Why Inequality Destroys Nations

One often hears the argument that inequality destroys societies, but it isn’t easy to understand why. The mainstream media tells us that a rising tide lifts all boats, and so people ought to enjoy the bounty of the modern day without worrying about how other people have more. But the economic psychology of inequality is complicated. This essay explains.

Casting an eye over a list of countries ordered by their degree of income inequality, one trend leaps out: unequal countries tend to be shitholes, and egalitarian countries tend to be decent.

Among the most unequal countries are places like Brazil, Mexico and the majority of African countries. Among the most equal countries are the European ones, Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. The pattern is obvious: a strong correlation exists between economic equality and overall quality of life.

The reasons for this can be understood if we compare the motivations of individuals in equal societies to individuals in unequal ones. The simple rule is that once inequality gets to the point where you no longer have a stake in society, then you no longer have a stake in society. This has behavioural consequences.

In an equal society, the members closer to the bottom of it still have enough of a stake to feel engaged. They are not so far from the decision-making level that their desires are ignored. Having a meaningful chunk of power, they are incentivised to work towards society’s betterment (or at least its upkeep).

In equal societies, all members feel a sense of ownership. A sense of pride at the quality of life offered by the society follows naturally. With ownership and pride, a person will take action to uphold that society. This is why people in countries like Sweden, Canada and Australia tend to perform prosocial behaviours like putting their shopping trolleys away and disposing of their litter in bins.

In an unequal society, the members closer to the bottom are without influence. Decisions are made so far above their heads that they aren’t consulted. As such, the people at the bottom are not incentivised towards prosocial behaviour. They perform antisocial behaviours, like aggressive panhandling, theft, robbery, sex crimes and murder.

In a society like this, not everyone feels a sense of ownership. Those who don’t tend to not contribute to society’s upkeep. In exactly the same way that rented cars and houses are treated much worse than personally owned cars and houses, a society in which people can only rent a stake (at best) will be treated much worse than a society in which people can own one.

The inevitable result of increasing inequality is a decline in prosocial behaviour and an increase in antisocial behaviour. You might as well throw that Coke can in the gutter, because it isn’t you that will have to pay to clean it up. In fact, the more damage you can do to society the better, because it will take the bastards who locked you out down a peg or two.

New Zealand might be in the middle of the inequality pack, but it’s still practically impossible to own a home here without inheritance. The average wage today has less than 40% of the housebuying power that it had 26 years ago. Our society is now so unequal that what used to be the elementary sign of having a stake in it – owning a home – is practically a dream unless you’re born rich.

This inequality has all but destroyed our society. It’s easy to see why if one imagines how it has affected people’s motivations.

As a non-landowner who will never own land while the average wage cannot buy the average house, I don’t care what happens to society. I have no stake in it and will never have one as long as the prevailing economic circumstances continue. New Zealand is someone else’s property, and as such I don’t feel motivated to defend it or to do any work to maintain it.

It’s said that if too many people drop out of society, then our economy would collapse, leading to New Zealand becoming ungovernable, perhaps even to civil war. I say: “Good!” If civil war means that I can afford a house in five years, then bring on civil war!

Many people will be appalled to hear such reasoning. But such reasoning is inescapable once a person has no stake in society. If the order of society as being maintained at my expense, then bring on the chaos! It’s irrational to reason otherwise unless one is content to be the slave of the rich, effectively a serf whose labour will never allow them to own land.

Given this psychological calculus, it’s apparent that increasing inequality will inevitably lead to society collapsing as fewer and fewer people feel like they have an interest in keeping it going. Prosocial behaviour will decline, and antisocial behaviour will rise, to the point where the fabric of society no longer exists, and we are back in Hobbes’s state of all against all.

Eventually, inequality will get so bad that intelligent people born poor will realise from early childhood that they never had a chance. These people will be hardened revoutionaries by the time they become adults, and will know nothing other than hate. They will be exceptionally dangerous and capable of ushering in a new order of the world.

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!

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘Bioleninism’?

‘Bioleninism’ describes a familiar phenomenon in Clown World – social rejects coming together to force their will on society at large. A feature of Clown World is that people who normally keep themselves hidden away out of shame are out and proud. Even worse, they are organised and controlling the narrative. Bioleninism is the thread that binds them all.

The original Leninism was a kind of slave morality that attracted many of society’s misfits. Much like Christianity in the Roman Empire, which first became popular among slaves, Leninism first became popular among those at the bottom of society. In the case of Russia, it wasn’t slaves but drunkards, prostitutes, petty criminals and those shunned for cruelty.

Characteristic of all popular slave moralities is that they bring together the resentful. Christianity did this, the original Communism did this, and now the bottom-feeders of Clown World are coming together to do it again – this is Bioleninism.

Bioleninism is the name given to the phenomenon of all of society’s genetic rejects coming together with a view to force their will on the population at large. Its coining is usually attributed to a mysterious Internet commentator known as ‘Spandrell‘.

For better or worse, much of human life is a mating contest that primarily revolves around genetic quality. Society favours the good-looking, the tall, the strong, the intelligent and the vigourous. All of these qualities can be affected by nutrition, but the reality is that their expression is fundamentally a matter of genetics.

Evolution selects for genetic quality first and foremost, and in the modern human animal it does so mostly through sexual selection. In practice, this means that women decide which males pass their genes on and which don’t. Like the other workings of Nature, this is a brutal process that involves a great deal of suffering for all, especially those who are found wanting.

If a person loses the genetic lottery, and cannot find anyone to mate with, it’s common for them to become resentful. At worst, this resentment manifests as a bitter form of anger that desires the destruction of everything good in the world. The logic is that if I can’t have it, no-one else can have it either. This spite probably evolved alongside jealousy, envy and all the other emotions as a way of ensuring breeding opportunities.

Some people ask themselves how it’s possible that people still propound Communism, given that it has a track record of a hundred million deaths and has failed every time it’s been tried.

The reason is that the people who support Communism are primarily motivated by resentment and hate. They don’t care whether or not Communism lifts up or empowers anyone – they just want to see the people they envy brought down a level or two. As long as someone above average is smashed down to the same level as everyone else, then all is good.

Bioleninism draws together the same kind of slaves that would ordinarily be Christians. Only now, instead of burning infidels at the stake, the wrongthinkers they persecute are political enemies. Those healthy enough to assert the value of their families or nations are hounded into silence. Instead of being labelled infidels or bourgeoisie, they are labelled Nazis.

Characteristic of the Bioleninist is an obsession with equality, which is held up as a virtue for its own sake. The logic is that the genetic reject feels a deep sense of humiliation in the presence of the genetically healthy. Only by rubbing the latter’s face in the shit can the reject avoid this humiliation.

One of the reasons why Clown World is so terrible is because its rulers understand the phenomenon of Bioleninism, and use it against the people. As such, they take measures to destroy the genetic infrastructure of any place they lord over, making resistance to their will less likely. This is achieved in two major ways.

The first is to destroy any natural leader that arises before they can become influential. The rulers of Clown World know that human populations naturally produce great leaders, and that these great people will lead their nations towards ending their suffering. So these natural leaders have to be dealt to before they liberate their nation from control.

In practice, this doesn’t require that the leaders be destroyed so much as that the people are induced to follow natural slaves instead. This is achieved through mass media programming, which platforms entertainers and celebrities instead of intellectuals and philosophers. By raising up these clowns, the rulers of Clown World ensure that the natural leaders are not followed.

The second major way to destroy the genetic infrastructure of a nation is through mass immigration. The rulers of Clown World know that only high-IQ people are capable of maintaining an uncorrupt society. Therefore, since they want corruption, they want the kind of population that enables corruption. So they hold the border open to the dumbest, most impulsive people they can find.

The plan is to have one global seething mass of borderline-retarded consumer whores who can be played off against each other without ever seeing the man behind the curtain. The end goal of original Leninism was to have a society where everyone is reduced to the lowest common social denominator. The end goal of Bioleninism is to have a world where everyone is reduced to the lowest common genetic denominator.

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!

Clown World Chronicles: What Is A ‘Soyboy’?

Of all the weaklings of Clown World, none are more widely despised than the soyboy. Their low-testosterone faces can be seen everywhere, their raised eyebrows and gaping mouths desperately signalling an absence of threat. Right now, a great many men are soyboys and their number seems to be increasing. This essay explains the phenomenon.

The name ‘soyboy’ is bipartite.

The ‘soy’ refers to the commonly-held belief that ingesting too much soy will feminise a man. Many believe that a high-soy diet increases one’s estrogen production to the point where it breaks down muscle and adds fat. Research has linked soy consumption to low sperm count, which some believe to be the result of this feminising effect.

The ‘boy’ comes from the fact that a soyboy is too feeble to be considered a man. They are incapable of asserting themselves as a man because they are far too afraid of their own physical safety. The soyboy would get his arse kicked in a fight against any real man and against half of all women. Not that they’d ever get into one, because their instincts are to cower away when threatened.

The definition of a soyboy, then, is a male who failed to progress past juvenility. Despite being old enough to be a man, the soyboy is still a child in every meaningful sense. They are an example of arrested development, not a proper adult. Not ever having developed the masculinity of a proper man, they are as precious and as feminine as most children.

This femininity is the reason for the characteristic soyboy gape. Posing for a photo with one’s mouth open in a smile is usually associated with female anime characters. The soyboy has adopted this facial expression in an effort to look unthreatening. He is terrified that if he appears threatening, someone will attack him. So he cowers.

This fear of confrontation is why the soyboy is the way he is.

To avoid confrontation, the soyboy makes himself look physically weak and unassuming. The body language of even the largest of them displays passivity. This extreme meekness distinguishes the soyboy from the regular adult male in Clown World. It isn’t a gentlemanly, civilised meekness but a craven, slave-minded one.

Another characteristic sign of a soyboy is a preoccupation with childrens’ toys and games. An adult male who collects Star Wars figurines is typical. The ultimate expression of the soyboy is a 35-year old staring sheep-eyed at a camera with an open-mouthed smile, proudly holding up the boxed Lego spaceship they got for a birthday present.

Soyboys arise when the strong men-good times-weak men-hard times cycle hits the “weak men” phase. The reason why they are so numerous now is because the industrialised world has been so wealthy for so long. When things are going well, everyone suffers less, and eventually become accustomed to not suffering. As such, they become soft.

Also when things are going well, the tendency is to let weakness slide rather then to crack down on it. In hard times, weakness is beaten out of everyone because it’s understood that it endangers everyone else. In good times, people tend to ignore it or even laugh about it. When Clown World nears its peak, then weakness is held up as a virtue. The soyboy exemplifies this phenomenon.

Ted Kaczynski argued that men like soyboys were examples of oversocialisation. The more mollycoddled a boy is, and the less time he spends exploring the world on his own initiative, the more likely he is to grow into a soyboy. In this sense, the soyboy is much like a pampered housecat.

Fundamentally, the soyboy is the way he is because he cannot control his own fear, and as such it controls him. His life is a series of actions taken to forestall anxiety and tension. He fears conflict of any kind, and makes himself as unassuming as possible in the hope that aggression will avoid him.

The difference between a soyboy and a simp is that the soyboy is weak in an allround sense, whereas the simp’s only major weakness is specifically that he is an appeaser of women. The soyboy appeases women, but he appeases everyone else as well. The simp, on the other hand, is fully capable of aggression, even unprovoked.

The difference between a soyboy and a baizuo is that the latter is specifically an activist on the political left. Soyboys tend to lack the aggression to assert themselves politically. They would rather be at home playing video games than protesting. Baizuos have the same slave mindset as soyboys, only the baizuo is capable of aggression against their perceived enemies. The soyboy has no enemies because he has never stood up for anything.

Many soyboys are incels, but the overlap is small. Most incels are that way because they are too masculine and aggressive – i.e. they are the kind of man who demands total submission from their marriage partners and (for obvious reasons) they can’t find someone to volunteer. Soyboys are extremely feminine, not masculine, and are not necessarily incels (in fact, they are often the “kept man” of a gainfully employed woman).

Eventually, soyboys will become so numerous that opportunistic criminals will appear to take advantage of the collective weakness. The soyboys won’t resist. This is when we enter the “hard times” part of Clown World. The tyrants stand up and everyone is too submissive to oppose them. Then the real suffering begins.

The cure to the soyboy phenomenon, as the popular meme might suggest, is beatings.

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 ‘Hypergamy’?

Perhaps the most salient feature of Clown World is the disintegration of relations between the sexes. Dave Chappelle said years ago that “men and women don’t get along anymore”, and things have only become worse since then. Mistrust and communication difficulties have increased to the point where genuine animosity is often present. This article describes one of the causal factors.

Hypergamy is a biological term that refers to mating strategies, particularly the strategy of females, who serve as the gatekeepers of reproduction in most species.

Evolutionary psychology teaches that females have evolved to “marry up” by the workings of natural biological laws. The higher the quality of the mate they can attract, the more likely their offspring will survive to reproduce. Over the course of the biological past, the offspring of females that specifically sought out high-quality breeding partners have outcompeted the offspring of those who were not as selective. The end result: hypergamous females.

Social science has adopted the term for human behaviour. In this context, hypergamy still refers to sexual selection, but specifically to the female tendency to prefer men who are wealthy, educated and ambitious (i.e. males who have demonstrated the greatest capacity for resource acquisition). In societies all over the world, free women try to attract high-status men if they can.

Described thus far is the scientific background of the term ‘hypergamy’. When people talk about hypergamy in the context of Clown World, they’re referring to two related, undesired phenomena.

Thanks to the advent of dating apps such as Tinder, women have a greater choice of mating partners than ever. Before social media, the choice was mostly restricted to who they knew in physical space: friends of friends, studymates, workmates, men at the pub. After social media, the choice has expanded to every available male in the entire city.

Before social media, unattractive men could go to a pub and rely on the fact that, sooner or later, a woman would choose to sleep with them on account of that her other options were limited. After social media, unattractive men have to compete with every spare Chad within 50 kilometres. This has led to a great number of them simply giving up hope of finding a sexual partner.

Today, even moderately attractive men are uncertain of being able to attract a decent woman. Because women inevitably choose from among the highest quality of the men available to them, and because the majority of men are now available to them, getting laid sometimes comes down to being in the top 10 or 20 percent. This has led to a record number of young men not getting laid.

The second phenomenon relates to women discarding the men they are already with in the hope of trading up.

A commonly held maxim states that “women are only as loyal as their options”, and today, thanks to social media, they have an abundance of options. The Internet is capable of connecting every woman with a near-unlimited stream of tall, muscular, good-looking men. Some women think that some of those men look a lot better than their current partners.

Many men today feel – whether justified or not – that the women of today are likely to abandon any relationship they are in as soon as a more attractive male comes along. These men feel that long-term relationships are much less secure that they used to be, owing to the fact that hypergamy is out of control.

Clown World is more cut-throat than normal life in many ways. Because the basic spiritual connection to other sentient life has been broken, people don’t care so much about other people’s suffering. As such, relationships are a lot more exploitative and shallow than they used to be. This is as true of sexual relationships as business ones.

The existence of hypergamy has led to one extremely thorny political question: to what degree, if any, should female sexual nature be controlled?

Marriage was invented to control hypergamy. The idea was that if every man got exactly one woman – no more, no less – that fighting for the highest quality mates would no longer happen. As long as men could be convinced to be faithful to one woman, the resentment that arises from men not being able to get laid would be minimised.

The problem is that no-one wants to get married in Clown World. Not only are people mostly incapable of making a long-term commitment to anything nowadays, but the law also makes it a dangerous proposition. The rise of “divorce rape” has meant that men who marry are in danger of the woman getting bored, divorcing them, and then claiming alimony on the grounds that she is accustomed to a certain lifestyle.

This has led to a return of the social outcomes that marriage was designed to prevent. The few Chads at the top of the dominance hierarchy get laid all the time, the many at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy never get laid, those in the middle live in fear of losing their position, and misery abounds. The inevitable outcome is a large number of men dropping out of society entirely.

It’s hard to predict where the hypergamy phenomenon will end. But some clues might come from the disconcerting increase in men who no longer believe in women’s emancipation. A return to what Jordan Peterson calls “forced monogamy” is entirely possible, as unlikely as it might seem right now.

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!