm of silver condition people into obedience with the same cruelty and aggression as the plantation overseers of the antebellum American South. They do this for the same reasons – to earn the favour of the plantation owners who pay their wages. It’s a whores and gangsters world, and the slavedriver plays both roles.

The fact that people are getting Police harassment visits for social media posts (as is becoming more common all over the West) portends disaster. If the plantation owners are getting slavedrivers of the realm of iron (such as the Police) to do jobs that had previously been delegated to the slavedrivers of the realm of silver, it could mean that the plantation owners are losing control.

*

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.

Clown World Chronicles: Who Is The ‘Alt-Right’?

Crucial to understanding Clown World is understanding that the Establishment has failed the people. The alternatives to the Establishment take many forms, but they fall into three major groups: the alt-left, the alt-centre and the alt-right. This essay describes those who fall into the category of alt-right.

In order to understand what the alt-right is, it’s necessary to understand how it came to be.

The old right are the people who originally had power. By ‘originally’, here we mean the very beginnings of history. The ancient kings who were first to organise armies to enforce their will. Such monarchs held power until the late 18th century, with only occasional interruptions (such as Ancient Greece).

By the time of the French Revolution in 1789, anti-monarchical sentiments had grown so powerful that they were able to force a change to the status quo. They were later given the name “left wing” from the fact that they sat on the left wing of the French Parliament. Right wing came, then, to stand for pro-monarchical sentiments that did not favour change, and left wing for sentiments that did favour change.

By 2020, both the right and the left wings have agreed that change or no change doesn’t matter – all that matters is that the money keeps flowing. The Marxists and the ownership class both agree that the mass importation of cheap labour is a good thing. The Marxists agree because they want to stick it to the nationalists, and the ownership class agrees because it drives down wages and pushes up asset prices.

The real alt-right could be said to be that which has developed out of the sense of betrayal that many have felt over the old right falling into the centre. The old right were supposed to be conservatives, and they were supposed to be defending the status quo. Young Westerners today face the reality of becoming minorities in their own lifetimes, and that portends a future every bit as bleak as that of white people in South Africa.

Now that the conservatives have, like the socialists, collapsed into the neoliberal centre, new niches on the right wing have appeared. Some of these have been filled by echoes of the old right, such as the various Christian revival movements. This has led to considerable support for monarchy and for theocracy within the alt-right.

The great divide within the alt-right is between the libertarians (who are little different to the neoliberals in the centre) and the authoritarians (who are little different to the Nazis). These two groups have similar reasons for rejecting the left, but they have different reasons for rejecting the old right.

The libertarian alt-right are the sort of people who read the cyberpunk classics and found them good. This is the sort of person who hears about the Chinese practice of black market auctions of body organs requisitioned from political dissidents and considers it an argument in favour of capitalism. These people reject the old right because they consider it bad for business.

The authoritarian alt-right are often Nazi apologists. They are horrified by cyberpunk novels, horrified by modern life, horrified by everything. They reject the old right because they don’t think it went far enough – they want the imposition of order, by gunpoint if necessary. This strain of the alt-right is the kind that the mainstream is worried about, partly because they don’t care about money.

These two groups are especially divergent on the question of race.

None of the old right, the old left or the old centre ever cared about nation or race. They never needed to, because there were no other races. The old right was the ruling class within the nation, and the old left was the working class within the nation, and neither was divided by race because other races weren’t present.

The alt-left arose as a globalist response to this arrangement, after modernity had mixed the peoples of the world together. It came to prey on working-class resentment in other countries, directing it to the destruction of nationalist sentiments. For the alt-left, racism is the original sin of white people, and therefore all white people must be eternally vigilant against its rise.

The authoritarian strand of the alt-right arose as a response to this. In contrast to the Establishment, the authoritarian strand of the alt-right is obsessed with race questions. They know that, on current trends, white people are expected to become a minority in all Western nations by the end of the century. They anticipate that this will end up like Zimbabwe for white people, and therefore mass immigration is an existential threat.

This strand of the alt-right are biological essentialists, and as such they clash head-on with the blank slatists among the alt-left. The alt-centrist belief is that these two sides, being at opposite poles of the ethnonationalist spectrum, are like two cheeks of the same arse: the ethnosupremacism of the alt-right and the ethnomasochism of the alt-left feed off each other, all but guaranteeing some climactic future conflict.

In this regard, the authoritarian alt-right is very different to the libertarian alt-right. The libertarians don’t give a fuck if there are inherent genetic behavioural differences between the different races – they’ll happily manufacture and market products tailored for any subculture or social niche. As long as the dollars roll in, the libertarian alt-right couldn’t care if the whole West became African.

The alt-right will continue to grow in power as the alt-left does, as the two sides feed off each other. Their combined energy helps to draw power away from the Establishment, which is the basis of the Fourth and Fifth Acceptance. However, the alt-centrist will always see the two sides as dangerous extremists, more similar to each other than different on account of their shared fanaticism.

*

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.