21st Century Nationalism

‘Nationalism’ is a dirty word in most circles today. Many people still associate it with the bloodshed and hatred of the previous century. But, just as globalism is not going away, nationalism will not either. New forms of nationalism are taking shape today as new generations find themselves facing similar challenges to the nationalists of old.

Everyone is familiar with 20th Century nationalism. Every history channel parrots the endless refrain: globalism is peace, nationalism is war. Nationalists started World War One and World War Two and so have to be opposed by all decent people.

20th Century nationalism had some drawbacks. Foremost was the extreme hostility towards other nations. Back then, human distinctions were considered greater than they really are. Charles Darwin, writing The Descent of Man in 1871, shocked many with the then-liberal position that Africans were definitively the same species as Europeans. This was less than half a century before the launch of World War One.

It seems bizarre to someone from the New World, but 20th Century European nationalists genuinely saw significant natural differences between themselves and their neighbours. A German could go to war with a Belgian in the belief that the two were meaningfully different. Even today, visitors to Europe from the New World are struck by the lingering animosity neighbouring groups have for each other. The combination of time and proximity seems to have been enough to engender hatred in many.

The latest phenomenon is Boomer nationalism. This is little more than pissed-off old people. This phenomenon can be seen all over the Western World, particularly in politicians such as Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Pauline Hanson and Winston Peters. These Boomers represent a generation who can see death staring them in the face, and who aren’t happy about it. They project their dissatisfaction with their own mortality onto society.

The archetypal Boomer nationalist demands are not just an end to mass immigration, but also Boomer concerns such as higher pensions and lower property taxes. They also often promote causes that directly harm younger people, such as work-for-the-dole schemes or restrictions on disability payments, neither of which pensioners have to worry about.

Boomer nationalism will never succeed because it is too selfish. Trump and Farage don’t care about young people, so their voters are dying off. Trump has done nothing to invest in the next generation of Americans. Winston Peters first entered government when the New Zealand population was 3.6 million: it is now 5.3 million, Peters is still in government and he has done nothing about immigration. The movement operates entirely on short-term self-interest.

The advance offered by Boomer nationalism over 20th Century nationalism is that it isn’t as hateful. Boomer nationalists are just as willing as 20th Century nationalists to assert their own interests, they’re just not quite as willing to make other people suffer in the pursuit. The argument of this essay is that Boomer nationalism has the correct amount of outgroup antipathy – i.e. a moderate one – but the Boomers aim it in the wrong direction.

21st Century nationalism is something else: a different philosophy to both of the above, for different realities.

21st Century nationalism, like 20th Century nationalism, is primarily for young people. Like Boomer nationalism, it is only moderately aggressive. It calls for remigration rather than death camps. Because 21st Century nationalism is for young people, it is for people who never knew the good times that the Boomers enjoyed. This will give it a cold and steely edge that Boomer nationalism does not have, but 20th Century nationalism did.

This new, third wave of nationalism will have to be more sophisticated than its predecessors if it is to succeed. 20th Century nationalism, arising in the aftermath of World War One where might made right, didn’t mind making enemies. Boomer nationalism, appealing to a credulous generation of television-watchers, is simplistic and vulgar, and is failing thereby. 21st Century nationalism will have to be more diplomatic and clever if it is to harness the support needed to win.

All three waves of nationalism have the same principal enemies, namely the globalists and their lackeys. These are chiefly bankers and Bolsheviks – the globohomo of Clown World Chronicles – and those they have bribed and threatened into doing their bidding.

21st Century nationalism, like the other two forms, will be forced to struggle with Christianity. This Middle Eastern religion, with its universal morality expressed in passages such as Galatians 3:28, has crippled the previous two waves of nationalism through sabotage and passivity.

The difference is that very few young people are Christian today. 21st Century nationalism will therefore not be Zionist as Boomer nationalism was. It might also therefore adopt many several elements. There was already a foreshadowing of this in the NDSAP’s adoption of a swastika as rallying symbol. We could see a form of spiritualism akin to that of Ancient Greece and Rome make a return (see the Pythia of the Oracle of Delphi), as it did during the time of William James. We could also see the rise of Elementalism.

If these 21st Century nationalists end up going to war, it would probably involve civil war rather than world war or generational war. The thought of one Western country invading another World War One-style is hard to take seriously today, but professors of war and conflict such as David Betz suggest that civil war across a number of Western cities/regions is a very real outcome given today’s demographic powder keg.

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!

Where The Millennial Generation Won – And Lost

We oldest Millennials are now in our mid-40s. This affords us enough of a vantage point to look back and see where it went right for our generation, and where it went wrong. Where we won and where we lost.

Economically, our situation was clearly worse than for the Boomers but better than for Gen Z. Looking at the long-term home price to income ratio trend, it can be seen that Boomers enjoyed the best of times when it came to affording the necessities of life. The hardest times are now and the future.

Finding housing is hell for people today, but it wasn’t so bad 20 years ago. At the turn of the Century, when we Millennials were young, housing was plentiful and cheap. Finding good quality student flats was easy. Gen Z have it very hard by contrast. Compared to previous generations, very few of them are married and homeowners by the age of 30. This is the main reason fertility rates are crashing.

The days of the Boomers being able to land a job with a firm handshake are long gone. Millennials, however, have managed to scrape ourselves into a position where most of us are doing okay. For Gen Z the situation is so precarious that mental disorders are surging. The combination of housing uncertainty and precarious employment has made life hellish for the generations after us.

Education has been extremely mixed. On the one hand, the ease of access to higher education is excellent thanks to the Internet in general and YouTube in particular. This has made it possible to receive university-tier lectures without needing to move to a university city.

On the other hand, the education system is now full of Marxists. It’s very difficult to get an education today without also being brainwashed into hating white people. The Long March Through The Institutions has been completed, and now one cannot get into a teaching position without being a Marxist. This has ruined the quality of mainstream education and turned it into propaganda. So that high-quality material, although it can be beamed directly into your house now, is harder to find than in previous eras.

Arguably we Millennials had the best women. Millennial women were post-Christian in the sense they generally didn’t have the same religious hang-ups that Boomer women did. They were up for it – the popular belief was that sex was a fun and positive thing. Millennial women liked having boyfriends. The gender discourse was not yet totally poisoned.

Gen Z seems to have a preponderance of sexually unresponsive women owing to mass antidepressant and antipsychotic uptake. This was only a small problem for Millennials. Gen Z also appears to suffer from a new form of puritanism that suggests sex is immoral. Even approaching a woman is considered offensive by some of these new ascetics. The net result is that love and romance is much less fun for young people today.

Millennials also arguably had the best relation to technology and video games. The Silent Generation had the radio and the cinema. The Boomers had the television. We Millennials got all of that as well as (what seemed like at the time) incredible video games. But we didn’t also suffer the invasive panopticon that Gen Z did.

It was possible for Millennials to party and cut loose without the fear of being recorded that Gen Z currently operates under. We could do dumb stuff without it ending up on the Internet for the whole planet to gape at. Gen Z is imprisoned by technology in a way that we never were; history has truly vindicated Ted Kaczynski.

Entertainment and culture was very good for Millennials. The music may not have been as great as it was for the Boomers, and the literature may have been significantly worse, but the film was as good, and in all cases much better for Millennials than for Gen Z. We mostly had the same drugs as the Boomers, i.e. alcohol and tobacco with the occasional bit of weed. Gen Z has access to a much wider range of recreational drugs and has to deal with much less stigma.

Social cohesion is much worse for Millennials than for Boomers. The Boomers got to grow up in white societies in which politeness and consideration were normal. Their neighbourhoods were mostly safe and full of people who looked out for each other.

The Muttening kicked in for Millennials, who had it much worse than the Boomers. But Gen Z will have it much worse again. Gen Z is growing up in conditions closer to a zoo than to a civilisation. Whether our societies have still avoided collapse by the time Gen Z are pensioners is anyone’s guess. But the early stages of collapse can be seen in white flight from big cities.

When it comes to spirituality, we had it about the same as the Boomers in that we were also pinned by the Clown World Fork of Christianity or atheism. Almost all of us got the mainstream scientific atheist narrative throughout our school years, and many of us came to adulthood watching the Four Horsemen of Atheism, who seemed logical and reasonable. Those of us who suspected there was more to life than materialism usually ended up on psychiatric medication.

Gen Z may live to see a genuine spiritual resurgence, even if we don’t. This is because materialism is no longer satisfying to people in general. There’s now an awareness that materialism correlates with nihilism and thereby with all kinds of degeneracy and misery. This has led to a revival in the perennial spiritual philosophy. Whether this is the much-prophecised dawn of the Age of Aquarius and another Satya Yuga remains to be seen. But the early signs are promising.

The general rule is that Boomers had it the best, Gen Z the worst, and we Millennials somewhere in the middle. This accords with society’s general decline into Clown World. However, Millennials did have it best in some limited ways.

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!

How We Will Lose Our Free Speech Rights

Because we’ve had peace and prosperity for so long now, it’s a common belief that both states are natural and no special effort is required to maintain either. This is a grievous delusion. It’s possible that, as per Phaedrus, the natural state of consciousness is incarnated in a higher dimension where there is no suffering. But down here on Earth, the natural state of life is brutish, nasty and short.

The tribal and violent nature of pre-civilisational life has been ameliorated, post-civilisation, chiefly through the invention of marriage, which has allowed supertribal consciousness to manifest through homogenising existing tribes in their shared offspring. The more tribes that married into each other, the more this higher consciousness was brought into being. Eventually clans formed, and then city-states.

These city-states had plenty of what Aristotle called philia. This was a kind of neighbourly solidarity that served as the mortar holding the edifice of society together. This philia created a sense that people were on the same team, moving in the same direction, and this goodwill allowed them to agree on things, e.g. that free speech would be important.

For most of human history, there has been a widespread understanding that the standard of living afforded by this homogeneity was a good thing, and so that homogeneity ought to be defended. So when new blood was introduced from the outside, it was married in to the existing stock so as to avoid factionalisation. Aristotle wrote, in Politics, that “heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate.”

This factionalisation is what destroys freedoms, as freedoms only exist when everyone can agree on their importance. Absent this agreement, any and all freedoms can and do become banned on the grounds they are destabilising, corruptive or degenerate influences. The sad truth about the human animal is that we are panicky, skittish beings prone to contagions of fear and hysteria. Hence we like to ban things, especially if we don’t understand them. If there isn’t general agreement that a particular freedom is important, it tends to get banned.

The freest country in the world, America, is the way it is because of general agreement on the importance of free speech, free assembly, free trade and various other freedoms. Children are taught at the earliest school that freedom is a foundational American virtue, and that only America’s enemies oppose freedom.

Unfortunately, this mentality is not universal.

New Zealand had a referendum on freedom with the cannabis referendum in 2020. NZ-born voters voted Yes, for freedom. Those born outside of New Zealand voted No. Their cultures don’t have freedom, they don’t understand it. So they voted ours away.

Kiwis responded with a shrug, and just got on with life. Another freedom gone, who cares?

We will lose our free speech rights the same way.

The image at the top of this article is a screenshot of a recent press release from a coalition of religious groups in New Zealand: the highest authorities for each of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs in this country. They have combined forces to agitate for further free speech crackdowns. This is in response to some of the statements made by Brian Tamaki (see 2:00 in this video for examples), in particular claims that Modi was purging India of Christians and that New Zealand ought to retaliate in kind, burning down mosques and temples and purging New Zealand of Hindus, Sihks and Muslims.

Tamaki has said several heinous things, and could rightly be charged with being a nuisance to public order. But if hate speech laws are introduced, they will soon become blasphemy laws. It’s no secret that some religions, particularly the Abrahamisms, would like to make criticising them illegal. Adherents of these religions will tirelessly push to widen any hate speech law that gets passed.

The main long-term danger is that, as New Zealand becomes less Kiwi through mass immigration, the population becomes less interested in freedom.

Free speech became a core Western value in the 1950s, as neither the Nazi opponents in World War II nor the Commie opponents in the Cold War believed in it. We were told that free speech was why our societies were better: it allowed them to self-correct, thereby avoiding the extremes of the totalitarian systems.

This worked out excellently for some decades, up until the end of the 20th Century. After then, there was mass immigration from countries with no traditions of free speech. Consequently, popular support for free speech started to waver. Having little of value to say, the immigrants could not see the value in free speech. So support for free speech is now declining. It will continue to decline as the West continues to muttify.

There might not be a referendum in New Zealand about free speech per se, but about a free speech-related issue. It might be about a proposed hate speech law. In any case, the Chinese, Muslim and Pacific Islander voters who voted away our cannabis freedom will (in all likelihood) vote away our free speech rights as well. They can’t be expected to vote for freedom because it’s not valued in their cultures.

If New Zealanders lose our free speech rights, it will be through the mass immigration of people who don’t value them.

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!

Metawriting

The great AI tsunami of destruction is rolling up the shores of the “knowledge economy”, wiping out hundreds of millions of white-collar jobs. All kinds of analysts, programmers, researchers, accountants and sales reps are about to become unemployable. So are writers.

Ted Kaczynski wrote at length about the process of technology disrupting society. One of the arguments he made in Industrial Society And Its Future is that technology forces humans to adapt to it, rather than the other way around. Cellphones are an example: once a useful tool to stay connected while on the road, they are now virtually necessary to partake in employment.

AI technology is going to likewise force people to adapt to it – by making them obsolete. Tremendous numbers of white-collar jobs are about to simply disappear, replaced by app output. Most copywriters are going to be obliterated, but certain other writers won’t. These will be the people skilled at metawriting.

Photography made most of painting and drawing obsolete. There was no longer a need to pay someone to paint a portrait over several weeks, when a photo could be taken of them instantly. But the advent of photography led to something previously rare: low-quality art. The price of entry was now so low that unskilled people could produce art at almost no cost to themselves.

Now, choice became a thing. This is why some people don’t get the art of photography: they can’t understand the meta, the choice of what to photograph. Many subjects are not interesting or beautiful, and therefore not worthy of depiction. Other subjects can be made more interesting or beautiful by choosing the right framing, or the right contrasts.

By the same token, AI has made elements of writing obsolete. When I was at school, being able to spell was a big deal. It distinguished the bright from the dull. Now, no-one cares about spelling, sentence composition or paragraph composition. AI can do all of that. But now, choice of prompt has become important.

The 21st Century art form known as metawriting is the art of making the subject more interesting, or more beautiful, by choosing the right framing, the right contrasts, or by some other way. This metawriting will remain an art, no matter how advanced AI gets, because AI can’t be programmed to have taste.

It’s possible already now to churn out thousands of books that no-one will have any interest in reading because, despite being technically well-written, the metawriting is poor. The prompter might not understand the subject well enough to cover the main issues. They might devote too much space to irrelevancies. Metawriting can be cliched, too, if the piece covers already well-trodden intellectual paths.

In the future, the art of writing will go through a change akin to the change from painting to photography. The best writers will still need to possess an artistic talent akin to the best photographers. No longer will an author be able to “phone it in” by thoughtlessly writing about boring subjects in neat prose. Anyone can write neat prose with AI now, and they will focus on all manner of subjects. The writers of the future will have to accept this reality.

The writers of the future will still need to be readers, in order to know what to write about. They will still have to be deeply cultural and informed so as to understand the historical and social context in which they are writing. They will still be forced to understand the psychology of their readers in order to appeal to them. They will still need to understand their competition, what that competition are writing about, and what are fashionable and unfashionable subjects to write about. They will still have to account for political correctness and what the power structure wants people to write about and to ignore.

It may be that people become more skilled metawriters even as they become less skilled writers.

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!