How White People Could Get Kicked Out Of Aussie/NZ Like They're Getting Kicked Out Of Southern Africa

How White People Could Get Kicked Out Of Aus/NZ Like They’re Getting Kicked Out Of Southern Africa

It’s not easy to believe that white people might get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand. White people have been in charge of this part of the world for 250 years now, and only the Imperial Japanese have ever looked like breaking that dominance. If anyone suggests that white people could get kicked out of Australia and New Zealand, Rhodesia-style, the usual response is “It couldn’t happen here.” But everyone says this just before disaster strikes.

White people could start getting kicked out of Australia and New Zealand in about 25/30 years, and a simple analysis shows it.

It is unarguably true that many of the peoples of the world consider the presence of whites in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. Decolonisation movements have expelled white people in many places. Beginning in Haiti, white people have been pushed out of Kenya, Algeria and Rhodesia and are now getting pushed out of South Africa. There is a fanatical decolonisation movement here in New Zealand, as evidenced by the image below, from a Police report on Uruwera terrorist Rangi Kemara.

Well-travelled Kiwis will be aware that Chinese, Indian and African peoples are not fond of colonialism. The 4.5 billion people in this group generally feel that colonialism is one of the worst crimes ever committed in human history. Arabs feel similarly, despite being colonialists themselves. The five billion people in these categories generally feel that white people have stolen Australia and New Zealand and have no moral right to their possession. These people feel, at least, that power should be stripped from white people, if not that white people should be expelled.

It’s possible that a majority of the world’s population considers white presence in Australia and New Zealand illegitimate. The question then becomes: can the will of the global majority be thwarted indefinitely?

In theory, all it would take for the global majority to get into a position to expel whites from Australia and New Zealand would be continued immigration from non-white countries. This would eventually lead to white people becoming a minority, at which point they could be kicked out democratically, as they were in Rhodesia and as they are being in South Africa.

This might sound unlikely right now, but it sounded extremely unlikely in Rhodesia and South Africa once too. Power is fickle.

According to the 2023 Census, 67.8% of New Zealand is white. This is roughly 3.4 million out of five million people. New Zealand is currently taking in 100,000 or so non-white immigrants per year. The ruling class appears to believe, with good reason, that Kiwis won’t fight back against this immigration no matter how high it is. So they might even open up the immigration floodgates further.

If New Zealand took in 120,000 non-white immigrants a year, and only 30,000 white ones, the total population would be close to eight million within 20 years (i.e. by 2046), with about four million whites and four million others. Under this scenario, whites would already be a minority within 20 years.

From there, it’s just a matter of exactly what “kicked out” means. It’s not necessary for whites to be forcibly deported. A non-white majority will be able to vote the white minority into an ever-worsening state of subjugation until white people start leaving on their own free will. This can be done fully legally and cannot be stopped without overthrowing the democratic system.

For example, the non-white global majority, upon becoming the majority in New Zealand, could simply vote themselves more government largesse at the expense of whites. They could vote themselves more diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives such as non-white scholarships, preferential housing for non-whites, increased welfare access for non-whites, increased healthcare for non-whites, mandated non-white quotas on boardrooms etc. They could vote, as in South Africa, for economic empowerment initiatives that forced whites to hire non-whites and appoint them as owners and leaders. They could influence the Police, as in Britain, to focus on crimes with white perpetrators and non-white victims, and ignore crimes with non-white perpetrators and white victims.

After becoming the demographic majority, non-whites could just keep ratcheting up the pressure in this manner until whites were slowly destroyed.

It might be countered here that whites could flee the cities and return to countryside villages. But even this would not be enough. As the examples of France and England prove, the ruling class will force non-whites into the remotest village. Whites in Australia and New Zealand will not be able to escape by going innawoods.

Eventually the white population will tire of the burden and seek better opportunities in other countries, as the Southern Africans did. As whites continue to get pushed out of the more recent colonies, they will withdraw to North America and then to Europe, if there is anything left of either place by then. Thus, it won’t be necessary to pass a law deporting white people or anything similar. South Africa proved that non-whites can simply take power through demographics, pass laws favouring themselves, and then the whites will just leave.

In fact, white people have already been kicked out of parts of Australia and New Zealand. South Auckland, in the 1950s, was a thriving working-class white community. Lakemba in Sydney is another example, but there are dozens. Then mass immigration started, and the whites were slowly driven out by crime and obnoxious, hostile behaviour. If this exact process was replicated nationwide, the ethnic cleansing of whites could be easily accomplished over the next few decades.

I concede that this analysis lazily dumps Maori people into the non-white team. In actuality, the vast majority of Maori people would take the side of white Kiwis over random brown or black foreigners. But the proportion that wouldn’t is ever-increasing, thanks to Communist and anti-white propaganda. And in any case, that could only delay things. As long as mass immigration exists, a Third World alliance will eventually come to power that could simply dispossess both white Kiwis and Maoris alike. The laws of democracy, in fact, make this outcome unavoidable.

In any case, nothing about the Maori factor changes the basic analysis. Democracy plus mass immigration will mean that white people eventually lose Australia and New Zealand the same way they lost Rhodesia and South Africa. It’s simply the will of the global majority. The faster the immigration, the sooner this happens.

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!

Why Globalism Is Defended With Such Fanaticism

Most VJM Publishing readers will have realised already that it’s not possible to reason with Abrahamists. Abrahamists have their religious beliefs and would give up their own children before they gave up those beliefs. Fewer readers will have observed that it’s similarly impossible to reason with other globalists. But this is for the same reason – because globalists, of all kinds, are fundamentally religious.

Abrahamists all believe that the god of Abraham will one day conquer the world. Their hearts are set on this and they want it more than anything else. It’s central to their identity and self-esteem. As such, they have a psychological need to believe that they’re always moving towards this goal. This explains why Abrahamists get so mad when you suggest their prophecies aren’t happening or will not happen. Such a suggestion is a direct attack on the power of Yahweh himself.

For Communists and Marxists, the belief in a destined victory is just as strong. Marx prophecised that the working classes of the world would unite across national borders. This prophecy is equally as central to the Communists as End Times prophecies are to Abrahamists. It is clung to with just as much fervour.

If a person would tell a globalist that mass immigration is bad, it is for that globalist like a Muslim being told that jihad is bad. It’s to be told that one’s desired ideology should not propagate itself. This is a direct attack on their identity. To attack immigration is to attack the religion of the globalist.

For Christians, Rabbi Yeshua is how utopia is achieved. Therefore more Rabbi Yeshua is always good, and no aspect of it can ever be bad. Anyone who criticises Rabbi Yeshua is the enemy. Being a universal good, Rabbi Yeshua can be rammed down anyone’s throat without any shame.

For globalists, immigration is how utopia is achieved. Therefore more of it is always good, and no aspect of it can ever be bad. Anyone who criticises it is the enemy. Being a universal good, immigration can be rammed down anyone’s throat without any shame.

This explains why immigration is reflexively defended by anyone who is part of the Western power apparatus. Immigration is the vehicle in which we will arrive at the promised land. Only through immigration can the primary threat – white identity – be defeated. White identitarianism caused World War II and time did not exist before then. Our foremost danger is that Hitler might come back, and the more immigration the less likely this becomes.

Globalists also attack their enemies with the same religious fanaticism that one sees in Abrahamists, and for the same reasons. To the globalist, the nationalist is the goy, the infidel, the kafir. Everything that is good in the world demands the destruction of this enemy. Just as Abrahamists are raised to hate outsiders and habitually dehumanise them, globalists encourage each other to hate nationalists. Whereas the infidel’s disbelief and the kafir’s shirk are blamed by Abrahamists for the misery of society, the globalist blames racism.

If the main opposition to mass immigration is white racial consciousness, then it follows that white racial consciousness is the enemy, and anything that can be done to lessen it is a good thing. This is why Marxists like Paul Hunt made such a big deal out of VJM Publishing selling ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe. White identitarianism jeopardises the globalist project: the more people identify with being white, the less they identify with the imported bioslop, and the more they resist its importation.

This is why fanatical resistance to white identitarianism and nationalism is part of the globalist attitude: it’s considered the biggest obstacle to the multiracial promised land, belief in which is religious. Thus this resistance appears in all globalists, whether Abrahamists, Communists or Capitalists.

Unfortunately, this strategy has completely backfired. In any environment, people identify with the qualities that cause them to stand out. So in white environments, white people generally identify with their profession. But in multiracial environments, as in prisons, white people generally identify with their race. Accordingly, white identity is strengthening even as the proportion of white people is declining.

This could have been predicted by anyone who has met South Africans: they are the most racially besieged white people on the planet, and are also the white people with the strongest racial consciousness. White racial consciousness is also very strong in big, multicultural cities like London, Paris and Los Angeles, although it wasn’t 50 years ago. It will inexorably strengthen, as white people, looking around for what they meaningfully have in common with others, settle on whiteness.

The inevitable end result of this process of strengthening white national consciousness is a climactic final battle between the globalists and a confederation of nationalists. Nationalist parties are rising all over Europe, and the globalist establishment would much rather ban them – and risk civil war – than concede power. Such an end result could manifest anytime.

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 Fifth Rejection Of Alternative Centrism

The Fifth Rejection of alternative centrism is the rejection of stupidity. The Fifth Rejection is the contention that an excessive focus on justice leads to stupidity.

The great justice debate in the Western World today is about equality. The Left insists that all human groups are equal in actual fact, which brings with it some conceptual difficulties. The Left reasons from this assumption of equality that all observed differences must be due to discrimination of some kind, usually structural discrimination by Big, Bad Whitey.

Some of the Alternative Left will insist that justice means exact equality of outcome, and so as long as there are disparities in e.g. academic achievement or income, then this is proof of injustice. Observers of the Alternative Left will have noted their uniform acceptance of Blank Slate Theory. These two are related: Blank Slate Theory claims that all human differences come down to how those humans have been treated earlier in life. Thus, poor outcomes are down to mistreatment.

To deny the equality of all human groups, we are told, is a great injustice. It’s unthinkable to say that some groups have poor outcomes because of innately lower intelligence. This is tantamount to saying that some groups are inferior to others – an attitude adjacent to Nazism. Anyone claiming that Australian Aborigines are any less intelligent than Singaporean Chinese is taking the first step on the slippery slope to gas chambers.

The stupidity of this insistence has led to people on the Alternative Left claiming that all immigration is good. Because all human groups are precisely equal on all intellectual measures, immigration cannot lower GDP per capita. It only makes the big line go up.

To the Alternative Centrist, the insistence that all human populations are exactly the same on all intellectual measures is stupid. To insist that everyone else must go along with this or face abuse is double stupid. To continue to insist on both of these things while refusing to look at any of the scientific evidence is triply stupid. The Alternative Centrist rejects all of this stupidity with the Fifth Rejection.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it: “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” Forced uniformity might be incredibly stupid, not least because it contradicts other leftist aims such as maximising freedom, but the Alternative Left just can’t give up on the idea. For them, any disparity in outcome between two different groups is proof of discrimination, and they will not hear otherwise.

The Alternative Left, however, don’t realise how this attitude sabotages their own position. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that letting hordes of Somalis into an area will have different outcomes to letting in large numbers of Japanese, because the two groups are extremely different. So when the Alternative Left (and the Left in general) act like all the murders and rapes committed by Somalis weren’t a predictable outcome, they make themselves look stupid to followers of the other positions.

Like most stupidities, there are all manner of moral justifications for claiming all populations are intellectually the same.

The usual justification is that it’s preventing another World War Two. The mainstream narrative is that the perception of differences between races led to the supremacist Nazis trying to take over the world for lebensraum. Therefore, if we concede that any difference between races exists, we risk the chance of the Nazis coming back and plunging the world into war again.

In actuality, the supposedly race-blind position enables a great deal of anti-working class prejudice, and is seldom less bigoted than the position of outright racists.

One notices plenty of this prejudice on the Alternative Left. This is because the Western working classes did not support the prophecised Marxist revolution. The Left, out of narcissism and resentment, interprets this refusal as a betrayal. It’s possible to detect enormous spite on the part of the Alternative Left with regards to its immigration policy and the harms caused by it. Many on the Alternative Left behave as if these harms punish the Western working classes for their betrayal.

The sneering indifference of the Alternative Left to the suffering of the Western working classes is a major factor in their rejection by the Alternative Centre. The Fourth Acceptance is the acceptance of truth, and the truth is that the Marxist prophecies of capitalism leading to the working class overthrowing the bourgeoisie failed. It’s time to acknowledge this and move on.

The stupidity of the Alternative Left is best summarised by the above quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This emphasis on moral rectitude rather than factual correctness is an extreme form of virtue signalling, especially when considering the near-complete absence of that rectitude among politicians like Ocasio-Cortez. It’s a grossly stupid approach borne of shallow and narcissistic thinking.

The Alternative Centre rejects all low IQ, unscientific, feel-good narratives.

Science is paramount. The Fourth Acceptance emphasises the value of truth, and the Fifth Rejection stands against all delusion and intellectual weakness likewise. Putting these two together gives us an unyielding commitment to learning and applying methods of truth determination. The truth is accepted and stupidity rejected.

The Establishment Left may be flawed in the sense they cause too much chaos, but they aren’t stupid. They understand that class solidarity is necessary to have any leverage over our rulers. The Alternative Left rejects this simple truth for a hodgepodge of incoherent ideologies that contradict each other at every turn. Because of their tendency to stupidity, they haven’t thought rationally about what they believe. Incoherence is the result.

The Alternative Left are so concerned with what makes them look morally superior that they have neglected what would have made them look intellectually superior. Or, at least, not inferior – a person who speaks to an Alternative Leftist is often struck by how poorly-educated they are in comparison to Establishment Leftists, who have always seen educational opportunities as the main way out of poverty. Many Alternative Leftists outright decry education as fascist, on the grounds that it suggests a will to self-improvement and therefore self-aggrandisement, which is considered unjust.

Everything downstream of stupidity – like shallow thinking, incoherence, anti-intellectualism – is all rejected under the Fifth Rejection.

Also rejected are all of the counter-productive stupidities the Alternative Left likes to engage in and call political activism, such as pointlessly antagonising people.

The Left gifts their opponents tremendous political capital by pushing diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives. The net effect of these initiatives is to stir up distrust between various demographics, rendering genuine solidarity impossible. Any working-class white person, upon hearing the word “inclusion”, knows they are being excluded. “Diversity”, likewise, seems to amount to fewer white people. But the Alternative Left, seemingly, can’t help itself from pushing this sort of rubbish. This has caused some to ask if the Alternative Left aren’t, in fact, working on behalf of the Establishment. But no, they’re just dumb.

In summary, the Alternative Centre rejects the stupidity of the Alternative Left, recognising that it makes all political objectives harder to achieve: it loses friends, it gains enemies, it saps internal cohesion, it emboldens the opposition and leads directly to stagnation, chaos, degeneracy and cruelty.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the upcoming work of political philosophy that offers the answers to the political problems of the West.

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 would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why It’s Imperative That Hate Speech Laws Are Opposed

The left and right factions of the Australian Establishment came together this week to strip freedom of speech from the Australian nation. This happened in the form of the Labor and Liberal parties joining forces across the aisle to pass new hate speech legislation. This will be the most aggressive hate speech legislation ever passed in Australia. The Australian Greens have suggested the bill is so restrictive that it will become illegal to criticise Benjamin Netanyahu.

Under the new bill, the head of the secret intelligence service will be given the powers to ban any political group the Australian political establishment doesn’t like. This extreme measure, reminiscent of NKVD or Gestapo control systems, will mean that anyone organising to challenge the Australian political establishment will risk simply getting banned before any real challenge can be made.

The differences between this system and a one-party totalitarian state are minor.

One common, but naive, argument made about hate speech laws is that they protect people from being degraded or abused. Well-meaning people then get suckered into supporting them in the belief they will only impact white supremacists and terrorists. This is wrong, but an easy trap to fall into.

The primary danger with hate speech laws is that literally anything can be defined as hateful. Even the most innocuous-sounding statement can be declared to be “associated” with some hate group or ideology. So, in practice, whether or not a person gets prosecuted for hate speech depends on the whims of whoever is in power, not on any objective moral or legal standard.

VJM Publishing first came to national attention in New Zealand in 2019, when we were attacked in the mainstream media by the Human Rights Commission for selling ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts on TradeMe. The media beat-up took every possible opportunity to link the sale of the shirts to white supremacy and to Brenton Tarrant, declaring that I was racist, hateful, divisive etc. Presstitutes like Kanoa Lloyd told the country, without any evidence at all, that the t-shirts “were intended to ‘shock and hurt’.”

Shortly after the media beat-up, the Police came to my house to harass me about it.

If the Human Rights Commissioner takes to the mainstream media to call you hateful and racist for saying something, you can best your last dollar that you’d also get prosecuted for a hate crime for saying that thing if hate speech laws were in effect. Therefore, it’s logical to assume that saying “It’s Okay To Be White” will be considered hate speech under the new laws. Saying that it’s okay to be you will be a crime, if the political establishment doesn’t like you and hate speech laws are in effect.

It might be argued that people will resist these laws. The ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ incident proved otherwise. TradeMe head of Safety George Hiotakis initially stated, perfectly accurately, that t-shirts saying ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ do not violate any rules about racist slogans. “Items which marginalise individuals or promote one race at the cost of another cannot be sold onsite,” Hiotakis said [quoted from The Independent link above]. ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ clearly does neither.

Paul Hunt wasn’t giving in that easily, though. Using his full influence as Human Rights Commissioner, Hunt persuaded masses of people to contact TradeMe to lay a complaint. Hiotakis eventually caved to this frothing mob, cancelling the listing and banning the shirts from sale.

This proved an important point, of extreme relevance to the hate speech discussion: whether something is considered hate speech depends on whether a mob has been whipped up about it. If there’s a mass of people mad about some statement, no matter how innocuous, then it’s hate speech. If no-one, or only a few people, are mad about it, then it’s legitimate speech.

Rule by law goes out the window once hate speech laws are brought in. Because hate cannot be defined accurately – as proven by the ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ debacle – hate speech laws represent rule by mob, not law.

However, this perfectly suits those with power and influence. Because Paul Hunt has the power and influence to stir up a mob and have me cancelled, and I don’t have the power to impact him, such laws give the ruling class the power to strike down any wrongthinker they please, with no risk. All that needs to happen is for Hunt or some other powerful Government figure to take to the mainstream media denouncing the wrongthinkers, and the herd falls in line.

It’s impossible to think of a single example of anything that could not be considered hate speech if the definition of hate was broad enough. The ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ example is proof of this. Saying it’s okay to be white is the exact opposite of hatred: it’s affirming the moral okayness of white people in the face of constant media demonisation. But the ruling class can nevertheless declare it hate speech and destroy the people saying it, and get the consent of the masses to do so, on account of their overwhelming narrative control.

Once hate speech laws are brought in, the people who brought in those laws will then decide what other people are allowed to say. This is because the people who brought in the laws can arbitrarily define absolutely anything they don’t like as hate. Hate speech laws in New Zealand will be used for one purpose: to crack down on everyday Kiwis criticising the political establishment. It’s imperative that free and decent people resist them to the maximum extent possible.

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 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!