Clown World Chronicles: What Is 'The Muttening'?

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘The Muttening’?

The eschatology of Clown World encompasses a number of endgame scenarios. One is “The Great Awakening,” where the entire world rises into a higher spiritual dimension. Another is “The Boogaloo,” an orgy of violence that redefines the world order. Another, as this chapter will examine, is called “The Muttening.”

Everyone is aware that ethnic diversity is increasing in all Western nations. This is primarily because our ruling classes, beholden to international banking and finance interests, keep the immigration taps open to pump up house prices and to press down wages. They do this with the full support of those they have brainwashed into thinking that opposing immigration is racism.

But this diversity has both benefits and drawbacks.

Among the benefits are an increased richness of life, primarily manifested in an increased variety of food, music and other cultural expressions. It has become possible to meet people from a large variety of different cultures and to hear about their different perspectives on life, politics, religion and philosophy. It’s also been possible to shag some of them.

The drawbacks are harder to talk about. This is partly because they are less obvious, but also because they are taboo. As mentioned above, the population at large has been conditioned to believe that opposing the mass immigration of cheap labour is racism. Many have even come to believe that pointing out any difference at all between two human groups is racism.

This has led to a number of probably unforeseen outcomes.

The reason why this rapid increase in ethnic diversity is called “The Muttening” and not something positive is for the same reason that a mongrel dog is called a mutt and not something positive. The depressing reality is that diversity destroys nations, a consequence of the fact that it makes it harder for the average citizen to relate to others. This is proven by science.

Scientific research shows a negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. The greater the ethnic diversity of an area, the less people trust their neighbours. This has serious consequences for the viability of a country, because the less trust in a society the harder it is to govern. Less trusting people are less accepting of things that go against them and tend to fight and argue more.

This is why there is an association between increased diversity and lowered economic performance. Commerce is dependent on trust – for a modern economy to function, customers have to be confident that they’re buying quality goods and services, and not rubbish designed to rip them off. When trust dries up, the wheels of commerce have trouble turning.

Ultimately, as was argued in this paper, “…when diversity is low in a society and people feel close to their fellow citizens, they can identify with one another and are hence more likely to trust one another.” In other words, diversity makes every society shittier and generally less pleasant to live in. Diversity brings poverty and rage in its wake.

Another consequence of this sudden increase in diversity has been challenges of personal identity. As mentioned above, one of the results of diversity has been an increase in interracial marriage. Naturally, this leads to an increase in the number of mixed-race people.

Many of these mixed-race people find it difficult to assume a coherent identity. Often they are accepted by neither of their parent’s groups. Men like Barack Obama are simultaneously too white to be accepted by other blacks and too black to be accepted by other whites. Obama managed to find a place in the world as an American, but many others live as ghosts, between two worlds.

Some earnest do-gooders have concluded that, if all of the different races in the world would mix together, there would no longer be any ethnic conflict. These people have never seen the state of Brazil. Consequently, these people agitate on the side of the international bankers and finance interests to destroy borders, ostensibly in the belief that to do so would help the “global working class”.

This process of extreme race-mixing at both the individual and group level is known as The Muttening. The reduction of all the vibrant cultures of the world into one homogenised mass of consumer whores. A Starbucks, a McDonalds and an Apple store on every corner, and their patrons interchangeable with the patrons of any other large city. No-one knowing their neighbours, but everyone knowing the latest consumer fashion.

It’s not clear how far The Muttening will go. The entire Western World may end up like Brazil and South Africa, or we may end up with a pan-Western Hitler figure who puts a stop to it all. It may trigger the Boogaloo, or it may trigger the aliens coming to Earth and accepting us into the Galactic Confederation. In any case – the longer it continues, the more fragile Clown World becomes.

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.

Clown World Chronicles: What is the ‘Boogaloo’?

In the darker recesses of the Internet, people like to talk about something called the ‘Boogaloo’. People make references to some future event that goes by this name, and talk about what they would do if and when it happens. As this essay will explain, the Boogaloo is an essential part of the Clown World eschatology.

Most people can sense that something’s fucky about the way the world is. It’s not for nothing we call it Clown World. One study showed that young people today have less than 40% of the housebuying power that their parents had – and things are getting worse. We know that things that are so fucked that they can’t remain that way. Nothing so badly screwed up can also be durable.

It’s obvious to most of these people that the current order of the world is destined to collapse – and soon. There are too many inexorable forces that are pushing towards this. The rot has set in so deeply that it has already reached right into the heart of what holds our society together. The foundations are already giving way.

When the current order of the world does collapse, it’s likely to be ugly. Our economies already operate on the principle of “just in time” delivery, and that means when the shit does hit the fan, supermarkets and petrol stations will start going empty in short order. When they do, people will start to panic. This will result in a sharp increase in desperate, opportunistic behaviours.

This means violence. When basic necessities start becoming scarce, some people will start fighting over what little remains. Normal loyalties to nation, race, neighbourhood and even family will start to break down, and treachery will become commonplace. This state of all-on-all warfare is what people mean by the Boogaloo.

The Boogaloo is the chimpout at the end of this age of the world. It is Ragnarok. It is Armageddon. It is the great reconciliation of grudges and grievances. The Boogaloo is when all law and order collapses, and life becomes reduced to its fundamental principle of kill or be killed.

In the theology of Clown World, the Boogaloo is the great day of judgment. All the tribulations we currently face are merely preparations for this great climax. In much the same way that other religions claim that the order of the world is so inherently evil that it cannot maintain, so too does the Clown World pantheon tell a story of an inescapable final cataclysm of violence.

A common accompaniment to talk about the Boogaloo is weapons talk. A lot of people have been preparing specifically for the end of the world, by stocking food, water, medicine – and firearms. It’s assumed that the Boogaloo will involve a lot of violence, especially in the early days before the population thins out. Having the right weaponry for the Boogaloo is a preoccupation for many in Clown World.

Also related is discussion about social unrest. People like to talk about what might kick the Boogaloo off. Popular theories include an intensification of racial conflict, a spectacular terrorist attack such as the detonation of a nuke, or a sudden change in Government like a coup or impeachment trial. A sudden outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, leading to a nuclear exchange, is another favourite theory.

The classic Boogaloo discussion involves whether the U.S. Army would follow orders to fire on American citizens, should it come down to that. At some point, the reasoning goes, civil unrest would lead to the Army being sent in, and if disorder continued the soldiers might be given an order to fire upon the rioters.

Because Clown World is so shit, many people (especially young men) yearn for the Boogaloo. Many people feel that the structure of Clown World is preventing them from reaching their full potential, or is so egregiously corrupt that it would be a righteous thing to see it fall. They believe that the Boogaloo would release them from the bonds of this false order.

In The Republic, Plato wrote about how political systems inevitably degrade from an aristocracy down through oligarchy to democracy and tyranny (right now we are somewhere between democracy and tyranny). This degradation cannot be reversed – the only way to counteract it is to overthrow the system entirely and to institute a new aristocracy of philosopher-kings.

It may be that the West is fated to endure a Boogaloo as a punishment. This punishment would be for our failure to overthrow the system that we knew was corrupt. The Boogaloo would then serve as a cleansing fire. Alternatively, it could be that the Boogaloo is a necessary step in the process of overthrowing the old, corrupt order and replacing it with a new aristocracy.

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

How Long Until White People Become A Minority in New Zealand?

The recent release of the final statistics from the 2018 New Zealand Census has kept stats nerds across the country busy. One of the busiest has been VJM Publishing numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, who is compiling the data for a third edition of his demographic masterpiece. In this analysis he asks: how long until white people become a minority in New Zealand?

The New Zealand Stats website is a treasure trove of demographic data. There are thousands of tables of information on this page, many of which are customisable. This makes it easy to compare data between groups or between time frames. Often, the data is extrapolated into the future.

The white proportion of the New Zealand population has been falling for some time, as is true of all Western countries.

At the time of the 1991 Census (around when the average VJMP reader was born), there were 2,783,028 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 3,373,929. This means that New Zealand was 82.5% white at this time. Neo-liberalism had all but completed its stranglehold over the New Zealand mindset by 1991, and it was at that point that the mass importation of cheap labour began in earnest.

The New Zealand ruling class had figured out, by this time, that labour costs were their primary expense. The mass importation of foreign cheap labour not only lowered labour costs directly, by introducing what was effectively scab labour into the workplace, but it also lowered labour costs indirectly by destroying the solidarity of the native working class and thereby making it harder for them to organise to negotiate fair wages.

Although the New Zealand people were never asked for their consent to it, the advent of the mass importation of cheap labour would set in motion a course of events that would lead to the Brazilianisation of New Zealand.

At the time of the 2013 Census, there were 3,312,100 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 4,442,100. This means that New Zealand was 74.6% white at that time.

At the time of the 2018 Census, there were 3,357,744 white people in New Zealand, out of a total population of 4,793,358. This means that New Zealand was 71.7% white at the time of the most recent Census, a fall of 10.9% over the 27 years since the 1991 Census.

According to the NZ Stats national ethnic population projections, there should be 3,781,500 white people in New Zealand at the time of the 2038 Census, out of a total population of 5,769,800. This will mean that it will be 65.5% white one generation from now.

Over the 25 years from 2013-38, we are expected to see a decline in the white proportion of the New Zealand population, from 74.6% to 65.5%. This is a total decline of 9.1% over 25 years, or 0.36% per year.

So, over the 47 years from 1991-2038, we are expected to see a decline in the white proportion of the New Zealand population from 81.5% to 65.5%. This would be a total decline of 16%, or 0.34% per year.

Thus, the white proportion of the New Zealand population has fallen by about 0.35% per year since the advent of neoliberalism. So extrapolating forwards from 2038, when the white proportion of the population is expected to be 65.5%, the white population would need to fall a further 15.6% before white people become a minority in New Zealand.

At the current rate of falling 0.35% a year, this suggests a further 45 years from the end of 2038.

In other words, white people ought to become a minority in New Zealand sometime in the early 2080s. That means that the bulk of people reading this article should be dead. This prediction is line with when other Western countries are predicted to end up with white minorities, which exposes the fact that the imposition of neoliberalism was a globalist endeavour.

Of course, all of these projections assume that the current rulers of New Zealand – the international banking and finance class – see fit to keep importing cheap labour at roughly the same rate they are currently doing. This importation of cheap labour will likely continue to be profitable because it drives up house prices and causes demand for mortgages. Therefore, the bankers and financiers will keep pushing it on us until they are stopped.

Although it seems unlikely today, a future nativist movement could come to power in New Zealand and turn the cheap labour taps off. In Sweden we have seen the rise of the Sweden Democrats from 3% 12 years ago to 25% today, where they are now the largest polling party. This is despite the fact that some Sweden Democrats are openly neo-Nazi.

This reasoning also ignores the fact that many Pacific Islanders and Asians, and in principle all of the Maoris, will be at least part white, with some of them being more white than anything else. The average Maori is only 80% as Maori as they were the generation previously, owing to heavy interbreeding with other Kiwis. By the 2080s there may no longer be a distinct Maori race.

At the moment though, with current trends the way they are, the idea of a Great Replacement of white people in New Zealand isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s apparent from the statistics on the New Zealand Government’s own statistics page that white people ought to become a minority in New Zealand some time around 2083.

However, Brenton Tarrant was wrong when he said it was all about the birthrates (at least in New Zealand’s case).

The NZ.Stat website also tells us the projected fertility rates of the various ethnic groups in New Zealand. The Asian fertility rate was 1.61 in 2018, compared to the white fertility rate of 1.82. The Maori fertility rate was 2.36 and the Pacific Island fertility rate 2.4. This Asian fertility rate is well below replacement level, and the Maori and Pacific Islander rates are barely above it.

The Asian fertility rate is expected to fall further, to 1.55, by 2038, whereas the white fertility rate is expected to remain at around 1.8 by this time. By this time the Maori and Pacific Island fertility rates will have fallen to sub-replacement level, at 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. Considering the higher death rate among the Maori and Pacific Island populations, this is hardly a demographic threat.

It’s not about the birthrates – it’s about border control.

There probably isn’t a plan among New Zealand’s ruling elites to commit white genocide, but there doesn’t need to be. White New Zealanders are capable of selling the country out from under their grandchildrens’ feet for the sake of a fat pension. The bankers and finance interests that control the mainstream media, for their part, are more than happy to encourage this short-sighted greed for the sake of the mortgage profits it brings.

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

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

The Implications Of Having Two Referendums At The Same Time As The General Election

At time of writing, there are two referendums scheduled to take place on the same day as the 2020 General Election. The referendum about cannabis law reform was scheduled long ago, but this week saw the news that there would also be a referendum about euthanasia at the same time. What will this mean for the election? Numbers man Dan McGlashan, author of Understanding New Zealand, looks at the statistics.

What these two referendums mean, in short, is that a number of people who wouldn’t otherwise have gone to the polling booths on Election Day will do so. While there, they are very likely to cast a vote for a party in the General Election. Those parties, therefore, will get boosted by the extra turnout caused by the referendums. This article looks at which parties are likely to be the beneficiaries of the fact there are two referendums at the same time as the Election.

Let’s deal with the cannabis referendum first.

The cannabis referendum will predictably bring out the sort of voter who votes for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Some people will make the lazy assumption that, because the Green Party has been the one most visibly championing the cannabis law reform issue, many of the people brought to the polls on Election Day will vote for the Greens. This assumption is likely false for at least one major reason.

The foremost reason is that the people who vote Green already vote in large numbers. There are strong correlations between both having a university degree and earning six figures and being a Green voter. There are also strong correlations between all of these things and turnout rate. Therefore, the sort of person who was likely to vote Green probably already did so in the previous election as well, and so a cannabis referendum won’t change much for them.

I refer to this principle as the General Disenfranchisement Rule. This states that the more a person is disenfranchised (by major measures of social status), the less likely they are to vote. Therefore, moves that enfranchise previously disenfranchised people (such as referendums) tend to bring out people from the lower social echelons. They don’t tend to bring out new National, ACT and Greens voters.

These people from lower social echelons are the sort of person who, as mentioned above, tend to support the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. In Understanding New Zealand I showed who these people are. As a general rule, ALCP voters are heavily Maori and are much more likely to be on the invalid’s benefit. They are doing it worse than supporters of any other party.

In other words, they are from categories that are hitherto heavily disenfranchised. For many of these people, deep resentment has built up regarding the cannabis issue, and if the referendum brings them to the polls they will not vote for Establishment movements. It follows, then, that there will be a considerable boost to the sort of party who already champions the underdog.

The ALCP, Labour, New Zealand First, TOP and the Greens will all split this vote (with the foremost named taking the most).

Regarding the euthanasia referendum, overseas research has shown that supporters of euthanasia tend to be young, left-wing and atheist. This means that this referendum will bring fewer otherwise disenfranchised people to the polling booths than the cannabis one.

The euthanasia idea deeply upsets elderly Christians, who, for whatever reason, feel that the terminally ill ought be forced to suffer as long as possible. However, the vast majority of these people would have come out to vote National or Conservative anyway. Therefore, holding a euthanasia referendum will not bring many extra voters to the ballot boxes on the conservative side.

On the other hand, many of the people who support a euthanasia referendum will be the sort of person who is appalled by Christian morality. These people tend to be young and educated, which means that they are on the margins of voting or not voting. They are less likely to vote Labour and ALCP, but will be more likely to vote Greens and for The Opportunities Party.

Many of these young people will be educated and, therefore, not as severely disenfranchised as the less educated voters who will come out for the cannabis referendum. This suggests that the overall electoral effect of the euthanasia referendum ought to be smaller than for the cannabis referendum.

The combined effect of these two referendums will be to bring a number of young, atheistic people in particular to the ballot boxes.

If the cannabis referendum induces young Maoris to vote and the euthanasia referendum induces young white people to vote, we can predict that this combined youth effect will see increased support for the Labour Party and the ALCP, with minor boosts to the Greens, The Opportunities Party and New Zealand First (who are falsely characterised as an old person’s party).

How large will this number be?

The correlation between turnout rate in the 2017 General Election and voting ALCP in 2017 was -0.63, which speaks to heavy disenfranchisement among cannabis users. Many of these people would not vote under ordinary circumstances. Because the cannabis referendum appeals directly to these heavily disenfranchised people, it could have a noticeable effect on turnout.

This suggests that the combined effect of the two referendums on otherwise disenfranchised voters will be enough to shift the electoral balance towards the centre-left by one to two percent, perhaps accounting for a couple of extra seats for the centre-left bloc. It’s not likely to be enough to decide the balance of power, but if the margins were otherwise thin enough it could be.

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