The Working-Class White Question

Conventional political understanding is that the left wing is for the working class and the right wing is for the ruling class. But conventional understanding is in the process of being replaced by an alternative politics. In the politics of the 21st Century, the left wing is for browns and blacks. This has raised a number of, until now, unanswered questions.

Perhaps the foremost of those questions is: what is the position of working-class whites in the new paradigm?

The labour movements that formed in the West in the 19th and early 20th Centuries were almost entirely white. They formed in opposition to the capitalist interests that were also almost entirely white. But when globalists won World War Two, and began the mass importation of cheap Third World labour to the West, the white working class were put in a bind.

According to the Marxists, the white working class were obliged to embrace their replacements. The world’s working class were prophecised by Marx to come together across international borders, and so the destruction of national consciousness through mass cheap labour imports was a good thing. The white working class would have to recognise that they and the newcomers were of a shared mission: to destroy the capitalist system.

Working-class whites, however, didn’t feel like they had much in common with the newcomers. For one thing, the vast majority of working-class whites have at least some middle-class people in their extended family. For another, the newcomers usually hated the working-class whites and made that hatred obvious.

This caused working-class white sentiments to split: some embraced working-class culture, some embraced white culture, and others bunked down into an exclusivist working-class white culture that was hostile to outsiders. The net result was the shattering of working-class white solidarity and the neutralisation of working-class whites as a political force.

Today, we see working-class whites, on account of being white, forced to take a back seat to everyone else, even when those others are wealthier. Working-class whites are excluded from racial scholarships just as much as Bill Gates’s kids are. Working-class whites can also be, and often are, excluded from certain jobs under Diversity, Inclusion and Equity initiatives.

Naturally, this has led to immense resentment among working-class whites towards the Western political establishment. This resentment is strongest for those leftists who claim to be fighting for the white working class, but who in reality are fighting for an ideology that doesn’t care at all about working-class whites.

The working-class white question, then, is a way of distinguishing sane leftists from insane wokists.

If a person truly supports the underdog, they will support the working-class whites upon whose backs industrial civilisation was built, and who still bear the majority of the intergenerational trauma incurred through the various wars of the past 100 years: the same working-class whites who are currently getting squeezed out of housing all over the West.

If they are an insane wokist, by contrast, they might consider working-class whites traitors for their refusal to support the globalist revolution. Thus they will not care about the suffering of working-class whites from the mass importation of Third World cheap labour. That suffering is just a means to the end of globalist revolution.

Thus sane leftists can be distinguished from insane ones, simply by asking them what they think about working-class whites.

A leftist might make the argument that some particular racial group is disadvantaged because of colonisation, and therefore deserves special treatment by way of compensation. Very well. But what, then, explains the disadvantage of working-class whites?

If a left-wing politician makes the argument that browns and blacks are disadvantaged by colonisation, but working-class whites, who may be poorer than those browns and blacks, are advantaged by that same colonisation, and therefore are obliged to pay some of the reparations that are due from the whites to the browns and blacks, that politician is the enemy.

Likewise if a politician says that browns and blacks are poor because they have not had a chance yet, but working-class whites are poor because they have had a chance and have already blown it, that politician is the enemy. This is akin to saying that working-class whites are the only truly low-IQ faction of society, and therefore deserve a place at the very bottom of the ladder.

Working-class whites need to realise that, if a left-wing politician doesn’t support working-class whites explicitly, they will not support working-class whites at all. The fact that they are on the left cannot be taken to mean that they implicitly support working-class whites.

The working-class white question is a way for working-class whites to determine if a given leftist is a friend or a foe.

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

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 Mainstream Conservatives Support Homosexuality But Not Cannabis Law Reform

Forty years ago, mainstream conservatives believed that both cannabis and homosexuality ought to be criminalised. Today, they still believe that cannabis use should be illegal – but they celebrate homosexuality, as shown by their attendance at the various pride parades. What is the reason for supporting the status quo on one moral issue, but making a complete flip on another? This article explains.

What it comes down to is a war on consciousness.

Homosexuality might be a threat to a certain kind of moral order, one based around the family and raising children. But it isn’t a threat to capitalism. In fact, the logic of nihilistic consumption is common to both homosexuals and capitalists. Both tend to live for today and for the pleasures of today, with little thought to posterity or to their legacy.

American marketers believe the “pink dollar” – the total consumption of LGBTQ people – to be worth over one trillion dollars per year in the United States. Yahoo Finance states: “there is a correlation between the growth of the pink economy and the increase in demand for luxury products and premium services, since it is estimated that this community spends 15% more than heterosexuals.”

This is the reason for the right-wing about-face on homosexuality over recent decades. By encouraging homosexuality, the conservatives encourage people onto a path of hedonistic, spendthrift materialism. Today’s conservatives no longer care about conserving anything, they only care about money. So for them, the ideal citizen is someone who just spends, spends and spends.

Cannabis is a different matter.

Cannabis has been used for thousands of years as a spiritual sacrament. As with other spiritual sacraments (such as psilocybin), cannabis inspires people to do things that our corporate overlords don’t like. Such as recycle, minimalise consumption and even drop out of capitalist society completely to devote one’s life to higher pursuits.

Unlike homosexuality, then, spirituality is a direct threat to the capitalist paradigm. Spirituality induces people to find pleasure in everyday things, such as the rise and fall of the Sun, the glow of the Moon, the caress of the wind. It causes people to assign merit to the good, not to those with the most expensive car or shoes.

Spirituality also causes people to take extreme long-term viewpoints. Because it inclines people to think about reincarnation and karma, it also inclines people to think about their wider family, clan, nation, race and species, and justice for those groups. This kind of thinking comes into direct conflict with the capitalist imperative to atomise every individual into a consumerist silo.

The National party’s biggest concern is keeping people on the employment-rent treadmill, whereupon they can be plundered for maximum profits. To this end, they want people taking the most short-term possible view. They want people obsessed with the crudest, most bestial pleasures. Understanding this, one can also understand how Judith Collins can march in a pride parade while campaigning to have cannabis users locked up.

In esoteric terms, the situation can (as so often) be best understood with an appeal to the Mithraic Ladder.

The mentality, and the spiritual frequency, of homosexuality is something that belongs to the lowest levels of the Mithraic Ladder. The energy of Saturn, or of lead, is an energy not concerned with reproduction. Saturn consumed his offspring, and, in the same way, homosexuals do not create a next generation. Homosexuality is the frequency of death, where pleasure is raised higher than life itself.

People on those low levels are not thinking about a revolution of philosopher-kings. As such, cocks going up arses are not, in any sense, a threat to the Government or to conservatism. In fact, in so far as it serves as a distraction from the development of the political consciousness necessary to challenge the ruling class, sodomy is a benefit to the Government and to conservatism.

The same phenomenon can be seen on /pol/, where the catalog is regularly flooded with porn and sex threads, distracting from the development of political consciousness. This is the result of a deliberate effort to destroy a space in which free political thought takes place.

The spiritual frequency of cannabis use, by contrast, is about higher vistas. Cannabis users tend to think about things like justice, God and their own karmic debts. This naturally leads them to think about political questions. A person whose mind is fixed on the eternal is the ultimate threat to tyrannical rulers. Such a person, like the Terminator, cannot be distracted by mere pleasures and they’re much harder to intimidate into submission.

Mainstream conservatives, in summary, support homosexuality and not cannabis law reform because homosexuality has the ultimate effect of upholding the status quo, whereas cannabis use does not.

Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World about a society in which no-one participated in intellectual pursuits, but were obsessed with sex. This culture was of great benefit to the rulers of that world, who thereby went unchallenged. Huxley was aware in the 1930s of that venal, money-grubbing tendency among conservatives. In our time, that tendency has fully bloomed.

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!

The Maths On The UBI Argument

This week’s release of the Sora text-to-video engine has reignited a recent debate. It seems to most well-informed observers that artifical intelligence is going to make a large number of occupations obsolete in a short number of years. This has got people talking about a universal basic income again. So VJM Publishing does the maths.

Let’s say our putative UBI is $385 per week, across 52 weeks, making it just over $20,000 per year. $20,000 times 4 million eligible Kiwis equals $80 billion per year. Where to find that?

There’s one really obvious source of finding half of that money: the existing benefit system. According to budget.govt.nz, existing benefit expenses are some $40 billion per year. A UBI would mean that there was no longer any need to maintain the existing welfare system.

This would also mean that WINZ itself could be completely scrapped. The welfare bureaucracy would no longer have any reason to exist once a UBI was in place. That would save another $3 billion (also as per budget.govt.nz above).

Many will be astonished to hear that WINZ spends about three billion a year just administering benefits. But that is the price of not having a universal income. With no universal income, welfare benefits have to be gatekept to the “truly worthy”. This means at least one WINZ office, usually with dozens of staff, in every major built-up area in the country, to deter the supposed hordes of bludgers.

That’s $43 billion of the $80 billion.

A second area of savings comes from church tax. Although figures for New Zealand are unclear, it’s estimated that Australia is missing out on some AUD10,000,000,000 per annum from not having church taxes. Given that Australia is over five times larger than New Zealand, that suggests that we could bring in at least $2 billion from a church tax.

The only reason why churches are already untaxed in Australia and New Zealand is thanks to an antiquated pre-colonial British law written under the then-common delusion that the Christian religion adds value to society. Now that Christians are a minority in New Zealand, and in the wake of mass Christian opposition to the cannabis referendum, it’s neither necessary nor possible to continue with this delusion.

A $2 billion annual church tax would bring us to $45 billion.

A third area of savings comes from a Georgist-style tax on ground rents. The New Zealand Property Investor’s Federation believes that the total size of the “rental economy” is about $15 billion. That’s fifteen billion dollars earned through sheer extortion, a parasitic form of income-gathering that causes innumerable harms to wider society – and which is otherwise untaxed.

A Georgist-style 80% tax on ground rents would therefore bring in some $12 billion. Perhaps this can be adjusted down to $10 billion on the basis that some of the rental economy consists not only of simple ground rents, but also rent on improvements, which remains untouched by a land tax under Georgist philosophy.

That brings us to $55 billion.

Empty or otherwise landbanked properties comprise a fourth area of savings. According to the Empty Houses Report, there are some 95,000 empty homes in New Zealand. Some of these are being kept empty because of landbanking, some as holiday homes, some as second homes, some as vacant rentals. In any case, if the ground rents of these empty homes were, on average, $500 per week, and if these ground rents were taxed at 80% as per the Georgist principles above, that would bring in another $2 billion, taking our total to $57 billion.

Note that these land taxes entirely avoid taxes on family homes.

New Zealand is one of the only countries in the OECD to not have a capital gains tax, which is a fifth area of savings. The overall effect of this is to stratify society, keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. The reasons for New Zealand not already having a capital gains tax are complicated, but they can be summarised as greed making the country a worse place to live.

According to the Tax Working Group, a capital gains tax in New Zealand would bring in some $6 billion per annum ten years after introduction. The vast majority of this money would otherwise be getting hoarded by the people who need it the least. Thus, with a capital gains tax we have accounted for $63 billion of the necessary $80 billion.

Then the rest of the cost of an UBI will be naturally clawed back by the tax system. If the median wage in New Zealand is $31.61 an hour, and if the average worker works 1,369 hours per annum, then the average already-employed person is bringing in some $43,274 per annum already.

Someone receiving $43,274 will pay $6,073 in PAYE, but someone receiving $63,274 will pay $12,002, almost $6,000 per annum more. So if a $20,000 UBI would raise the average worker’s income to $63,274, roughly $6,000 of that would immediately be taxed back. Multiply this by four million workers and you have an extra $24 billion in PAYE.

That would actually take us over the $80 billion by some margin, to $87 billion or so. For maximum efficiency, we might like to introduce a $20,000 tax-free threshold at this point – the logic being that if it costs $20,000 per annum to survive, taxing anyone making less than this is pointless, because it will have to come back to them in the form of government services anyway.

This would cost slightly over $10 billion, i.e. roughly $2,500 in foregone PAYE for each of the four million employed people.

The remaining shortfall can be accounted for by GST intake on increased spending. If the average person spends $5,000 extra per annum on account of their UBI, then some $750 of that will be recouped by the Government in the form of GST. Multiplied by four million workers makes for an extra $3 billion.

In summary, a $90 billion demand for a UBI plus a $20,000 tax-free threshold can be met by scrapping WINZ and the entire welfare system ($43 billion), a church tax ($2 billion), a land tax on the ground rents of rental property ($10 billion), a land tax on empty homes ($2 billion), a capital gains tax ($6 billion), naturally increased PAYE ($24 billion) and naturally increased GST ($3 billion). The numbers for a UBI in New Zealand add up.

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!

Why People Aren’t Willing To Fight

The war drums are beating, and everyone can hear them. The Western powers are arraying themselves for a cataclysmic showdown with the Eurasian axis of Russia, Iran and China. This means they’re going to be looking for cannon fodder to help them kill Russians, Iranians and Chinese people. But it won’t be as simple as previous times.

The glib assumption made by the Western ruling class is that they can declare an eternal war against their Russian, Iranian and Chinese foes, and simply draft young Westerners to fight it. This is what they have done in previous wars, and it worked out great for them. Today’s ruling class, however, have lost touch with reality somewhat: they don’t realise that many of the old rules of mass manipulation no longer apply.

Recent mainstream media propaganda has pushed the concept of conscription on us. This has been especially true in Britain and in Australia. But the Establishment was not prepared for the reaction from the populace. Many young people (not just VJM Publishing) have expressed an extreme unwillingness to allow themselves to get conscripted to fight for the West.

Why?

Most young people today feel like the social contract has been broken. The intergenerational social contract, as has been understood for centuries, was that each generation leaves the following generation a better society, in return for getting a decent pension from that society. The elders were respected and given a cut of society’s proceeds because they had left a quality standard of living to the next generation.

Today’s young people aren’t getting a better society. By most honest measures of wealth and well-being, young people today are doing much worse than the Boomers did, sometimes several times worse. This is especially true when it comes to housing: young people today have to put in about four times as much effort to own a house. The Boomers are now extorting the younger generations to the maximum.

On top of that, the Boomers are mass importing cheap labour to compete with the Boomers’ own descendants on housing and wages. So those descendants are finding themselves having to scrap with half of the Third World just to get a quarter of what their parents had. It’s a rotten deal by any fair analysis.

So now many young people are saying to themselves: if the social contract was never upheld for us, why should we uphold it for anyone else? Why fight for an arrangement where we’re little better than slaves, sentenced to pay off mortgage debts to Boomers until we’re decrepit ourselves?

Why fight for a system that’s rigged against us? Young people in the trenches against China wouldn’t be fighting for a system that gave them a better chance of owning a house and raising a family than the Chinese system, but the opposite (the homeownership rate in China is close to 90%). They’d be fighting for a system of usurious enslavement that sought to suck the life energy not only from them but from their descendants for generations to come.

No young Westerner can, with a clean conscience, support the system that has enslaved them. It follows that they would only fight for it under the most extreme form of duress. Given the extent of the fragging that existed near the end of the Vietnam War, the ruling class could rightly be concerned that something similar would happen again if they brought conscription back, only on a bigger scale.

Moreover, some are asking: Fight for what?

It’s no longer clear that we even have nations anymore, at least not in the way that we’re used to thinking about them. The advent of multiculturalism has meant that the old in-group boundaries are now very fluid. The countries our ancestors fought for are now very different – some would argue categorically different.

Most young Westerners now understand that they’re being replaced by Third World cheap labour, and that this replacement is not a natural phenomenon. Rather, it is deliberately being orchestrated by the Western ruling class for profit. So what would we be fighting for in the case of getting conscripted to kill Russians? A McNation of cheap labour imports? An economic zone ruled by an ideology of “every man for himself” economics?

Our families would be better off if we didn’t go to war. The only beneficiaries of war today are the globalists who would not only get to destroy their rivals, but who would also profiteer from the killing. Realising this en masse, young people are no longer willing to fight as previous generations had been.

Some of the unwillingness to fight can be attributed to the influence of alternative media. For decades now, alternative media outlets devoted to the fight against evil have served to educate the public about the workings of the ruling class, and how they manipulate the rest of us into doing their bidding. VJM Publishing has been among those, and we will continue to do what we can to enlighten people about how the warmongers manipulate them into battle.

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 essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, 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!