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!

What Actual Racial Equality In Cricket Would Look Like

Everyone’s asking what racial equality would look like in the sport of cricket. The typical, low IQ, explanation is that it would look like equal representation for all disadvantaged communities and blah blah blah. This article suggests an alternative, higher IQ explanation free of Marxist nonsense.

The laws of cricket are based on a great many assumptions. One of those is that cricket is fundamentally a contest between bat and ball. Another assumption is that bowling fast is the “standard” way of beating the bat, and that spin bowling is a variation.

This latter assumption plays out often. The fast bowlers almost always open the bowling. Usually only after they’ve already had a go does the captain bring on a spinner. Often the spinner has to wait until the third (or even fourth) seamer has already bowled.

Seaming conditions are, at time of writing, considered “standard” conditions in international cricket. But not every bowler is suited to seaming conditions. More importantly, not every cricketing nation is suited to producing fast bowlers. And here we’re not talking about culture, but genetics.

As anyone who has recently seen the Australian cricket team will know, there are a lot of tall fast bowlers on the international scene. Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood are 6’7″ and 6’6″ respectively. Pat Cummins is relatively short in such company, at only 6’4″. But even Cummins, the shortest of the three, is two standard deviations above the mean height of Australian males.

Fast bowlers tend to be tall for the same reason that baseball pitchers tend to be tall. The taller someone is, the longer their arms. The longer the arms, the higher the handspeed at point of release (all other things being equal). And the higher the handspeed, the faster the delivery. So international fast bowlers are almost always taller than their national average.

The national average, of course, varies from nation to nation. But it is precisely here that the current cricketing setup advantages some nations and disdvantages others.

Richard Dawkins has explained that civilisation has the effect of making populations smaller over the long-term. This it does by removing the major selective advantage in favour of large size, which is capacity for violence. In a state of Nature, a capacity for violence is the primary determinant of whether a man gets to pass his genes on to following generations. In a state of civilisation, the violent are executed and don’t pass their genes on.

So countries such as India, whose people have been civilised for several millennia, have long since lost a strong selective pressure in favour of size and capacity for violence. Countries with people of Northern European descent, whose people were barely civilised at all as recently as a thousand years ago, maintained that selective pressure much longer. Hence, Northern European men today are much bigger than Indian ones.

If the average height of an Anglo-Saxon male aged between 20 and 35 (the demographic that produces the vast majority of Australian cricketers) in Australia is 5’10”, and if this demographic is 10% of the total Australian population, then there are about 2.5 million men in this population.

If the average standard deviation of male Anglo-Saxon height in Australia is about three inches, then a player like Starc or Hazlewood is about three standard deviations above average. This means that players of their height are about 1 in 740 among the general population. 2.5 million divided by 740 gives us 3,378 – the number of Australian men tall and young enough to be extremely effective international fast bowlers.

Let’s assume that those young and male enough to make the Indian cricket team are also 10% of the population. But their average height is significantly less than that of the average Anglo-Saxon Australian – 5’5″-5’6″. So in order to be around Starc’s or Hazlewood’s height, the average Indian male has to be 4.5 standard deviations above the mean. This makes them much rarer – only about one in 300,000 Indian men will be that tall.

So if all the men aged between 20 and 35 in India comprise 10% of the nation’s population of 1.4 billion, this makes 140 million young enough for the national cricket team. Of them, only some 467 will be of a similar height to Starc or Hazlewood.

In other words, Australia has 7-8 times as many men tall enough to be extremely effective international fast bowlers as India does. This is despite that India has over 50 times as many people.

The conclusion from all of this mathematics is simple: the normalisation of fast bowling as the standard method of bowling a cricket ball provides an unfair advantage to countries with taller populations (the West Indies are also a beneficiary here, as anyone who saw Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose or Courtney Walsh bowling will know).

The Indian phenotype, being shorter and with much more flexible wrists than white people, is far better suited to spin bowling. The more flexible one’s wrist, the easier it is to put large spin on the ball, and the greater the spin the higher the likelihood of taking wickets.

Racial equity in cricket, then, would require the normalisation of the idea that fast bowling and spin bowling were arts deserving of equal attention.

The situation facing the Indian Test team, and Ravi Ashwin in particular, is a disgrace. Ashwin is currently the world’s No. 1 Test bowler by far. The fact that he can’t find a place in the team when India tours England – because conditions in England have been manufactured to suit fast bowling on the basis that that’s normal bowling – is an absurdity.

The main argument of this essay is that genuine racial equality in cricket does not involve any Marxist nonsense, but is chiefly a matter of providing conditions that suit spin just as much as seam.

This might even entail a requirement that conditions in non-Asian countries be manufactured so that teams bowl at least 40% of their overs in spin (averaged across a season), and of the players’ own volition. That way, it could be said that bowling in cricket was something for all possible physiques, not just the tall and strong.

Such a measure would tip the balance back towards skill from strength. Cricket is primarily a game of skill – in contrast to sports like wrestling, boxing or rugby, where strength is the most important factor. Extreme skill on display has always been cricket’s major appeal. Forcing balance between pace and spin could be the way to maximise the skill component of cricket, and to minimise the strength component.

Eventually this might entail that international cricket teams would bowl around half their overs in pace and half in spin.

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!

Jordan Peterson’s Unthinkable Corollary

One of the topics that Jordan Peterson most enjoys lecturing us about is how we would have all been Nazis if we had lived in 1930s Germany. Peterson once said “I teach my students that had they been in Nazi Germany during the 1930s they would have been Nazis.” But there’s a corollary to Peterson’s logic – one that he himself dare not consider.

Peterson is an exceptionally knowledgeable psychologist and there’s little inaccurate about what he said. It’s true that human beings are social animals. As Edward Bernays wrote almost a century ago, people don’t tend to form their opinions by thinking about them, but rather by mindlessly aping authority figures.

Humans are not only social animals, we’re also herd animals. Like other herd animals, consensus is valued higher than truth. The consensus-setters are those who rule. In a state of Nature, that’s the strongest alpha male. In the modern West, it’s the invisible goverment that regiments the opinions of the masses through media control.

Media control allows the ruling class to shape the prevailing social narratives. Then, as per human nature, anyone going against any of those narratives is shunned, ridiculed and ostracised. Then the rest fall in line. In practice, it doesn’t actually matter what those narratives are. The vast majority of people will go along with any common narrative, no matter how ridiculous.

It’s an egoic delusion, Peterson loves to remind us, to think that we would have been immune to the propaganda of the 1930s, had we lived then. We are not immune to propaganda. Neither are we immune to social pressure. As such, we would have goose-stepped along with the rest of them.

Peterson is right to labour the point that the vast majority of 1930s Germans were not political philosophers, but rather just ordinary people, getting dragged along by the social currents of their time. Just like us! But then Peterson, happy to have delivered his sermon, ends it there.

The only problem with Peterson’s line of thought is that it doesn’t go far enough. There is a corollary to Peterson’s argument, one that Peterson dares not think about.

Namely: if the NSDAP had won the war, then according to Peterson’s own logic, we’d all be sitting here praising them today. If the NSDAP, and not Anglo-American capitalists, had won World War II, it would be the NSDAP setting the official moral agenda. They would control all of the world’s media. Thus, they would comprise the invisible government that shaped the world’s opinions.

If the NSDAP had won World War II and wiped the Jews out, then according to Peterson’s own logic, he himself would be telling people right now how that was the right thing to do. He himself would be lecturing people about how Nazi morality was self-evidently true as per the Will of God, and that the swastika represented order in contrast to the chaos of Marxism and Bolshevism.

Peterson might even be telling us that Hitler was the second coming of Rabbi Yeshua, the proof being that both Hitler and Rabbi Yeshua were opposed by the Jewish establishment of their time. If he did, he would be acting entirely consistently with his own admonition that, if modern people were transported back to 1930s Germany, they would be Nazis.

For him to deny this would be for him to contradict himself. It would mean that he had fallen prey to the same egoic delusion that he has been lecturing others about. In fact, psychological science tells us that had the Nazis won World War II, we would all be Nazis today. And just as globalist logic is self-evident to us today, so would Nazi logic be self-evident to us had they won.

In the same way that anyone wanting to become an academic today must deny the science of race and IQ so as to appease the globalist victors of World War II, anyone wanting to become an academic in the Nazi victory timeline would not be allowed to deny it. They would have to be a eugenicist, whether they liked it or not.

Most people, upon hearing this argument, will deny it stenuously (our morals in 2023, of course, don’t come from an invisible government but from pure reason). Hence it is described as an unthinkable corollary.

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!

Notes From The Second Intifada

I lived in Europe during the Second Intifada, which took place from 2000-2005. Although the Intifada did not take place in Europe it nonetheless had a major effect. This was partly because of the large numbers of Palestinian refugees in Sweden, where I lived. It was also because of the deep interest in foreign affairs that my then-acquaintances possessed.

Being a double outsider – someone who was not only outside the Israel-Palestine conflict but also outside Europe – I had an unusual vantage point. Few people in Sweden were familiar with New Zealanders, and so people were more open with me than they would have been with most other nationalities. This meant that people told me all sorts of things they would normally have kept secret.

Not having ever been to the Middle East, I didn’t have any direct knowledge of the conflict. Therefore, it was impossible for me to take a side in it. But I was able to glean direct knowledge of the psychology of the participants through meeting so many of them in Europe.

What Westerners usually don’t understand is that Muslims believe, with absolute certainty, that their religion is destined to rule over the entire world one day. They believe this like Westerners believe that the Sun will one day swallow the Earth, or in the Heat Death of the Universe, i.e. it’s essentially never questioned.

The difference is that Muslims also believe that this conquest is a moral imperative that outweighs all others. Any action taken to further the Islamic conquest of the world is morally acceptable. Any action taken to hinder the Islamic conquest of the world is morally unacceptable. All other moral beliefs are secondary.

Therefore, all Muslims supported all actions against the “Zionist entity”. Any amount of murder, rape or mutilation was acceptable as long as it was directed against that enemy. No act of cruelty against that enemy was even a crime. For the Muslims in Europe, news that some Israelis had been killed was like for a New Zealander to hear that the All Blacks had won. It represented a triumph in the great battle.

None of this is to say that the Israelis are any better.

The Israelis have entirely internalised Rabbi Yaacov Perrin’s notion that “A million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” For them, only other Jews have value. Everyone else is at best a tool, at worst an enemy. Understanding this extreme hostility to outsiders is necessary to understand the Palestine-Israel issue.

In 2001, when I first came to Europe, the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre was still fresh in the minds of many. People knew how the massacre was celebrated in Israel. Thus, any talk of the Israelis being blameless was nonsense. In contrast to the Anglo world, where Jews are considered morally perfect, in Europe they’re generally considered imperialist invaders.

This extreme xenophobia on the part of the Jews means their behaviour is almost identical to that of their enemy, despite the Jews’ higher IQs. Just as with the Muslims, the Jews completely ignore any atrocities committed by their own side. The killing of any Palestinians is forgotten before the bodies are even cold. Also just as with the Muslims, the Jews expect you to take their side and will hate your guts if you don’t.

Jews believe they are the teachers of mankind. The concept of tikkun olam means that they consider humanity a wretched mass of brainless animals until perfected by Jewish domination. Again as with the Muslims, and their beliefs in their own superiority, this idea is never questioned. If you, as an outsider, disagree with it, you are either stupid or evil.

To not be a Jewish supremacist is to be a Nazi. In the Jewish mind there are only those two categories. Either you worship Jews as divine and perfect educators of the sinful human race, or you’re a Nazi that demands their total destruction. Yet again as with the Muslims, there is no middle ground. George W Bush’s dictum that “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” applies to both sides.

Having observed such attitudes, I knew by the end of 2003 that there is zero hope of any peaceful settlement between the two sides. One will eventually wipe the other out. Any talk of peace merely delays this inevitability.

Many Westerners have been surprised by all of the pro-Palestine/Hamas protests in recent weeks. Evidently there exists a widespread delusion that the Islamic refugees the West has let in over the past 20 years must feel an obligation to integrate, and to leave the petty squabbles of their homelands behind. In reality, they (like the Israelis) are doing everything they can to drag the entire rest of the world into the conflict. Both sides are masters of propaganda, and shamelessly pump it into the collective consciousness.

In summary, the Second Intifada taught me that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a problem that can never be peacefully solved. Both sides are full of hate to a degree that is incomprehensible to any normal Westerner. Neither side has enough basic humanity to even desire peace, let alone achieve it. And consequently they will kill each other until only one side is left.

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!