The Purpose Of Mass Immigration Is, And Always Was, To Suppress Wages

The Western World has had mass immigration of cheap labour for over half a century now. When it began, we were told that it was going to make us all richer by growing our economies. When it didn’t make us richer, we were told that we were benefitting from it anyway on account of the cultural benefits of diversity. By 2022, the propaganda isn’t working any more. Now, the ruling classes admit what intelligent working-class people knew all along.

The reality is that the entire purpose of mass immigration was to suppress wages. This was why it was introduced in the first place.

Mass immigration of cheap labour was pushed by the international banking and finance interests who won World War Two, knowing that the nationalists who would have resisted them were defeated. So those international banking and finance interests were free to demand whatever they wanted – and what they wanted was cheap labour.

Basic economics tells us that the price of any good or service is a function of its supply and demand. Increasing the supply of any good or service lowers its price, and decreasing the supply of any good or service raises its price. This logic is so well established that it’s taught to high school economics students all around the world.

The ownership class of the West has strenuously denied this basic economic logic ever since the mass importation of cheap labour began. Increasing the supply of labour would actually make workers richer, they claimed, because of some magical network effect that would lead to a rising economic tide lifting all boats. Opponents of mass immigration were declared to be guilty of something called The Lump of Labour fallacy.

These lies no longer convince the masses. The average worker is now so much poorer than 30 years ago that only the absolute dumbest of them still believes that mass immigration has been beneficial to anyone besides the ownership classes. The propaganda is no longer having the same effect – people have now caught on to the fact that the point of all the immigration was to suppress wages.

This was even admitted by the Irish Central Bank, who raised concerns that there weren’t enough immigrants coming into Ireland to have the desired “wage-dampening effect”. According to the bank, “sustained increases in net inward migration will be needed in the coming years to ensure that growth will be not impeded by labour supply constraints.” Apparently fair wages for native workers are an impediment to the most important thing of all: economic growth.

The same truth has also been admitted in New Zealand, where Lincoln University researcher Dr David Dyason conceded that “as labour supply tightens, the competition between industries to source students and other employees is expected to increase. This would lead to wage and salary increases.” The ruling class now appears unable to deny the basic economic logic that increasing the supply of cheap labour decreases wages.

The statistics bear this out. In the 12 months to November 2021, Kiwi salaries increased by a record 7.6 percent, and the total amount paid to workers in that time period increased by 9.6 percent. The reason for these massive increases is simple: because of immigration restrictions brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, employers were no longer able to undercut Kiwi workers by importing cheap labour from overseas.

The reality is that there’s nothing that benefits the native working classes more than restricting the supply of cheap labour. By the same token, however, there’s nothing that benefits the ownership classes less than restricting the supply of cheap labour. That’s why employers all over the Western World are bitching about “labour shortages”.

A “labour shortage” is the name given to the phenomenon of a low level of labour supply driving up the price. The price of labour, in the minds of our ruling class, is supposed to only go one way – down. That’s because labour is considered an expense to be minimised. The fact that the price of labour equals the prosperity of the working classes is ignored – the working classes aren’t considered people.

Employers all over the West are united when it comes to solving “labour shortages”: open the borders, let the cheap labour in. This unity exposes the fact that border control restricting the flow of cheap labour is extremely beneficial to the native working classes.

The Establishment has an entire mainstream media apparatus dedicated to denying this obvious reality. Convoluted reasons are given for why the mass immigration of cheap labour somehow makes us all better off – our countries are underpopulated, our countries are too white, better food, immigrants do the jobs natives are too lazy to etc. Then, if this nonsense doesn’t convince someone, they are simply smeared as racists.

The facts are these. The ownership classes and the international banking and finance interests are the only beneficiaries of the mass importation of cheap labour. Everyone else loses. Therefore, it can be confidently stated that anyone in favour of the mass importation of cheap labour is an enemy of the native working class.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 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 2019, 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, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Your Fear Is Their Power

The world is more afraid than at any other time since 1945. Fear might be a natural response to the dangers of the world, but the world itself has never been less dangerous for the average person. This apparent paradox can be explained by the fact that the vast majority of this moment’s fear is artificially created. This essay explains by who and why.

Fear inclines people to submission. It leads them to bend the knee to whatever local power is in charge at the time. Fear induces the weak to fall in line with authority. As such, authorities make every effort to generate as much fear among their subjects as possible. The essence of authoritarianism is fear.

This is why political religions such as Christianity and Islam have sought to slaughter as many heretics/infidels as possible. Murdering non-believers spreads terror among them, which makes them less likely to resist. The reason why most of Europe became Christian and most of the Middle East became Muslim is because they were terrorised into submission by the violent atrocities committed by followers of these cults.

The origin of fear is biological: it’s a natural reaction to an overwhelming threat. We evolved to feel anger and rage towards threats that we could destroy, and fear towards threats that we couldn’t. In this sense, anger is the masculine expression and fear the feminine expression of the same underlying sentiment: a rejection of life.

Back in the biological past, those who did not feel fear when confronted with a stronger, dominant primate were destroyed by them. Those who did feel fear, and who thereby submitted, were allowed to live. Over time, this led to a species that learned to bend the knee to those capable of inducing fear. This tendency is the reason for all the terrorism in the world.

Our current ruling class understands this and preys on those same sentiments. Their strategy is to terrorise the masses into submission so that we don’t organise to force our will on them. The more fear we feel, the less likely we are to meet our fellow man in the bonds of love necessary to create a united front against our oppressors.

There are three ways that this terrorisation is achieved, one for each of the three basic divisions of the human being. This means to terrorise body, mind and soul.

Bodily terror is induced by deliberate destruction of the physical environment. This is achieved in several ways, but the most important of these is the mass importation of foreign violent criminals into Western cities and towns. The ruling class knows that these foreigners will rob and rape the natives to a much higher degree than the natives will rob and rape each other – but that’s precisely why they let them in.

For a native Westerner to walk down a Western street, and to see a Muslim or African staring back at him with a face full of hate, causes the kind of fear that induces that Westerner to submit. The reason for the mass importation of Muslims and Africans to the West in recent decades is not, as is commonly claimed, to fortify the pension system. It is to terrorise the native Western population into submission, and thereby to fortify the position of the Western ruling classes.

Mental terror is induced by the apparatus of propaganda, which, in all Western countries, is controlled by the international banking and finance interests that comprise most of the ruling classes. The spearhead of this apparatus of propaganda is the television, which spews out fear and hate 24/7. The average American watches television for 166 minutes every day. Most of this time, they’re being taught to fear the outside world.

The mainstream media brings endless news of war and crisis and death and torture, and directly to the living room of everyone with a television. Although most television watchers are unaware of the effect these impressions have on their minds, the truth is that the subconscious of each of them is terrified by all this bad news, and comes to believe that the world is a fearful and awful place.

Combined with the fear generated by the destruction of public spaces after they are filled with hostile foreigners, the end result is an unwillingness to go outside at all, much less organise in the streets against the ruling class.

Spiritual terror is induced by what is called the Clown World Fork: either a person worships Yahweh, or one is not allowed to worship anything. All genuine spiritual traditions are strongly discouraged. Anyone who consumes spiritual sacraments to commune with God, as their ancestors did for thousands of years, goes to prison.

The Abrahamic cults were invented specifically to induce spiritual terror. Most Westerners have it smashed into their heads as children that they must worship Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, son of Yahweh, or burn in eternal hellfire. Atheistic materialism is presented as the alternative, but it has the same ultimate effect: to induce terror of death. This terror follows naturally from the presumption that consciousness is extinguished with the death of the physical body.

All of this bodily, mental and spiritual terror induces submission, which affords the ruling class the ability to impose their desired order. This is the meaning behind the occult phrase “Ordo Ab Chao” (order out of chaos). The terror induced by physical, mental and spiritual chaos leads to submission, and that submission gives the ruling class the opportunity to propose their desired solutions and to have the masses gratefully accept them.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

The Abrahamic Origins Of Wokeness

A new moral fanaticism has swept the upper echelons of Western society in recent years. Called Wokeness, it’s cancelling wrongthinkers everywhere with the fervour of a jihadist driving a van through a crowd of Christmas shoppers. Although most people consider it an entirely new phenomenon, Wokeness is, in fact, another form of Abrahamic religion. This essay explains.

As first observed by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya, Marxism is itself another form of Abrahamic religion. He defined it as an atheistic Abrahamism, in recognition of the fact that the Abrahamic cults are political religions and not spiritual ones. As a form of Abrahamism, Marxism shares with Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Baha’i a megalomanical desire to control the world and a psychopathic hatred of outsiders.

Wokeness developed out of Marxism in a similar manner to how Christianity and Islam developed out of Judaism. The only major difference between Wokeness and Marxism is that the latter was concerned with class questions, whereas the former has abandoned those for identity politics. In any case, Wokeness shares many characteristics with the Abrahamic religions.

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya observed that the Abrahamic cults shared “A profound sense of religious exclusivity, creating two strictly delineated camps of ‘believers’ in opposition to everyone else.” The ‘with-us-or-against-us’ logic of Abrahamism has been adopted directly into Wokeness. The absurd outcomes of this can be seen in the purity spiral phenomenon.

One central belief of Wokeness is that those who follow it are considered saved, in the sense that they need not fear future judgment, whereas those who don’t follow it are considered damned. This judgment is absolute: anything a person may have achieved in their lives, any good works they may have done, are secondary to the question of whether they were Woke. In this manner, Wokeness builds a sense of community in the same way that the Abrahamic cults do: through hatred of outsiders.

Another observation of Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya is that the Abrahamic cults share “The belief that there is only the sole true faith, and that any other form of religious expression external to the ‘one true faith’ is necessarily wrong.” The Woke follow this belief, only with regard to political expressions.

They don’t care much what your religious beliefs are, but if you hold a contrary political opinion then you are the enemy. This is because the Woke have never questioned their own righteousness, not even once. So if you disagree with a Wokist, you’re simply wrong. There is no room for dialogue or discussion, because, to them, that would be to platform evil.

This attitude is similar to the Abrahamic attitude that no outside religious ideas can ever be entertained, lest it lead to a crisis of faith. The same way that Abrahamists seek to eradicate all trace of competing religious dogmas, the Woke seek to eradicate all trace of completing political dogmas. As their idol, Joseph Stalin, once said: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”

Yet another observation is that the Abrahamic cults share “The acceptance of terrorism, violence, mob action, looting and aggressive missionary tactics to spread their religion.”

The Wokeness equivalent of crusading and jihading is cancel culture. The Woke don’t like to use mob terrorism to lynch people – that’s too working-class. The middle-class way to use mob terrorism is by doxxing wrongthinkers and trying to get them fired or deplatformed. The apogee of cancel culture is getting the mainstream media to run a hitpiece on someone.

Like the Abrahamists, the Woke derive a powerful sense of group bonding from destroying outsiders. The thought that those outsiders might take revenge thrills them because it suggests an escalation of conflict. Also like the Abrahamists, the Woke look forward to the one glorious day when they might destroy their enemies completely.

A further aspect of Wokeness shared by Abrahamism is “A common sense of being at a war to the death with the Dharmic (‘Pagan’) world that preceded Abrahamic ascendency.”

It has often been remarked that, for all their blustering about tyranny and oppression, the Woke don’t really care about the prohibition of spiritual sacraments such as cannabis and the psychedelics, and the countless people whose lives have been ruined by its enforcement. VJM Publishing has produced multiple books on the subject of cannabis law reform. But the Woke still consider us bad guys.

Some find this highly odd, but the explanation is simple. The Woke are politically religious, not spiritually religious, and as such they fear genuine spirituality, which they see as a competing ideology. Being soulless, the freedom to use spiritual sacraments such as cannabis and the psychedelics is not important to them. Moreover, people who do use such sacraments are usually anti-authoritarian, and therefore anti-Woke.

There are further similarities between Wokeness and the Abrahamic cults besides those observed by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.

Like Abrahamism, Wokeness is a conduit for sadistic and controlling urges, and attracts people with those urges. The sneering, arrogant superiority of the Woke is a mirror image of how Abrahamists behave towards non-believers. The Woke, just like the Abrahamist, want people punished for rejecting their religion. Also like the Abrahamic cults, Wokeness appeals to that base desire to punish.

Wokeness is also a universalist religion. A core part of Woke mentality is that it is a mindset for all times and all peoples. In the same way that individuals today can be judged as unworthy of respect for not being Woke, so too can individuals from centuries ago. Any person or any group of people is morally obliged to be Woke, even if they didn’t know about it.

The Woke believe that the Laws of Wokeness are written upon the hearts of men at birth.

Like Marxism and Christianity, Wokeness explicitly seeks to raise up the low and tear down the high. The difference is that instead of raising the proletariat above the bourgeoisie, or the meek above the cruel, the Woke raise the dark-skinned above the light-skinned, the homosexual above the heterosexual, the insane above the sane. The fact that this mentality harms the white working-class is seen as a bonus, as it punishes them for their rejection of Wokeness.

The most telling fact of all is that Wokeness is heavily promoted by Abrahamists. Jews, Christians and Muslims love nothing more than lecturing goyim/infidels/kaffirs about how concern for one’s own nation is the same kind of in-group favouritism that inspires genocides, and therefore evil. Wokeness can therein be understood as an ideology that serves the wider Abrahamic objective of destroying natural political organisation, and thereby competitors to Abrahamism.

Ultimately, Abrahamism and Wokeness share a great many characteristics because they are both forms of slave morality. Just like the Abrahamic cults, Wokeness is based on resentment for life, and saying No to it. As such, Wokeness can rightly be considered an evil that increases the human suffering in the world.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant: Christian Terrorists

After both the Utoya massacre and the Christchurch mosque massacre, the mainstream media rushed to explain both deeds as white supremacist terror. But in their haste to push the narrative that Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant were neo-Nazis, the opinion-shapers (deliberately or otherwise) only misdirected people from an understanding of the true motives of the killers. The reality is that both attacks were acts of Christian terror.

Breivik didn’t even try to hide the fact that he was a Christian. The cover of his manifesto prominently featured a Christian cross, and the text repeatedly emphasised his adoration for the Christian military orders that fought against Muslims in the Crusades and in actions such as the Siege of Vienna. It is apparent from reading Breivik’s manifesto that he saw himself as a knight crusader in the defence of Christendom against her enemies, one of a long line.

Tarrant was obviously inspired by Breivik. He followed closely Breivik’s methodology for carrying out a terrorist attack. Like Breivik, he also left a manifesto detailing his motivations, intentions and aspirations, in which he concedes that he took most of his inspiration from the Norwegian Freemason (and therefore Christian, as only Christians are permitted entry to the Scandinavian Rite).

Tarrant wasn’t the scholar that Breivik was, and his manifesto was much briefer and much less formal. However, Tarrant’s manifesto also made clear his Christian motivations, not least of which was a fervent desire to retake Constantinople for Christendom.

Tarrant visited Europe in 2017, and was appalled by its advanced state of social decay. One of the things that upset him the most was seeing “empty churches and full mosques” in every country. No white supremacist would care about empty churches, because they consider Christianity to be a religion for subhumans that was forced on their ancestors by violence and deceit. Only a Christian would take an empty church as a loss.

The Drottninggatan terror attack of April 2017, taking place among several other Islamist attacks in those years, triggered dark emotions in Tarrant, by his own admission. He considered these attacks to be “attacks on my faith”. This makes it clear that defending Christendom was a motivation he shared with Breivik. Those feelings might explain why Tarrant’s manifesto contains an explicit and direct appeal to Christians, referencing the Pope who launched the Crusades.

Before carrying out his attack, Tarrant claims to have asked for – and received – a blessing from a reborn version of the Knights Templar, the Christian soldiers who fought in the Crusades. His choice of target was partially motivated by the “desecration” of a church in Ashburton that had been converted into a mosque. The most telling, however, is that he rhetorically asks himself if he is a Christian, and finds himself unable to deny it.

Brenton Tarrant was a Christian, and his attack was an act of Christian terrorism.

The Christchurch mosque shootings can best be understood as the actions of a religious supremacist, one who seeks to strike a blow against a rival religion that he fears is ascendant. In this context, Tarrant was simply another Christian soldier marching on his enemies, little different to the dozens of Abrahamists who commit terror attacks every month.

The history of the Middle East, the Near East and Europe is replete with Christian vs. Muslim struggles. Ever since Islam was founded 1,400 years ago, the Middle East has been a battlefield for an intra-Abrahamic civil war that has claimed the lives of hundreds of millions. This war has periodically raged through the Near East and into Europe, leading to the threat of Muslim control of Europe on at least two occasions.

Breivik was aware of the Battle of Tours and of the Siege of Vienna, so he was aware of how close Muslims have come to conquering Europe in the past. The mass Muslim immigration to Europe of recent decades must have seemed to him like another conquest attempt. No doubt it fed into the persecution mania that he shared with Christians in general.

Breivik conceived of his action in the context of Islamic expansion into Christian territory. Norwegian socialists were holding the borders open for Islamic invaders in the same way that the Jews of Toledo had done for the Saracen invaders. They were therefore responsible for the loss of Christian territory and influence.

Tarrant followed a similar logic. The only major difference is that, instead of shooting up a Green or Labour Party gathering, Tarrant targeted Muslims directly. It seems that he could quite easily have chosen a Green or Labour Party gathering with little change of mindset. The only major difference, if he had done so, would be less appeal for the white supremacist narrative.

In reality, a white supremacist has no reason to target Muslims any more than to target Christians. White supremacist rage is usually directed at those who let the invaders in, on the principle that traitors should be dealt with before enemies. Examples of the usual white supremacist modus operandi are the assassination of Jo Cox in 2016 and the assassination of Walter Luebcke in 2019, both targets being pro-refugee globalist politicians.

A Christian, on the other hand, has plenty of justification to target Muslims. Like Muslims, Christians believe that Yahweh has commanded the whole world to submit to their cult, and therefore any action taken to induce that submission is divine will. Christians have murdered non-Christians everywhere the two have met – that one might do so in New Zealand would be nothing out of the ordinary.

Muslims want everyone in the world to be Muslim; Christians want everyone in the world to be Christian. It’s inevitable that two ideologies of that level of arrogance will clash. The motivations of Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant are not easily understood in this age of pacified, infantilised and stupefied media consoomers. But their motivations were Christian, and shared with two millennia of Christian murderers before them.

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!