Old Poverty vs. New Poverty

There is a popular distinction between Old Money and New Money.

Old Money is what everyone is familiar with. It’s what you have when you’re a prince or an aristocrat. It’s when you grow up learning how to manage an estate, rather than learning skills to trade for a wage. Old Money is when you have a pedigree. Most of your ancestors did well and most of your family are doing well. There are monuments/parks/buildings/roads named after your relations.

New Money is what you have when your parents escaped from the working class. Maybe one started a business and got rich, maybe one became a sports star, maybe one won the lottery. Maybe your parents are old enough that they could escape the working class by studying and working hard. Probably the rest of your family is poor, and you might have a lot of criminal cousins.

A behavioural difference is apparent. New Money is much flashier and ostentatious than Old Money. This is a function of New Money’s underlying insecurity – the inescapable suspicion that they achieved their position through luck, and that it won’t last. Being insecure, New Money is more likely to bully. It lacks grace, dignity, gravitas and the other qualities associated with good breeding.

Old Money is secure. Old Money knows that if it fucks up, some uncle or great-aunt will be there to provide a cushy job for a quick rebound. Even in cases where help from close relatives isn’t enough, it can usually rely on the reputation of the family name to seal a good deal. And if that doesn’t work, Old Money can always rely on the qualities of their breeding to see them through.

When the economy expands, the central struggle is Old Money vs. New Money. This occurs when the descending aristocracy, on the way down, meets the ascending merchantry. This is the same as what George Orwell called the High vs. the Middle. It’s a natural historical division that most people know about.

When the economy contracts, however, you have Old Poverty vs. New Poverty.

For example, I’m Old Poverty. I’m used to being poor. I was raised by a single mother on welfare, and although my grandparents were great people they were always broke. These grandparents brought me up on stories about the Great Depression, and how they learned to “make do”. Many of the stories began with “we didn’t have a…”

Old Poverty makes it easy to live on a Student Allowance or other benefit, as it usually isn’t much less money than you grew up on anyway. You naturally know how to make do when you’ve been raised by grandparents who were also poor. Poverty doesn’t cause as much anxiety when it’s the natural state, so is not resented as much. Actually having money, on the other hand, is seen as a bonus and is not taken for granted.

In coming years, we will see a lot more of a phenomenon that has hitherto been rare: New Poverty. This has never previously existed in any large number because the economy has kept expanding. But in coming decades, as we hit the limits of growth, we will have economic contractions.

New Poverty is when your parents were able to buy a house and raise a family on their wages – and you can’t. It’s when your parents keep asking you when you’re going to give them grandchildren, and you have to keep explaining that the maths doesn’t add up. It’s when you hit 40 and still haven’t paid off your student loan. It’s when you’re constantly asking yourself how things turned out so bad.

New Poverty is different to someone born into money who crashes out through their own bad decisions. New Poverty is when you do everything (or almost everything) right and still end up renting. You study hard, you don’t get a criminal record, you don’t do Class As, and you still find yourself making $60,000 a year and needing a $900,000 mortgage.

It remains to be seen how Western society deals with the phenomenon of widespread New Poverty.

One of the features of New Poverty is that it’s likely to lead to a massive increase in dissent. Not having expected to become poor, many of those falling from the middle class into New Poverty will become resentful about their miserable station. Already there is a widespread incel movement in the West comprised of men who demand the very best.

In the past, the coming of New Poverty portended revolution. Old Poverty can handle being poor, but New Poverty tends to become bitter. So in times when middle-class or upper-middle-class people are cast down into the working class, we can expect them to fight to get back to their original position. Here it’s worth recalling that many revolutionaries started out in the minor aristocracy.

If we don’t get revolution, we might get what Aldous Huxley predicted – a world where everyone is zombified by pharmaceuticals. Maybe the vast masses will be paralysed by a matrix of screen propaganda, prescription pills and long working hours, lacking the energy to revolt against the technologically-empowered ruling class.

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!

Why People Are Helping Tom Phillips Hide From The Police

When I was younger, I had a family member in the trade of supplying medicinal cannabis to people with various conditions, including Huntington’s disease. One day the New Zealand Police caught wind of his operation, so they came to his house, arrested him, and chucked him in a cage with rapists and murderers for nine months.

He came out damaged – not physically, but with a transparent case of C-PTSD. Evidently the nine months of constant physical threat caused serious trauma and brain damage. He came out paranoid, aggressive, bullying, abusive and impulsive, seeing threats and dangers everywhere. Another casualty of the War on Drugs.

Shortly afterwards (in 1990), I was watching the television news with some of my family when there was a report about a Police officer who had died falling from a helicopter sling during a cannabis recovery operation. Upon hearing this, my family cheered. Comments about how the only good pig was a dead one were made. A dead Police officer was a dead enemy.

Our family suffered greatly from the law against cannabis, and we are far from the only ones. This century alone, tens of thousands of Kiwi families have been destroyed by cannabis prohibition – destroyed by New Zealand Police officers who mindlessly enforced a cruel and unjust law written by scum politicians.

The net result is that everyone in my family – like tens of thousands of others – hates the Police. We don’t see them as heroes keeping the community safe, but rather as the footsoldiers of tyrannical filth – no different to the enforcers of every other despot.

Upon hearing such things, most mainstream Kiwis react with denial. My family must just be really fucked up, most people conclude. But mainstream Kiwis, secluded from the underbelly of society, don’t understand that there is a large segment of the New Zealand population who hate the Police and consider them the enemy of anyone who wants to live freely in peace.

Many such Kiwis are wondering how “fugitive” Tom Phillips has managed to evade the New Zealand Police for so long. The part of New Zealand in which Phillips is hiding is not so big, the Police have surveillance capacities that most of us couldn’t dream of, and Phillips has been featured on television several times. Why haven’t they got him yet?

Based on the fact that my own family has harboured people on the run from the law, I can make a good guess. In all likelihood, Phillips has an entire community of people looking out for him. They know that the Police are looking for Phillips – and that makes him the good guy, the same way that Sauron hunting for Frodo made Frodo the good guy.

Because law enforcement has always eagerly served tyrants, there have always been communities that served as Underground Railroads, helping to keep the victims of oppression free from “justice”. In principle, there is little fundamental difference between an Underground Railroad hiding escaped slaves from the authorities, and a hypothetical community of social outsiders hiding other people falsely accused of being criminals, whether political dissidents, spiritual sacrament users or Tom Phillips.

I can all but guarantee that there are at least a hundred people who know where Tom Phillips is, and they’re all keeping quiet because they hate the Police, knowing them to be agents of tyranny. Almost certainly those hundred personally know victims of previous human rights abuses carried out by New Zealand law enforcement. These people feel that by defying the Police, who are evil, they are doing good.

Understanding why Tom Phillips has so many supporters is a matter of understanding why the New Zealand political establishment has so many enemies. And this has a simple explanation: the New Zealand political establishment is evil, and has a history of causing suffering to innocent people without moral justification.

There is only one possible solution to this dilemma.

It’s not to reform the Police. The Police will always be the same: unthinking dogs obeying their masters. They’re incapable of being anything else. In practice, the Police are a tool, like an automatic rifle. Used wisely, they’re capable of preventing great harm. Used unwisely, they’re capable of inflicting great harm.

Therefore, our solution is to reform the political class, so that they do the right thing, and do not direct the Police to cause harm. All victimless crimes must be abolished. Those who made crimes out of victimless actions have to be punished. Those who waged the War on Drugs on the New Zealand people have to be tried with treason.

If we want the New Zealand Police to operate in harmony with the population they’re policing, and not as an America-style cudgel of the state with which the population are beaten into submission, then we need a new policing philosophy. Perhaps one in which individual Police officers were empowered to – or perhaps even obliged to – disobey unjust laws. This may be impossible without a New Zealand Constitution.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms! https://linktr.ee/vjmpublishing
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books! https://www.amazon.com/author/vincemcleod

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!

Why Were Winston Peters’s Comments About Indigeneity So Controversial?

Winston Peters created a controversy this week in Nelson when he said that Maori people are not indigenous to New Zealand. The chimpout that followed saw Chris Hipkins, Chris Luxon and David Seymour all team up to criticise Peters. This caused some to ask: why are the left and the right teaming up against the centre?

The explanation: the left vs. right paradigm is no longer as relevant as the globalist vs. nationalist paradigm, if it ever was.

The globalist conception of indigeneity, which is essentially an anti-white conception, is that indigenous and non-indigenous are like victim and criminal. The presence of the non-indigenous in indigenous lands is a crime of some kind, and one that needs to be rectified, or at least compensated for. To be indigenous is to be innocent; to be non-indigenous is to be guilty.

This narrative – of irreconcilable opposition – is pushed by globalist interests in order to divide and conquer nations. It is in rejecting this narrative of division that Winston Peters has gained the ire of the globalists.

Peters correctly realises that a globalist conception of indigeneity is a threat to the New Zealand nation, because it sets the two primary components of the New Zealand nation (white Kiwis and Maori Kiwis) against each other in conflict. Through rejecting this conception, in favour of one where whites and Maoris work together as Kiwis, Peters has caused great seething.

Globalists are seething because they need to destroy nations, and to destroy national consciousness, in order to get those people to accept mass immigration. Mass immigration maximises rents and minimises wages, and therefore maximises profits, which is all that matters in our soulless capitalist hellscape.

There are few things more profitable than mass immigration for those who already own land, and the more land they own the more profitable mass immigration is.

The stumbling block for the globalists is that the people who already live in New Zealand will naturally oppose mass immigration, as it increases their cost of living and lowers their wages. So the globalists have to divide and conquer those people, by splitting them into an indigenous Maori bloc innocent of all wrongdoing, and a non-indigenous white (or Pakeha) block whose very presence in these isles is a crime.

This same scam is being pulled right now in Australia and North America as well. Even in Europe, white people are told that the Sami are the only indigeneous European people and that white people themselves don’t qualify (which leads to the absurd assertion that Icelanders, who have been in Iceland for 1,100 years, are not indigenous to Iceland, whereas Maoris, who have been in New Zealand for only 800 years, are indigenous to New Zealand).

The whole purpose of pushing indigeneity as a concept, when it comes down to it, is to disenfranchise white people. The concept creates the impression that only non-whites truly belong in New World countries. Whites don’t truly belong in New Zealand (or Australia, Canada, America, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa etc.). Therefore they need to gracefully let go of the levers of power.

If white people were encouraged to think of themselves as first-class citizens of New Zealand, as good as anyone else, those white people would be more inclined to defend the country against the globalist thieves in control of the mainstream propaganda organs. They would refuse to accept governments who sell the country out from under them, whether by asset sales or allowing mass immigration.

In other words, they would be less profitable.

The profit motive demands that the New Zealand nation be shattered among as many fracture lines as possible, and to that end Maoris and white Kiwis need to be set against each other. The time-honoured way of doing this is to manufacture a grievance narrative wherein everything white Kiwis have to their name is considered stolen from Maoris.

Winston Peters, like the author of this piece, has both Maori and white ancestry. Following naturally from this is a conception of nationalism that sees Maoriness and whiteness as equally legitimate expressions of Kiwiness, similar to how the Jomon and the Yayoi people both represent the modern Japanese.

Such a conception would heal the damage caused by globalist lies in recent decades – lies which have seen the New Zealand nation divided into Team Maori and Team White and then set against each other, to the ongoing detriment of both.

In summary, the very concept of indigeneity is globalist psychological warfare against those peoples who would live freely and determine their own fates. There’s no need for it other than to ascribe special privileges to the “indigenous” and to thereby stir resentment among the “non-indigenous”, weakening the nation against outside threats.

Peters’s comments were controversial because the globalists are in near-total control of the mainstream media, which means globalist values are normalised and nationalist values made to seem insane or evil. Thus, it’s expected that Peters would kowtow to globalist lies such as Maori people being indigeneous to New Zealand. In reality, it’s the fact that he told the truth – and not so much what he said – which is controversial.

As Orwell didn’t, but could have, written: in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms! https://linktr.ee/vjmpublishing
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books! https://www.amazon.com/author/vincemcleod

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!

Decolonisation In Practice: A Historical Perspective

It’s common to hear demands nowadays for something called “decolonisation”. Apparently colonisation was the worst thing that ever happened to the peoples of the New World, and justice cannot be served until it is reversed. The media, educational and political machinery of the West is fully behind pushing the term and its logic. But what is it?

Some definitions of decolonisation refer to the colonised nation becoming independent of the colonising power. But this cannot be the sense in which most people use the term, because New Zealand has been independent from Britain for decades already and there are still calls for decolonisation. So the term must mean something else.

In most discourse, ‘decolonisation’ is a synonym for white erasure. This means the systematic removal of all white people and all white culture. It means the destruction of all white institutions – whites must not be allowed to organise in any sense. It means the criminalisation of all pro-white speech, even if spoken in self-defence (see the ‘It’s Okay To Be White‘ saga for proof). It means the demonisation of whites in speech and media (as per Marama Davidson).

Understanding this, it’s possible to look back on historical examples of decolonisation to get some clues about how it works in practice.

The first major example is Haiti. The island contained the first European settlement in the Americas, founded by Christopher Columbus in 1492. The French built it into a sugarcane colony, creating immense wealth from the product of slave labour. At one point, there were some 30,000 French living there and 700,000 African slaves.

Decolonisation came in the form of the Haitian Revolution, beginning in 1791 and ending in 1804. This sentence, from Wikipedia, says it all: “On 1 January 1804, Dessalines, the new leader under the dictatorial 1805 constitution, declared Haiti a free republic in the name of the Haitian people, which was followed by the massacre of the remaining whites.”

A second major example comes from Algeria. A French colony since 1830, Algeria was considered an integral part of France for over a century. Algerian French culture was established enough that it managed to produce a mind as great as that of Albert Camus. After Algeria became independent in 1962, some 800,000 French colonials were driven to France.

The next major example is Rhodesia. The white population of Rhodesia peaked at around 300,000 in the mid-1970s. After the Rhodesian Bush War and the reformation of Rhodesia as Zimbabwe in 1980, wholesale ethnic cleansing began. Between 1980 and 1990, some two-thirds of the white population were driven overseas.

Rhodesia is, along with Haiti and Algeria, an archetypal decolonisation story, in the sense that it ended with the extermination of white settlers. Anyone who thinks that decolonisation is about equity is either dishonest or stupid. The spectre of decolonisation should, if we are thinking clearly, invoke images of mass slaughter and rape.

South Africa is the best major example of ongoing decolonisation today. Since 1993, the year of the referendum that introduced black rule, the white proportion of the population has halved, from 16% to 7.5%. Almost one million white South Africans have been driven overseas, an ethnic cleansing that surpasses Algeria in absolute numbers, if not proportion.

Decolonisation in New Zealand would likely involve a path similar to the places above. There is a sizable number of radicals, aided by the usual communists and fellow travellers, who dream of doing to white New Zealanders what was done to white people in Haiti, Kenya, Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa and other places. Some of them are influential.

It might be argued that Maoris simply don’t have the numbers to repeat the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Haiti, Algeria or Rhodesia. That may be true, but the main principle of decolonisation is the progressive exclusion of all white people from all positions of power or influence, however long it takes. This can be enacted without needing to win any military victory.

For example, some co-governance arrangements involve a 50:50 powershare between Maori interests and non-Maori interests. This is naturally a form of white erasure because it reduces the proportion of power held by whites, from the 70% befitting their population, to less than 50%.

From there, it’s possible to disenfranchise white people further by awarding scholarships preferentially to non-whites, by reserving spaces in prestigious educational courses specifically for non-whites, requiring some proportion of Government procurement to be made with non-white businesses, funding and promoting non-white arts and media, and dozens of other tactics.

It’s easy to imagine that, after a few decades of this, the situation for New Zealand’s whites would start to look like the situation of South African whites today.

The reason why co-governance is so controversial is that New Zealand’s white majority, consciously or not, can sense that the push for it is motivated by the same sentiments that led to the extermination of white populations elsewhere. As such, resisting co-governance might prove to be a matter of survival.

Decolonisation, in practice, amounts to white erasure. It’s not a sure thing that we will ever read the phrase “massacre of the remaining whites” in the context of New Zealand. However, it’s apparent that there are radical elements in New Zealand who would like to massacre whites, and that there are powerful foreign interests who would like to encourage such a thing in order to destabilise an enemy.

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!