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!

Is It Time For Anticom?

In the wake of the German Revolution of 1918-19, cadres of nationalist street fighters formed to stop Communist violence and destruction. Known as the Freikorps, they served the keep the streets and speaking venues safe from interference. Given that Communist agitation has once again led to widespread chaos and destruction, is it time for the Freikorps to rise again in another form?

Many people have been horrified by the mindless street violence carried out recently by left-wing agitators under the guise of anti-racism protests. Videos have circled of people getting their heads smashed in by mobs in full chimpout mode. When not committing violence against people, the mobs are destroying property, in particular monuments and statues.

The most egregious incident occurred last week in the CHAZ district of Seattle. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone formed in downtown Seattle some weeks ago, supposedly in protest at the death of George Floyd. However, it didn’t take the CHAZ security services long before they themselves gunned down an unarmed black man. Shortly after this incident, the local police cleared the area.

The lazy assumption is that Antifa and their fellow carnage-wreakers can’t do too much damage because, if they did, the local police would stop them. But this assumption ignores the current reality of policing in the West. All over the West, the local police forces are on the brink of losing their ability to enforce law and order.

For one, many Western police forces are about ready to walk off the job on account of adverse job conditions. Because of the widespread availability of phone cameras, and because of increased attention paid to police brutality in the wake of the Floyd killing, several American police officers have already been charged with brutality offences when they would ordinarily have gone unpunished.

Given that the entire public is baying for the blood of the police, and given that the occasional officer keeps getting thrown to the mob to appease them, many of the other officers have thought “fuck it” and either surrendered their badges or stopped following orders properly.

For another, the police bureaucracy is no longer motivated to enforce law and order. Most high-ranking police officers are political appointees, because the Establishment won’t let the rank and file elect their leaders (far too dangerous!). These appointees haven’t been chosen for their freethinking ability, but the opposite. They’ve been chosen for their ability and willingness to carry out an agenda.

It isn’t easy to say what “The Agenda” is, because it’s being pushed on us by multiple factions that all have their own intentions. The easy way to understand it is to think of what David Icke calls the “Totalitarian Tiptoe”. This is when the ruling class deliberately foments problems among the population, provoking a reaction that demands a response, so that they can offer the “solution” of greater totalitarian controls.

High-ranking police officers, all around the West, have directed their underlings to not enforce certain laws. As such, various laws relating to property damage and freedom of movement have not been enforced. Sensing weakness, criminal movements and gangs have moved in to do what criminals do everywhere: prey on the citizenry.

The plan is that this increasing disorder will lead to protests, which will lead to violent unrest. This unrest will then be used as a pretext to introduce totalitarian measures, such as increased surveillance, stripping away rights or draconian prison sentences.

The way to counter this is for the citizenry themselves to impose order upon the environments in which they live. The first step is for them to organise in cadres of fit, determined men with a strong instinctive dislike of Communism, horizontalism and all forms of resentment-fuelled slave moralities.

Each of these cadres would form a cell in a wider movement, one without leaders but which shared an ideology and which communicated and organised based on this ideology. This ideology could be anti-Communism, and the movement would be known as Anticom.

Anticom would be an anti-Communist movement that would battle Communist and pseudo-Communist movements like Black Lives Matter. They would also provide security for anti-Communist speakers and rallies. At least initially, one of their major uses would be to counter Communist deplatforming attempts.

In performing these actions, Anticom would act similarly to the anti-Communist Freikorps who battled the Communist street gangs in Germany after the Revolution of 1918-19.

The original Freikorps were made up of World War One veterans and unemployed youth. The America of 2020 has plenty of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and the numbers of unemployed youth are increasing as the economy tanks. There are now large numbers of young Western men who would be willing to volunteer for local anti-Communist actions.

The first thing would be for an intelligent and competent man in every locale to organise a group of ex-military and marginalised youth for the purpose of resisting Communist mobs. These groups would need a distinguished uniform, something that helped them operate as a single unit under pressure. They might also need weapons, both non-lethal and lethal.

It would be important not to organise in the sense of having a defined national hierarchy and command structure, because doing so would invite government action. The Communist street gangs organise themselves in cell format, with a small group of leaders who take the responsibility to co-ordinate with other cells and to organise their followers for action. Anticom would have to do something similar.

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: Who Are The ‘Alt Centre’?

The Taoists are fond of telling us all that, even in the darkest of times and places, there is always a spark of light that will expand to illuminate the entire world. The same is true of Clown World. Despite that things are grim and that the trends suggest they will get worse, there are a small number of men and women who represent the light shining in the darkness. They are the alt centrists.

Understanding alt centrism first requires that one understand the alt right and the alt left, and that means understanding the Fourth and Fifth Acceptances and the Fourth and Fifth Rejections.

The alt centre accepts that the alt right has a point when they say that multiculturalism has failed on a number of levels, that mass Muslim and African immigration has brought misery to the West and that Clown World is primarily a spiritual phenomenon. In other words, the alt centre shares many of the masculine sentiments that the alt right possesses.

The alt centre, however, rejects the alt right’s proposed solution to Clown World, which is segregation. The alt centre considers this a denial of life. Ultimately, the desire for segregation is motivated by a will to cruelty (this doesn’t necessary apply in places like South Africa). This Fourth Rejection is held at the same time as the Fourth Acceptance, which accepts that multiculturalism has failed.

Likewise, the alt centre accepts that the alt left has a point when they say that neoliberal capitalism has failed on a number of levels, and that inequality has increased to the point where the social fabric is becoming torn and civilisation is starting to break down. This is known as the Fifth Acceptance in alt-centrist thought.

Also likewise, the alt centre rejects the alt left’s proposed solution to Clown World, which is forced wealth redistribution and anti-white resentment. The alt centre explicitly rejects all slave moralities under the Second and Fifth Rejections. Intersectionality is explictly rejected under the Fifth Rejection. Collective resentment is not a solution.

This might sound like a contradictory set of opinions to hold, especially to anyone who is used to letting the mainstream media define what’s what. But the alt centrist embraces these apparent contradictions. Simple rhetoric is for simple minds, and the political scene doesn’t need any more dumb people in it.

It isn’t easy to describe the demographics of alt centrists, because a person only becomes one if they see the flaws and merits in all of the other positions. As such, alt centrists are hard to distinguish by race, sex or social class. The most one can say is that they are not the same demographics that are commonly found in Establishment institutions.

It’s certainly true that alt centrists tend to be intelligent, because a person needs to have a certain level of historical knowledge to have noted the positives and negatives of the other five political positions. But intelligence, or at least education, is not enough. There are plenty of great intellects justifying the horrors of all of those other positions.

Alt centrism is more a matter of wisdom than intelligence. As such, it does not attract followers on the basis of education or ideological fashionability. Alt centrism is more a position one comes to once one has become too wise to fall for the rhetorical and emotional trickery of the other five positions. When a person is no longer swayed by appeals to order, or freedom, or peace, or revenge, or justice, that person can become an alt centrist.

A person is most likely to become an alt centrist if they have amassed an uncommon amount of life experience.

If a person has done a lot of world travel, they will have experienced a great variety of other cultures, and will no doubt have noticed some good things and some bad things about each one. If they are wise, they will have allowed this to influence them, so that they became good where other people were good but resisted becoming bad where other people were bad. This will have made them a more well-rounded person.

This is also true of people who have moved between social classes over the course of their lives, or whose occupations have brought them into contact with a large number of people from a variety of classes. The more reality one has been exposed to, the greater the power one has to correctly mold oneself into the desired form.

Alt centrism works in a similar fashion. The alt centrist is one who has tried out all the other political positions, and found them all wanting. They have argued for monarchy, they have argued for revolution, they have argued for capitalism, they have argued for neoreaction and they have argued for social justice. So they are aware of the shortcomings of each, but they also know why people are inclined to assert these positions.

This almost Luciferian approach is in harmony with alt centrists’ fundamental belief in the value of independence and freethinking. As such, it is rare to find them in popular mass movements. An alt centrist is liable to support a universal basic income and drug law reform at the same time as opposing open borders and affirmative action. So they don’t fit into boxes neatly enough to be someone else’s tools.

Fitting with their anti-Establishment sentiments, alt centrists tend to be against modernism. Being also against totalitarianism, they are happy to hearken back to the distant past, to the Classical Age, whether the Greco-Roman, the Chinese or the Hindu one. People who read Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Chanakya and Chuang Tzu are often alt centrists.

In summary, the alt centre are Clown World’s good guys. They outright reject political fanaticism on account of that it ignores the human will to avoid suffering, but they are just as fanatical about increasing their intellectual and spiritual depth. They are the philosopher-kings whose revolution overthrows tyranny and institutes a new Golden Age. Let us hope that one day they can lead us out of Clown World.

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!

Could We Abolish The Police In New Zealand?

Most people never imagined that, one day, we would seriously discuss the possibility of abolishing the Police in New Zealand. It’s usually just assumed that society would fall back into savagery without a police force to keep order. Yet, here we are. This essay outlines the considerations involved in disbanding the New Zealand Police.

The first thing is to distinguish between what we’re told the Police do, and what they really do.

What we’re told is the Police enforce law and order. The story we’re given is that the Police are another government service, like road construction or defence. It’s paid for out of general taxation like any other government service, and Police officers themselves are selected for the job on the basis of demonstrating a will to serve the people.

We’re told that the Police enforce law and order for the same reason that all other government officials do their jobs: a general will to end the suffering of all citizens. The predation of criminals causes a great deal of harm, especially when it goes unopposed. Thus, the suffering of the citizens can be minimised by raising a Police force to battle criminals.

What the Police really do is protect private property.

The Police originated with the first chieftain to horde more wealth than he could realistically defend himself. In the really old days, this would mean that other people teamed up to take his wealth off him. The civilised way to defend wealth is not to defend it oneself, but to pay gullible sycophants to do it.

Today, the Police protect the investments of alcohol company shareholders by attacking anyone who produces alternatives in the form of cannabis, MDMA, LSD or other substances. They protect the investments of the importers of cheap labour by harassing anyone who speaks out against mass immigration. They protect the investments of those who hold fiat currency by kneeling on the necks of people who try to pass counterfeit bills.

If you have no investments, the Police don’t care about protecting you. If you doubt this, try being working class and reporting a crime against yourself to them. They won’t give a fuck – they’re not there to protect people like you. They’re there to protect the property of those paying their wages from people like you.

The sad reality is that the New Zealand Police are a pack of dogs that the New Zealand ruling classes sic onto their enemies when they want them destroyed. Those enemies don’t have to be causing harm to anyone – they can be peaceful cannabis users or political dissidents. The Police will destroy them anyway because they are not taking orders from the people, but from their rulers.

Most adults understand now that the New Zealand Police, like Police forces everywhere, are waging a war against the people on behalf of their paymasters. The New Zealand Police see the New Zealand people as a common enemy and, as such, co-operate and conspire against them; it’s extremely rare that one Police officer testifies against another in court.

The grim facts about human nature show that if we abolished all peacekeeping and orderkeeping services, society would soon decay into a Lord of the Flies-style permanent chimpout. However, this doesn’t mean that abolishing the Police would lead to such an outcome. It would in the short-term, if we abolished the Police immediately, but with a bit of thought we could simply deprecate them instead.

What would happen if we gradually abolished the private property-protecting force that is the New Zealand Police, and replaced them with some kind of peacekeeping and orderkeeping force that operated with the consent of the people it kept in line? A community police force whose role was to keep peace and order with the consent of the policed?

We could base such a policing model on the example of the Commando used by the Boers in the Boer Wars.

This would involve all of the able-bodied men from a particular community or neighbourhood getting together on occasion to elect officers. Perhaps for every hundred able-bodied men, ten officers are elected, and these officers choose a sergeant from among themselves.

This sergeant would then be tasked with enforcing peace and order. His rights and responsibilities would be little different to that of a regular Police constable, but with one major difference. The sergeant would serve at the pleasure of his fellow officers for the sake of the community, and could be dismissed at any time by those officers. This would be very different to today’s model, where he serves at the pleasure of the ruling class for the sake of the ruling class.

As such, our hypothetical community sergeant would not enforce laws such as cannabis prohibition, or prohibition of psychedelic sacraments. Anyone who came into the community from the outside, however, and started selling something the community did not approve of, would get dealt to. So would anyone who broke any actual law, such as thieves, rapists, thugs and murderers.

These community sergeants could come together on a town level to vote for a captain of police, who could in turn come together on a regional level to vote for a regional inspector, who could in turn come together on a national level to vote for a national superintendent. The captains, inspectors and the superintendent would have their own separate budgets with which to hire detectives and other specialists.

Should the community sergeant require, he would be able to deputise the other officers previously elected by the community’s menfolk. This would occur in cases of public disorder, or if a violent criminal needed apprehending safely.

This is entirely different to today’s model, where the ruling class appoints a caste of political administrators through a sham process called democracy, who in turn appoint lackeys to the highest ranks in the Police Force, who in turn hire arse-licking dogs willing to enforce laws against the population without their consent.

This model has led to an unaccountable paramilitary who operate more like a horde of goons than a community peacekeeping force. It’s little wonder that the world is currently wracked by protests against police brutality. The time is perfect to replace today’s top-down model with a community policing model under which officers operate with the consent of the policed.

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!