Clown World Chronicles: What Is A 'Glowie'?

Clown World Chronicles: What Is A ‘Glowie’?

Alternative movements have always been concerned about spies within their ranks. It’s a fact of life that if you get any kind of interesting movement happening, the Establishment will try to fuck it up before it becomes a threat to them. Their agents who they task to do so are often referred to as ‘glowies’.

The term comes from the belief that infiltrators into certain groups stand out so much that it is as if they glow in the dark. Agents provocateur can enter Internet spaces and start agitating for violence as a way of poisoning the well. Sometimes these individuals stand out like a television screen stands out in a dark room.

A ‘glowie’ (or ‘glownigger’) is an infiltrator, usually a government-controlled one, who is advocating for some action that brings the group into disrepute. Their purpose is to sow discord and division within alternative movements, with the intent that those movements either collapse from infighting or are banned.

Some believe that federal intelligence agents are regular visitors to certain Internet locations. According to this belief, the security services are concerned that these Internet forums are radicalising young men into taking violent actions that threaten the Establishment. Both Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant were known to spend a lot of time online, and the security services want to preempt the next one like them.

Support for beliefs like this come from known facts about psychological operations such as Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA made an effort to use the power of mass media to manipulate public opinion, molding it to be more conducive to achieving America’s security objectives.

Operation Mockingbird saw the CIA plant or recruit individuals within the mainstream media, who then used their position in the apparatus of propaganda to regiment the public’s opinions on certain matters. With control of enough media sources, the CIA was able to manufacture consent for evils like the Vietnam War.

The CIA claims to no longer do this, but evidence suggests they do. The mainstream media happily did the cheerleading for the Iraq War, just as willingly as if they had taken direction from the CIA itself. It wasn’t until after then that social media had become popular enough to threaten the television’s stranglehold on popular perception.

The rise of the Internet, the story has it, provided a new challenge to the CIA’s ability to control the narrative. Once people were able to discuss things in online groups of likeminded people, away from those trying to manipulate them, they started arriving at conclusions that the ruling class didn’t want them to.

Thanks to the Internet, people were able to get together and realise that the government was lying about cannabis, was lying about psychedelics, was lying about wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam (and everywhere else), was lying about acting in the people’s interest, was lying about their rights to enforce laws on an unconsenting populace etc.

Thanks to the Internet, many slaves came to leave the thought plantation.

The ultimate threat to the CIA’s narrative control comes from imageboards. On these boards, people from all around the world get together to discuss politics without interference from mainstream media brands and personalities. This leads them to draw conclusions that are unpalatable to their rulers.

To destroy imageboard culture, or so those afraid of glowies say, federal agents have descended on them with the specific intent of encouraging acts of violence. This violence achieves two major goals: associating violence with a particular imageboard can help to get it banned, and successful terrorist attacks cause the security services to get more government funding.

All this explains why, if someone suggests that the way forward is to start shooting people, that person will be called a “glowie” and told to piss off.

In reality, secret security officers don’t agitate to have politicians killed. That would be like a pub bouncer specifically inviting patched gang members into the bar to fight the bartenders, with the intent that the pub owner will then expand their security apparatus by hiring more bouncers. Secret security officers, like any other professional, are judged on how well their achieve their core responsibilities. Theirs are to keep politicians safe.

However, it’s true that the security services keep close tabs on alternative thinkers and places where alternative thinkers gather. They would be remiss not to, on account of that, historically speaking, challenges to the system are often violent. Ever since the assassination of President McKinley by anarchist Leon Czolgosz, those tasked with protecting the Establishment have believed that threats can arise from anywhere that freethinking is allowed to fester.

The author of this book has been visited by police officers who wanted to interrogate him about his political beliefs. This is becoming more and more common throughout Clown World. Glowies don’t encourage people to kill politicians online, but they’re sure not above letting freethinkers know they’re being watched.

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 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!

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 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.

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!

National Cannot Win While They Oppose Cannabis Law Reform

The latest Reid Research poll was a disaster for the National Party. They hit their lowest polling numbers since the 2017 General Election, a dismal 25.1 percent. This result raised fears of an electoral humiliation like 2002. In order to avoid this, National will have to convince the electorate that they have learned the lessons of the past.

The Labour Party scored over 60% in the Reid Research poll, an incredible result less than two months out from a General Election. Unless there are major changes in sentiment between now and then, a second term for the Sixth Labour Government is all but assured. The same poll also suggested that Jacinda Ardern is seen as a much more competent leader than Judith Collins.

The reason why Labour and Ardern are doing so well is primarily because of their leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. It might sound simple, but when faced with a medical crisis, Ardern’s Labour listened to the scientists. The spread of an infectious virus is too complicated a subject to be understood by someone with a public relations degree, so they listened to people with medical degrees.

It does sound simple, but it’s not always that case that politicians follow the advice of relevant experts. Often they put political considerations ahead of reality.

It’s impossible to know whether a Judith Collins-led National Party would have listened to the scientists on the matter of COVID-19. What we do know is that she is currently completely ignoring the scientists on the matter of cannabis law reform. This attitude does not inspire confidence.

The scientists have been saying, for many years now, that the medicinal properties of cannabis are sufficiently well understood to know that the plant is not dangerous if used correctly. Even when used irresponsibly, it’s not worth locking people in cages over. The danger comes from prohibition, which creates a black market with no quality control.

The National Party has resolutely ignored these experts, opting instead for the politics of hate that served the Fourth and Fifth National Governments so well. National has always known that a large proportion of crusty old Boomers hate cannabis users and are happy to see the law destroy them. It is to them that Collins is signalling when she supports prohibition.

The problem for National is that many of those people are now dead.

It’s not the 1990s anymore. Opposing cannabis law reform has always been wrong, but in the 1990s it looked prudent. Back then, there was so little available science that it made some sense to err on the side of caution. Cannabis was always medicinal, but in the absence of a body of empirical evidence precisely detailing its effects, it seemed wise not to open the floodgates.

By 2020, opposing cannabis law reform seems pointlessly antagonistic and vindictive. Today there’s ample evidence that, not only is cannabis not really harmful, it’s a beneficial medicine to a great many people. It’s clear now that cannabis prohibition achieved nothing but cause misery to the many people who needed it to alleviate suffering.

If the National Party would change their approach on cannabis, from a “punishment and pain” model to one that put business interests first, they could win back a lot of the centrist voters that they have lost since the previous election. Abandoning their commitment to cannabis prohibition would signal that National is letting go of old prejudices and is ready to move forwards.

Already, some 67% of Americans want legal cannabis, and more Australians want it than don’t want it. Cannabis law reform in New Zealand is inevitable – National will not win another General Election while they oppose it. If they were smart, they’d steal a bunch of centrist voters off Labour by coming out in support of it today.

Vince McLeod is the author of The Case For Cannabis Law Reform, the comprehensive collection of arguments for ending cannabis prohibition.

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!