The Great Replacement And New Zealand

In France, 60% of the population believes that white French people are systematically being erased by mass immigration. This is the belief known as The Great Replacement. The theory that whites are purposefully getting erased is one of the most controversial in the politics of today, not least because Christchurch mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant named his manifesto after the concept.

Great Replacement Theory was initially developed by a French author and philosopher named Renaud Camus. He extrapolated known immigration and demographic data into the medium-term future and realised that French people would soon become a minority in their own country. Camus coined the term “genocide by substitution” for the phenomenon.

Predictably, this analysis provoked a shitstorm on the part of the French ruling class, who colluded to give Camus a two-month suspended prison sentence contingent on paying a fine. This followed a charge of “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion” in reponse to Camus’s statement that “immigration has become an invasion”.

Ruling class mouthpieces such as Wikipedia claim that Great Replacement Theory is a baseless conspiracy theory, apparently pushed by far-right-wing extremists in a bid to panic the masses. But, as with many other theories that the ruling class claims to be false, the facts and evidence backs it up. The numbers show, unequivocally, that white people are getting replaced.

Statistics show that 44,735 New Zealand citizens left the country in the year ended September 2023. That’s about how many New Zealand citizens live in a medium-sized city like Nelson or Invercargill.

In return, New Zealand received over 110,000 cheap labour units from Third World shitholes. These people tend to be desperate, and thereby willing to work for minimum wage (cha-ching!). Often they end up replicating Third World conditions in their housing or workplace safety. Import the Third World, become the Third World goes the classic Internet refrain.

Note that these numbers are for a 12-month period only. The trend need only continue as far as 2030 for New Zealand to lose some 300,000 Kiwis, and for those to be replaced with some 700,000 Third Worlders. This replacement is so vast, so sudden, so total, and so apparently irreversible, that it merits the term Great Replacement.

The benefits of this situation to the New Zealand ruling class are obvious. Getting rid of a Christchurch-sized cohort of uppity Kiwis, who expect wages they can own homes and raise families with, and replacing them with a multitude of cheap labour units, happy to live 20 to a house if it means they can send remittances home, is a recipe for colossal profits.

Various sinister conspiracy theories exist to explain the Great Replacement. Some of them have some truth to them. The fact remains, however, that the major motivation behind it is profit. Jews and the Kalergi plan are unnecessary; white ruling-class capitalists are perfectly happy to destroy their own working classes for profit, and always have been.

The Great Replacement has already happened in New Zealand in microcosm. As recently as 60 years ago, South and West Auckland were the homes of several thriving working-class white communities. Those have all since been replaced by cheap labour imports, mostly from the Pacific Islands.

If white people can be ethnically cleansed from South Auckland, and if most people respond by acting as if the replacements had always been there (and if they haven’t been, it’s not a big deal anyway), why couldn’t that also happen for New Zealand as a whole?

It’s worthwhile noting here that Australia and Canada, also ruled by international banking and finance interests, are following the same path. Net overseas migration to Australia is currently running at 300,000-400,000 per year. In Canada it’s closer to 500,000 per year. Both countries, like New Zealand, already have record housing crises.

Importing record numbers of immigrants, to compete for housing against a native population suffering a record housing crisis, is an act of evil. The Western ruling class is evil, and they are destroying us via genocide by substitution. We have a moral imperative to rise up and stop them. But we have to act fast.

The more immigrants our rulers import, the harder it becomes for us to resist.

Aristotle wrote in Politics that tyrannies prefer to be multicultural, because that makes it harder for the people to come together against their oppressors. Multicultural societies come with built-in fracture lines that the tyrants can use to divide and conquer the masses, thereby keeping them incapable of rising up to resist oppression.

If those of us in the West, therefore, wish to stop the Great Replacement, we have to act before our replacements reach a critical mass. Young Westerners are already priced out of housing in our own countries. If it gets any worse we will be replaced entirely.

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!

Where To Now For The Freedom Movement?

Another General Election has been held in New Zealand. The special votes are yet to be counted, but one thing is already clear: the political establishment won the election, and the freedom movement lost. While we wait to see exactly which form of the political establishment will rule over us for the next three years, there’s an opportunity to take stock of where we are and where we’re going.

Let’s recount the history of the actual freedom movement.

In a New Zealand context the freedom movement truly began with the opposition to World War One. New Zealand introduced conscription in 1916. This meant the Government forced Kiwis to fight overseas to kill the enemies of the international bankers who rule the Anglo world. Naturally, sane people opposed this, leading to them becoming labelled as “conscientious objectors“.

Conscription is a major freedom issue. There are few more egregious examples of totalitarianism than forcing men to kill people they don’t know for reasons they don’t understand. The conscientious objectors to conscription in World Wars One and Two were therefore the first real freedom fighters in New Zealand. Archibald Baxter was a household name for this reason.

The battle against globalist military adventurism continued with the battles against compulsory military training, which didn’t end in New Zealand until 1972. The basic principle remained: freedom fighters oppose the Government forcing people to do things that aren’t in their interest.

When forced militarism ended in the wake of the end of the Vietnam War, the globalist control freaks opened up a new front against the peoples of the world in the form of the Drug War. Locking people up in prison for using medicinal substances or spiritual sacraments might not be as brutal as conscripting them into battle, but the callous sadism of it was enough to spark resistance.

The names of the freedom fighters who resisted the War on Drugs are numerous. Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, Terence McKenna, Jack Herer and many others fought for the freedom to explore our own minds free of government interference. Inspired by such people, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party was founded in 1996.

After the 20th Century ended we got 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act introduced restrictions on civil liberties that were previously considered unthinkable. First and foremost, it allowed for widespread spying on and surveillance of American citizens by the American Government. Incredible volumes of information were collected on everyone in an effort to predict the next terrorist attack.

These measures were soon copied by other Anglo nations, leading to the Search and Surveillance Act in New Zealand. The end result was a new wave of freedom fighters. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are among the best known of those who resisted the new totalitarianism, this being more like Big Brother than even Orwell had predicted.

Recently we have seen the Covid pandemic excuse a new suite of totalitarian measures from the authorities. Vaccine mandates outraged a large number of people and led to the Parliament Lawn protests in 2022. These protests were one of the major achievements of the freedom movement in New Zealand, and created another new wave of people who understood the value of freedom for its own sake.

Looking back at all of these battles, some patterns are evident.

First, the freedom movement is primarily a movement against government coercion. It’s not terrorism to understand that governments often have different interests to their citizens. When those interests clash, governments often use their monopoly on violence to force the citizens to do the governments’ bidding.

The freedom movement isn’t primarily a moral crusade. It isn’t primarily a temperance, chastity or Puritanical movement. It might contain elements of those things on occasion, but the number one enemy is government forcing the citizens to do things against their own interests (as determined by the citizens). The freedom movement is certainly not about using the power of government to coerce others to behave morally.

Second, the freedom movement is against the freedom to cause harm to others. We must observe Zechariah Chafee’s maxim that “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” As such, no marital rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers, slavery advocates, hard drug traffickers, cheap labour importers or vaccine mandate supporters need be included.

These two points give us a much better idea of what we can agree freedom is, and therefore what the freedom movement is about.

Kelvyn Alp’s suggestion was to not worry about freedom so much, and to focus on truth instead. This means facts and evidence first and foremost. This makes sense as freedoms are usually downstream from perceptions of truth. Unfortunately there are many different ideas about what truth is, and many different ideas about how to determine truth from falsehood.

It seems that the freedom movement can’t make any progress until we develop a coherent fundamental philosophy. This will have to include the values and beliefs commonly agreed upon by those who genuinely desire freedom. Perhaps the model to follow is the American Constitutional Convention that took place after the American Revolution.

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, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

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 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 I’m Voting New Zealand Loyal This Saturday

I’m voting for New Zealand Loyal this Saturday. I make a point of never voting for the same party two elections in a row, because I don’t want to feel like I can ever trust one of the bastards. I voted ALCP in 2020, so can’t vote for them again this year, and don’t want to abstain again like I did in 2017.

The mainstream parties, however, don’t appeal. National and ACT seem like nasty money-worshippers. Labour and Greens hate me because I have white skin. All four are globalists who want more cheap labour imports, leading to lower wages and higher rents, the last thing my working-class family needs. I cannot, with good sense, vote for any of them.

New Zealand First is not really an alternative. They might be nationalist instead of globalist, which is a big plus. But they are still opportunist liars. Their refusal to support cannabis law reform demonstrated to me that they’re not really interested in freedom. As such, I could not support them with a clean conscience.

As existing followers of my work will know, I am an alternative centrist. This means that I oppose the political establishment (alternative), but consider the alternative left and the alternative right both dangerous extremists (centrist). I believe the American Revolutionaries came closer than anyone else to getting it right.

So when I went to see Liz Gunn and Peter Vaughan of New Zealand Loyal speak in Nelson on the 5th October, I went expecting to not vote in this year’s election. None of the other parties, I already knew, were alternative centrists. The closest was the Hamas-supporting Greens on the alternative left and the soulless ACT Party on the alternative right. Neither were good enough.

At the Nelson meeting, Gunn put forward what I felt to be a nationalist alternative centrist narrative, one that I have long argued for myself.

It was nationalist. Gunn’s refusal to work with globalists particularly appealed (the globalists are the ‘them’ of “Loyal to you. Not to them”). One of the messages that I endeavour to push is that globalists are the natural enemy of every single national group that wants to live in peace. Unfortunately, few New Zealand politicians accurately perceive the globalist menace (Peters is perhaps the only other).

It was alternative. Gunn excoriated the political establishment and their various freedom-thieving schemes, and showed interest in a number of issues that the mainstream media would dismiss as “conspiracy theory”. Among these were water fluoridation, Marsden Point, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum.

It was also centrist. To win the right-wing voters, there were the obligatory spiels about the 1% tax and the evils of Labour’s abortion law. But it wasn’t all right-wing. Gunn also expressed her support for the Portuguese model of ending the War on Drugs, and suggested that, if a NZ Loyal supporter didn’t have an NZ Loyal candidate in their electorate, they should vote for the ALCP one (which I will do, being in the Te Tai Tonga electorate).

I’m appalled by leftists. I hate it how they have completely abandoned the New Zealand working-class in favour of fashionable issues coming out of American universities. Workers can’t own homes but they expect me to care about trans rights? I hate it how I can’t talk to them about how working-class Kiwis would benefit from less immigration, lest they sneer at me and call me a racist.

I’m even more appalled by the right-wing attitude to life. The snivelling, moralising, cowardly forces that wanted to ban Mortal Kombat video games and ban Eminem CDs and ban cannabis and ban everything that anyone might enjoy in life, lest one displease some sadistic patriarch in the clouds, are not friends of mine either. To deny life is a slave’s mindset.

I’m most appalled by the New Zealand political establishment. It is sadistic to sit and support the status quo while so many Kiwis are suffering from homelessness, inaccessible mental healthcare, poverty wages and traumatic stress disorders. If the left wing and the right wing are misguided, the political establishment is cruel.

So I’m an alternative centrist. I was already convinced of New Zealand Loyal’s alternative credentials, thus the support for ending the Drug War sealed the deal for me.

The fact that many of the influencers in the so-called “freedom movement” take the authoritarian side when it comes to the Drug War had already ruled out that I would ever support them. Those who took the authoritarian side on vaccine mandates aren’t allowed to be prominent in the freedom movement, so why should those who take the authoritarian side on the War on Drugs?

Liz Gunn stands out to me, among all the others, as a genuine supporter of freedom.

That Liz Gunn and NZ Loyal take good ideas from both extremes of the alternative spectrum is why I am voting for them on Saturday. They might not get 5%, and, if they do, they might not be any good. But I will still support them on the grounds that they appear to be the closest there is to the nationalist alternative centre.

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!