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!

Humour Is The Antidote To Mass Psychosis – That’s Why Totalitarians Want To Ban It

Comedy is dying all over the West. It seems like it’s now impossible to make a joke about anything without getting cancelled, banned from everything and one’s life destroyed. A parade of comedians have been cancelled in recent years, and now an atmosphere of sombre dread hangs over every country. But this dark turn of events can be easily explained, as this essay will show.

All totalitarian regimes strongly discourage humour. The Christians of the authoritarian right killed people for it, the Nazis of the authoritarian centre killed people for it and the Commies of the authoritarian left killed people for it. If the essence of libertarianism is light-hearted levity, the essence of authoritarianism is taking everything extremely seriously – or being made to.

Humour is chaos. By its very nature, it’s unpredictable. No-one has ever been able to write an accurate guide to reliably producing humour, because humour has to be unexpected in order to be funny. Because humour is chaotic and unpredictable, it works like a dissolving acid against stale, stagnant and superfluous ideas and political structures.

It’s this chaotic effect that causes totalitarians to seethe about it.

Totalitarianism is, in its metaphysical essence, an excess of order. It’s when the finest details of every person’s life have been determined by someone above them on the dominance hierarchy. Totalitarianism is ultimately borne by fear: the more afraid an individual or a population is, the more they want a Big Daddy to come in and set everything right. Fear leads to the desire for the imposition of order.

In order for totalitarianism to be possible, the masses have to be conditioned to accept it. But they can’t be conditioned into sanely accepting it, because a sane person, not being afraid, will not accept submission to totalitarians. As such, the masses have to be made to insanely accept it – they have to be driven mad by relentless propaganda so that they throw themselves into the arms of those who would rule them.

The totalitarians seize power by deliberately creating mass psychosis. This is a form of hypnosis, whereby the masses are hypnotised into following the will of their rulers. This is achieved by overloading the minds of the masses so that they don’t have enough mental bandwidth to process all the stimulation coming in. A mind overloaded by stimuli is less able to resist suggestion. So the totalitarians overwhelm the resistance of their subjects by blasting them with ceaseless fear-producing propaganda.

Humour counters this by clearing the mental slate from overstimulation.

As such, humour breaks down the conditioning effect of mass psychosis, and thereby liberates people from the grip that totalitarians have on their minds. Totalitarianism preys on fear, in particular the fear that induces people to keep their heads down in case they get punished, and humour dispells this fear, instead inducing people to stand up straight and to defy those who would rule them.

The reason why Marxist Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt took to the mainstream media to have VJM Publishing cancelled for selling ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts is precisely because they were humourous. Authoritarian leftists like Hunt consider their ideology to be Very Serious Business. As such, plebs like VJM Publishing are not allowed to make fun of it. Despite being clearly satirical, the slogan was declared to be “white supremacist” and the t-shirts pulled.

The Quadrijitu informs us that these things go in cycles. When life is good, people roll over for totalitarian measures because they’ve got too much to lose by rocking the boat. When life is bad, people keep their heads down. But when things get really bad, and people no longer have anything to lose, anger arises, and this anger leads people to take action despite the threat of consequences.

This current wave of totalitarianism will only end when a new generation of fearless comedians stands up and takes the piss again. VJM Publishing made an effort to mock the direction the Western World was headed with our book Clown World Chronicles – our most successful book in ten years of operations. We haven’t been cancelled for it (so far), and this is what the world needs more of – people standing up.

Humour doesn’t have to be good to serve as the antidote to totalitarianism. It doesn’t have to be intelligent, tasteful or even funny. The most important thing is that it is irreverent. This irreverence breaks the spell of the mass hypnosis and stops people from seeing totalitarians as authority figures. So if you want to do something about the totalitarian direction the West is moving in – take the piss out of an authority figure.

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!

How To Fix The Academy

400 years ago, the Academy went through a revolution. After Copernicus reminded the world that the Earth rotated around the Sun, and not the other way around, people realised that the truth about the nature of reality had been suppressed by religious forces. This led to a powerful anti-religious sentiment that later developed into The Enlightenment.

When the Christians burned Giordano Bruno to death, thereby destroying one of the finest minds of the Renaissance, freethinkers everywhere realised that they had to keep religious people out of their circles. Every person who desired the truth understood that Christians were willing to kill to prevent that truth from being known. Part of the Renaissance, then, was an anti-Christian revolution.

Ever since this revolution, the Academy has operated on one hard law of exclusion: religious zealots are out. Even if the zealots aren’t actively trying to kill anyone, they will still degrade the quality of the culture, especially the research culture.

It’s impossible to discuss biology with a person who thinks the Will of God, and not evolution, is the cause of the varying physical expressions among the world’s creatures. It’s impossible to discuss anthropology with someone who thinks that God created all the different races of the world at the same time with the same characteristics. It’s impossible to discuss mechnical engineering with someone who thinks that all machines are inventions of Satan.

Excluding the religious worked wonders for the university system. The centuries from 1700 to 2000 saw unparalleled advancement in human knowledge and understanding of the physical world. But this advancement peaked in the latter half of the 20th Century. Since then, the Academy has fallen victim to another form of zealotry: the political kind.

Political zealots are as dangerous to our current understanding of truth as religious zealots were to the ancient understanding. Marxists, in particular, have certain preconceptions about human nature, and will reject any science that conflicts with those preconceptions.

For instance, Marxists insist that the working-class is international. This insistence seems absurd in light of the fact that human population groups vary enormously by almost every measure, as does every species that has adapted to a wide range of environments. The great variation within the human species suggests that it makes more sense to organise on a local level, with smaller political units more closely aligned to local conditions. So the Marxists simply deny that variation.

This denial has severely impeded mainstream psychological research. Any researcher suggesting variation between sexes is howled down as a misogynistic bigot; any researcher suggesting variation between races is howled down as a racist bigot. Because human behaviour is heavily influenced by genes and because genes vary along all measurable dimensions, the Marxists find themselves effectively denying biology, which is itself the basis of psychology.

Psychological research has been forced to accord with Marxist dogma before it can safely be referenced by scientists (a topic covered in detail in the essay Science in Clown World). This neo-Lysenkoism has had the effect of making it impossible to survive as an honest researcher, as the examples of James Watson, Richard Lynn, Hans Eysenck, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux and a parade of others attest.

The Academy has to keep these political zealots out, and keep them out just as assiduously as it keeps out religious zealots. This means blacklisting anyone political, or with a particular axe to grind, and not just Marxists (who are merely the most egregious current example of political zealots destroying truth).

People with political interests are motivated to deny any biological, psychological or anthropological truth that, if widely accepted, would weaken their political position. As such, they cannot be considered objective and dispassionate observers of the human condition. They cannot be taken any more seriously than people with religious interests are.

For instance, globalists are strongly motivated to deny the truth about race and IQ. If they were to concede that intelligence is mostly genetic in adults, they would be forced to admit that the offspring of immigrants are unlikely to be significantly more intelligent than their parents. As such, low-IQ immigrants will spawn a low-IQ underclass that will inevitably have higher rates of violent and property crime, and therefore should not be let in.

Progressives are strongly motivated to deny the same truth. If they would admit that there’s a limit to how far low-IQ people can be educated, they’d have to admit that taxing the average person into the ground to pay for the education of the uneducable is pointless. They’d have to admit the wisdom in getting rid of much of the teachers’ corps – to which they often belong.

Denying scientific truths isn’t the preserve of left-wing zealots.

Conservatives are strongly motivated to deny other truths. They don’t like to admit how psychological science clearly shows that smacking is bad for a child’s healthy development. They also don’t like to admit how the same science clearly shows that the psychological dangers of cannabis use have been exaggerated. Although conservatives motivated to twist the truth on such issues are comparatively uncommon, the ultimate fact is that having any of these people in the Academy will weaken it.

To fix the Academy, there has to be a widespread agreement to ostracise political zealots the same way that religious zealots have been ostracised. Political zealots have to be removed from every level – not only from the faculty, but from the administration as well. The world’s universities need to become politics-free zones in the same way that they have become religion-free zones. Only then can the truth shine forth.

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!

How The Mainstream Media Stifles Dissent

Many regular followers of the mainstream media have noticed a pattern: every time any opposition to globohomo stands up, the media immediately rips into them. This is the result of a deliberate propaganda strategy, carried out by the ruling class, to stifle dissent by using the mainstream media as the gatekeepers of which ideas are allowed to be normalised. This essay explains how they do it.

The general rule is that anyone who stands up to represent their people, but without the approval of the owners of the mainstream media, will be smeared by that media as either insane or evil.

Noam Chomsky likes to point out that the mainstream media normalises opinions by limiting the opinions expressed, but allowing vigorous debate within those limitations. They do this by platforming people who have similar opinions, and then exaggerating the import of any differences. The impression created is that the true, reasonable position is between these two apparent poles.

The use of this strategy meant that dissenters could simply be ignored. Anyone outside the narrow window of acceptable opinion never had their voices heard, so their ideas never entered the mainstream consciousness. This strategy worked excellently until the rise of the alternative media, particularly the Internet-based alternative media, which allowed people to share content without corporate or governmental oversight.

Power is control of the minds of the masses. However, before one can gain that control, one must first gain the attention of the masses. The main power of the mainstream media is to gatekeep that attention. Alternative media, such as VJM Publishing, might produce higher-quality content, but we are not yet in a position to broadcast it to the masses. Despite this limitation, we can reach enough of them to force the mainstream media to adapt their strategy.

Their new strategy is simple: everyone who opposes the owners of the mainstream media is labelled insane or evil. Those are the two labels that get placed on every single free thinker, without exception. If they are incompetent, like most people are, they are labelled insane. Only the competent – and therefore, truly dangerous – are labelled evil.

The standard tactic is to find the most influential authority figure who is willing to smear the target as insane or evil, and then to give that figure a platform. An example is given in the image at the top of this article. The Groundswell protests do not have the approval of the globalists who own the media (unlike the Black Lives Matter protests), so the organisers of those get smeared as “crazy”.

The natural reaction of the average credulous pleb is to assume that the Groundswell organisers must actually be crazy, for, if that wasn’t true, an authority such as the leader of Federated Farmers would not have been allowed media space to make the claim. Surely such a bold statement, if false, would have been denounced by some other authority figure. It must therefore be true.

By featuring a cavalcade of authority figures disparaging the target, the media reduces the standing of the target in the mainstream consciousness. This reduces their influence, as people become shy to be associated with the next nutjob or the next Hitler. This makes it hard to get any resistance movement going.

Examples abound.

Sue Grey of the Outdoors Party regularly gets disparaged as insane, and has done ever since she came out in favour of cannabis law reform. Being female, and being associated with cannabis, she’s a prime target for accusations of mental illness. Reddit provides several examples of her being called a “wingnut” and multiple calls for her to be silenced or fined into oblivion.

Paddy Gower tried to smear Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern as evil, but he only succeeded in making himself look like a clown. That didn’t stop the rest of the mainstream media from referring to the Canadians as “far-right”. Anyone questioning the foremost addiction of the Western ruling classes – the addiction to cheap labour – is tarred with the Nazi brush.

The mainstream media has brought out the big guns for the ongoing protests by Australian tradesmen in Melbourne and other places – these protesters have been dismissed as both “conspiracy theorists” and “far-right”. The tradesmen are too obviously masculine and based to get dismissed as crackpots, so they get compared to Nazis. It’s an absurd comparison on the face of it, because the tradies are protesting for freedoms and the government is trying to impose authoritarianism. But not too absurd for Clown World.

In short, if a person is feminine or does drugs they’re written off as schizophrenic; if they are masculine or oppose the mass importation of cheap labour they’re written off as Nazis. Insane or evil – that’s how every alternative to the Establishment is smeared by their lackeys in the mainstream media.

The truth is that the dissenters are much less insane or evil than the current ruling class. Not only has the current Western ruling class built an economic system that is destroying the planet, but they’re happy to destroy any of us in order to keep that system running full speed. The mainstream media, and their owners, are more insane and evil than their targets.

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!