The Establishment Right, The Far Right And The Alt Right

A recent comment on the VJM Publishing FaceBook page asked us to define far-right. This was in response to an article on the company page that had used this adjective in reference to the rising far-right populist movements in Europe. It was not our intent to use far-right as a pejorative, but simply to use it with precision. This essay elucidates.

Politics, correctly practised, is the successful pre-emption of violence. Way back in the biological past, a wise primate realised that if he ensured the bananas were fairly distributed, there was much less fighting. The great advantage with such an arrangement was that the troop became much better able to resist intrusions from other primate troops. Thus, the genes of the primates belonging to the wise one’s troop proliferated.

Human politics is not meaningfully different to monkeys fighting over bananas. As with primates, we don’t really fight over bananas, but rather over the land on which the bananas grow. More specifically, we fight for the right to ownership of land, which amounts to the right to tax the land of its bananas and anything else that grows or is produced on it.

Most of human history is the story of people killing each other over this right to ownership. Politics, when practiced well, is the art of avoiding this killing. Today, instead of the landowners and the peasantry violently fighting over who keeps what, we compromise through things like Parliamentary representation and democratic elections.

The Establishment Right are the remnants of those who first laid down the law. The Establishment Right started with the ancient kings, and membership of it is usually inherited. They naturally clash with those who inherit positions of weakness and poverty. The Establishment Right are those who don’t want any change at all, because they’re sitting sweet already.

On the right wing, there are two alternatives to the Establishment Right: the alt right and the far right. These two groups have several things in common, and overlap to a major degree. However, the distinction between the two is important, and the failure to clearly understand this is why there is so much confusion when it comes to use of the term ‘far right’.

The alt right, like the far right, are those who reject the Establishment Right on the grounds that the latter have compromised too much with the left. However, the alt right still seeks an accommodation with the Establishment. Rather than destroying the Establishment as the far right wishes to, the alt right wants to replace the Establishment Right. This they attempt to do by presenting a superior set of policies.

The far right also seeks to replace the Establishment Right – but as one step in the replacement of the entire Establishment. They’d rather rebuild the entire system from the ground up than merely replace one part of it. The far right is not interested in compromise at all – they would rather build a concentration camp network and put their opponents in there at gunpoint.

The far right, then, is that element of the right wing that prefers violence to compromise. This is different from the alt right. ‘Far-right’ is really another term for ‘extremist’. This follows naturally from the fact that they see their opponents as inherently evil. Because their opponents are evil, no compromise is possible – they have to be smashed.

One distinguishing characteristic of the far right is that their skewed perceptions leads them to see other right-wingers as leftists. People on the far right consider everyone in the Establishment Right and the alt right to be some kind of leftist. The far right operates on a “with us or against us” mentality.

‘Alt-right’, by contrast, is a term for right-wingers who want an alternative to the way things are currently practised. The alt right is separate to the far right, although they are not mutually exclusive. As mentioned in a previous essay from this column, there are two major strains to the alt right: the libertarian and the authoritarian strain.

The libertarian strain of the alt right is exemplified by David Seymour’s ACT Party. They’re not interested in carrying on the stupidities of the Establishment Right, such as the War on Drugs. Neither do they want a prohibition on abortion, prostitution, pornography or euthanasia. These libertarian alt-rightists agree with the Establishment Right that taxes should be low, but that’s about it.

The authoritarian strain of the alt right is very much far-right.

The New Conservative Party want to continue the War on Drugs, and to use violence to put drug users in cages. They are not at all interested in hearing why recreational cannabis users choose to use that substance instead of alcohol. They’re not interested in any compromise with recreational cannabis users – these people are scum to be destroyed.

Therefore, it’s entirely legitimate to refer to them as far-right extremists. All extremists gain power from hate, and the New Conservatives could be accurately placed alongside neo-Nazis in this category of hate-fuelled, authoritarian alt right (the only meaningful difference between the neo-Conservatives and the neo-Nazis is that the former are Abrahamist, the latter not).

These people are very different to alt-rightists such as David Seymour and other right-wing libertarians. If anything, they have more in common with the Establishment Right. The far right can at least agree with the Establishment Right that liberty is bad. Arguably, this means the far right is more accurately considered an extension of the Establishment Right rather than an alternative to it, as is the alt right.

In summary, the lines between the Establishment Right, the far right and the alt right can be drawn thusly: the Establishment Right are the foremost defenders of the Establishment and abhor change, the far right are those conservatives and reactionaries who do not want to compromise and the alt right are those who oppose the both the left and the Establishment Right, the latter who they hope to supplant.

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 Are The ‘Alt Left’?

Because Clown World is a failed system, there are many people proposing alternatives. A previous article here discussed who the alt-right are. There’s equally as great a need to explain their opposites on the alternative spectrum – the alt-left. Like two cheeks of the same arse, one doesn’t find the alt-left in isolation from, but rather in symbosis with, the alt-right. This article explains.

The alt-left, basically speaking, are those who reject the Establishment on the grounds that it’s not horizontalist enough. Like the alt-right, the alt-left considers the left, the right and the centre all to be much the same thing – one corrupt, monolithic entity. They consider that the left, the right and the centre are all represented by the same ruling class, so that all three groups are too cozy with each other to ever change.

What the alt-left wants is more horizontalism. That means anyone calling for hierarchy, separation or division of any kind is considered evil. The alt-left are the loudest voices calling for open borders, on the grounds that physical restrictions to movement are immoral. They are also the ones calling for a dissolution of the boundaries between genders.

Unfortunately, this extreme form of horizontalism necessarily implies getting rid of some borders that are there for good reason. The alt-left has no time at all for arguments about the disproportionate number of sex crimes committed by immigrants to the West from Muslim and African countries. Mentioning this is racist, and we should hold the borders open to all no matter how much sexual abuse they commit.

More insidiously, the alt-left also seeks to dissolve the sexual borders between adults and children. Wherever you have alt-leftists, you almost inevitably have people who are sympathetic to the argument that adults having sexual contact with children can be healthy for the children. The idea that sexual boundaries between adults and children are immoral is very persuasive to the alt-left.

The alt-centrist perspective is that both the alt-left and the alt-right are dangerous extremists.

This is reciprocated by the alt-left, who consider the alt-centre the same sort of Nazi as everyone else. Because the alt-centre agrees that the alt-right is correct about some things, the alt-left lumps the two in together. They do not realise that there is such a thing as the Fifth Rejection, according to which alt-centrists reject alt-right thought as fundamentally lacking empathy. Anyone not with the alt-left is against them.

The alt-left has authoritarianism in common with the alt-right. However, whereas the latter longs for another authoritarian figure, perhaps an avatar of the white race, the former enforces horizontalism with the same authoritarian zeal. It’s an extremely aggressive form of slave morality, in which any individual or group who excels at anything has to be ripped down.

The morality of the alt-left could be summed up with the following maxim: in every conflict, always take the side of the weaker party. The logic is that no weaker party would purposefully start a conflict, therefore the aggressor in any conflict must be the stronger of the two sides. Since morality demands that one oppose aggressors, it follows that one must take the side of the weaker party in every conflict.

This logic leads the alt-left to, for example, take the side of the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestine conflict, to take the side of the natives in any conflict against settlers and to take the side of women any time they accuse a man of anything. The alt-left does not brook any disagreement with the maxim that weakest is best. For them, it’s vulgar to make the argument that the stronger party in any given conflict might be the morally superior one.

The authoritarianism of the alt-left is part of the reason for the Fourth Rejection. The alt-centrist doesn’t have a problem with authoritarianism, in and of itself – but it has to be correct, proportionate, necessary and grounded in an accurate understanding of reality. The authoritarianism of the alt-left is none of this.

The authoritarianism of the alt-left is every bit the psychopathically controlling hate ideology that caused so much suffering to the people of the Soviet Union, and whose horrors were detailed in writings such as The Gulag Archipelago. The alt-left would happily recreate a gulag system, so absorbed are they in their own moral certitude.

The alt-left and the alt-right are in a state of conflict, and this will grow more intense as the Establishment fades. Both sides are gagging for a final, climactic and decisive battle so that they can forever crush their enemy or be destroyed in the attempt. As the individuals populating the Establishment continue to die of old age, the pro-war individuals will continue to grow in influence.

In summary, the alt-left is mostly made up of those who reject (and/or are rejected by) the Establishment. They are mostly the kind of freak that couldn’t fit into the system, although they often genuinely want to do so. This leads to the resentment that underpins all slave moralities. This resentment manifests as hatred for the oppressor class, where ‘oppressor’ is defined as anyone with wealth, influence or privilege.

The alt-left responds to this with oppression of their own, usually in the form of a swarming multitude of shaming attacks from as many people as possible. A favoured tactic is trying to destroy the reputation and livelihood of wrongthinkers by reporting them en masse to the authorities. The shadows of the Stasi informer network can be seen behind the alt-left’s constantly ratting out their enemies.

Whereas the old left looked to find accommodation with their opponents, the alt-left wants to annihilate them. They use tactics such as cancelling and deplatforming, preventing their enemies from communicating with an audience. They see no shame in this, reasoning that the more their enemies get to speak, the more powerful those enemies are.

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.

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 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 would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.