VJM Publishing

Fan Mail 24

How White People Could Get Kicked Out Of Aus/NZ Like They’re Getting Kicked Out Of Southern Africa

It’s not easy to believe that white people might get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand. White people have been in charge of this part of the world for 250 years now, and only the Imperial Japanese have ever looked like breaking that dominance. If anyone suggests that white people could get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand, Rhodesia-style, the usual response is “It couldn’t happen here.” But everyone says this just before disaster strikes.

White people could start getting kicked out of Australia and New Zealand in about 25/30 years, and a simple analysis shows it.

It is unarguably true that many of the peoples of the world consider the presence of whites in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. Decolonisation movements have expelled white people in many places. Beginning in Haiti, white people have been pushed out of Kenya, Algeria and Rhodesia and are now getting pushed out of South Africa. There is a fanatical decolonisation movement here in New Zealand, as evidenced by the image below, from a Police report on Uruwera terrorist Rangi Kemara.

Well-travelled Kiwis will be aware that Chinese, Indian and African peoples are not fond of colonialism. The 4.5 billion people in this group generally feel that colonialism is one of the worst crimes ever committed in human history. Arabs feel similarly, despite being colonialists themselves. The five billion people in these categories generally feel that white people have stolen Australia and New Zealand and have no moral right to their possession. These people feel, at least, that power should be stripped from white people, if not that white people should be expelled.

It’s possible that a majority of the world’s population considers white presence in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. The question then becomes: can the will of the global majority be thwarted indefinitely?

In theory, all it would take for the global majority to get into a position to expel whites from Australia and New Zealand would be continued immigration from non-white countries. This would eventually lead to white people becoming a minority, at which point they could be kicked out democratically, as they were in Rhodesia and as they are being in South Africa.

This might sound unlikely right now, but it sounded extremely unlikely in Rhodesia and South Africa once too. Power is fickle.

According to the 2023 Census, 67.8% of New Zealand is white. This is roughly 3.4 million out of five million people. New Zealand is currently taking in 100,000 or so non-white immigrants per year. The ruling class appears to believe, with good reason, that Kiwis won’t fight back against this immigration no matter how high it is. So they might even open up the immigration floodgates further.

If New Zealand took in 120,000 non-white immigrants a year, and only 30,000 white ones, the total population would be close to eight million within 20 years (i.e. by 2046), with about four million whites and four million others. Under this scenario, whites would already be a minority within 20 years.

From there, it’s just a matter of exactly what “kicked out” means. It’s not necessary for whites to be forcibly deported. A non-white majority will be able to vote the white minority into an ever-worsening state of subjugation until white people start leaving on their own free will. This can be done fully legally and cannot be stopped without overthrowing the democratic system.

For example, the non-white global majority, upon becoming the majority in New Zealand, could simply vote themselves more government largesse at the expense of whites. They could vote themselves more diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives such as non-white scholarships, preferential housing for non-whites, increased welfare access for non-whites, increased healthcare for non-whites, mandated non-white quotas on boardrooms etc. They could vote, as in South Africa, for economic empowerment initiatives that forced whites to hire non-whites and appoint them as owners and leaders. They could influence the Police, as in Britain, to focus on crimes with white perpetrators and non-white victims, and ignore crimes with non-white perpetrators and white victims.

After becoming the demographic majority, non-whites could just keep ratcheting up the pressure in this manner until whites were slowly destroyed.

It might be countered here that whites could flee the cities and return to countryside villages. But even this would not be enough. As the examples of France and England prove, the ruling class will force non-whites into the remotest village. Whites in Australia and New Zealand will not be able to escape by going innawoods.

Eventually the white population will tire of the burden and seek better opportunities in other countries, as the Southern Africans did. As whites continue to get pushed out of the more recent colonies, they will withdraw to North America and then to Europe, if there is anything left of either place by then. Thus, it won’t be necessary to pass a law deporting white people or anything similar. South Africa proved that non-whites can simply take power through demographics, pass laws favouring themselves, and then the whites will just leave.

In fact, white people have already been kicked out of parts of Australia and New Zealand. South Auckland, in the 1950s, was a thriving working-class white community. Lakemba in Sydney is another example, but there are dozens. Then mass immigration started, and the whites were slowly driven out by crime and obnoxious, hostile behaviour. If this exact process was replicated nationwide, the ethnic cleansing of whites could be easily accomplished over the next few decades.

I concede that this analysis lazily dumps Maori people into the non-white team. In actuality, the vast majority of Maori people would take the side of white Kiwis over random brown or black foreigners. But the proportion that wouldn’t is ever-increasing, thanks to Communist and anti-white propaganda. And in any case, that could only delay things. As long as mass immigration exists, a Third World alliance will eventually come to power that could simply dispossess both white Kiwis and Maoris alike. The laws of democracy, in fact, make this outcome unavoidable.

In any case, nothing about the Maori factor changes the basic analysis. Democracy plus mass immigration will mean that white people eventually lose Australia and New Zealand the same way they lost Rhodesia and South Africa. It’s simply the will of the global majority. The faster the immigration, the sooner this happens.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2024-25
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why Globalism Is Defended With Such Fanaticism

Most VJM Publishing readers will have realised already that it’s not possible to reason with Abrahamists. Abrahamists have their religious beliefs and would give up their own children before they gave up those beliefs. Fewer readers will have observed that it’s similarly impossible to reason with other globalists. But this is for the same reason – because globalists, of all kinds, are fundamentally religious.

Abrahamists all believe that the god of Abraham will one day conquer the world. Their hearts are set on this and they want it more than anything else. It’s central to their identity and self-esteem. As such, they have a psychological need to believe that they’re always moving towards this goal. This explains why Abrahamists get so mad when you suggest their prophecies aren’t happening or will not happen. Such a suggestion is a direct attack on the power of Yahweh himself.

For Communists and Marxists, the belief in a destined victory is just as strong. Marx prophecised that the working classes of the world would unite across national borders. This prophecy is equally as central to the Communists as End Times prophecies are to Abrahamists. It is clung to with just as much fervour.

If a person would tell a globalist that mass immigration is bad, it is for that globalist like a Muslim being told that jihad is bad. It’s to be told that one’s desired ideology should not propagate itself. This is a direct attack on their identity. To attack immigration is to attack the religion of the globalist.

For Christians, Rabbi Yeshua is how utopia is achieved. Therefore more Rabbi Yeshua is always good, and no aspect of it can ever be bad. Anyone who criticises Rabbi Yeshua is the enemy. Being a universal good, Rabbi Yeshua can be rammed down anyone’s throat without any shame.

For globalists, immigration is how utopia is achieved. Therefore more of it is always good, and no aspect of it can ever be bad. Anyone who criticises it is the enemy. Being a universal good, immigration can be rammed down anyone’s throat without any shame.

This explains why immigration is reflexively defended by anyone who is part of the Western power apparatus. Immigration is the vehicle in which we will arrive at the promised land. Only through immigration can the primary threat – white identity – be defeated. White identitarianism caused World War II and time did not exist before then. Our foremost danger is that Hitler might come back, and the more immigration the less likely this becomes.

Globalists also attack their enemies with the same religious fanaticism that one sees in Abrahamists, and for the same reasons. To the globalist, the nationalist is the goy, the infidel, the kafir. Everything that is good in the world demands the destruction of this enemy. Just as Abrahamists are raised to hate outsiders and habitually dehumanise them, globalists encourage each other to hate nationalists. Whereas the infidel’s disbelief and the kafir’s shirk are blamed by Abrahamists for the misery of society, the globalist blames racism.

If the main opposition to mass immigration is white racial consciousness, then it follows that white racial consciousness is the enemy, and anything that can be done to lessen it is a good thing. This is why Marxists like Paul Hunt made such a big deal out of VJM Publishing selling ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe. White identitarianism jeopardises the globalist project: the more people identify with being white, the less they identify with the imported bioslop, and the more they resist its importation.

This is why fanatical resistance to white identitarianism and nationalism is part of the globalist attitude: it’s considered the biggest obstacle to the multiracial promised land, belief in which is religious. Thus this resistance appears in all globalists, whether Abrahamists, Communists or Capitalists.

Unfortunately, this strategy has completely backfired. In any environment, people identify with the qualities that cause them to stand out. So in white environments, white people generally identify with their profession. But in multiracial environments, as in prisons, white people generally identify with their race. Accordingly, white identity is strengthening even as the proportion of white people is declining.

This could have been predicted by anyone who has met South Africans: they are the most racially besieged white people on the planet, and are also the white people with the strongest racial consciousness. White racial consciousness is also very strong in big, multicultural cities like London, Paris and Los Angeles, although it wasn’t 50 years ago. It will inexorably strengthen, as white people, looking around for what they meaningfully have in common with others, settle on whiteness.

The inevitable end result of this process of strengthening white national consciousness is a climactic final battle between the globalists and a confederation of nationalists. Nationalist parties are rising all over Europe, and the globalist establishment would much rather ban them – and risk civil war – than concede power. Such an end result could manifest anytime.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Economic Zone Mentality

Social observers in places like New Zealand, America, Australia, South Africa, Argentina etc. have noticed that the mentality of the New World is different to the Old World when it comes to co-operation. Although individuals in the New World are at least as friendly as individuals in the Old, the societies of the New World are much nastier. How to explain?

The usual story is that people in the New World are rugged, pioneering settlers and homesteaders. Although they might be willing to lend a hand personally, they are suspicious of government assistance, which they see as a loss of independence. People in the Old World, in comparison, are a bit soft and lazy. Hence they vote for a generous safety net.

In truth, New Worlders vote for low levels of government assistance because they are afflicted with something known as Economic Zone Mentality.

This essay contends that Economic Zone Mentality is a manner of approaching politics and justice that is characteristic of economic zones and not true nations, and is particularly common in the New World. It’s not necessarily selfish, but usually is, reflecting an every-man-for-himself psychology that is anathema to true civilisation.

An actual nation is like an extended family. Examples are Japan or Finland. In an actual nation, the logic is that the Establishment exists to provide for the people. The people might have to pay into the Establishment in the form of taxes, but they can expect to get out more than they put in, because the Establishment will provide services at scale. Thanks to economies of scale, members of actual nations get to enjoy high standards of living, even if they’re poor.

An economic zone is like a plantation. The people who live in it aren’t family. Some of those people are the owners, and the others are there on the graces of the owners. In an economic zone, the Establishment exists to facilitate wealth extraction. The happiness of the people who live there is not an important factor.

In an economic zone, all that matters is economic production. The logic is that the Establishment exists to take, not to give. There may or may not be economies of scale, but it doesn’t matter if those living in economic zones enjoy high standards of living. They are there to work. As a result of all this, there is massive economic inequality.

In actual nations, governments do a lot more to take care of their own people in comparison to economic zones. Welfare support is much higher in Europe than in America, Australia or New Zealand. Higher education is usually free, and when it isn’t student loans are usually interest-free. Healthcare tends to be universal. The logic is that public goods benefit the nation, and therefore are universal goods.

Actual nations take measures that are unthinkable in economic zones, such as the upcoming Swiss referendum on whether to cap the population. In economic zones, it’s well understood that the size of the economy is primarily a function of the size of the population. To cap the population, in Economic Zone Mentality, is like throwing money away. Only people in actual nations could see the merit in it.

A particular characteristic of economic zones is that production of anything non-industrial is considered worthless. Cultural production is worthless; you can’t eat literature or music. Intellectual production likewise, unless it has direct industrial applications. Spiritual production has the least value. Anyone engaged in these three pastimes is considered a thief of actual production. This attitude is the main reason why New World countries are considered cultureless by Old World ones.

In Economic Zone Mentality, a person’s job is their identity. Engineers are the highest status, because they do the most resource extraction. Healthcare workers are the lowest status, because the well-being of people is not important. And without a job, you are no-one. To be unemployed is to be a criminal. It is a violation of the social contract. In a nation, the social contract is that sometimes you give, sometimes you take. In an economic zone, the social contract is that you work in exchange for being allowed to exist.

In Economic Zone Mentality, all criminals are forgiven as soon as they get jobs, and all decent people are criminals as soon as they stop working. Crying about one person on the dole, and ignoring landlords sucking out a hundred times more unearned income, is typical.

Much confusion arises when people expect natural, national mentality in an economic zone.

In all societies, your right to criticise society comes from your social status. In proper nations, many social critics are artists, who have high social status. But in Economic Zone Mentality, artists are low status. So when Eleanor Catton won the Booker Prize, many expected that she would have earned a certain degree of respect for the achievement, and that this would have conferred some right to comment on society. But media maggots like Sean Plunket just called her a “traitor” and an “ungrateful hua” (ironically, Catton was criticising Economic Zone Mentality in New Zealand). She now lives overseas.

Economic Zone Mentality is to act as if a person’s net worth and their merit are the same thing. In proper nations, a person gets respect for being wealthy, but no more than they get for being honourable, or educated, or physically fit, or disciplined. In economic zones, a person’s portfolio value is like a scorecard. Honour, education etc. have no value in and of themselves, only to the extent that they enable resource extraction.

It’s becoming apparent to many Westerners that they live, not in actual nations, but in economic zones. Their countries are workplaces and not homes. This is why housing is severely unaffordable in New Zealand and Australia: rather than being homes for the Anzac people, these countries are workplaces for international banking and finance interests. Housing is becoming severely unaffordable in America and much of Europe for similar reasons (Europe didn’t start with Economic Zone Mentality, but is developing it as it becomes more multicultural).

The end result of Economic Zone Mentality is to turn everywhere into a pile of slag and garbage. The only solution is to develop and support genuine cultural initiatives.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!