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!

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!

What Would Be A Fair Wage Today, In Housing Terms?

A recent post on Plebbit’s r/newzealand subforum involved a Boomer crying about having to pay a farmhand $28 per hour. The Boomer seemed surprised that “a young guy in his late twenties” wasn’t grateful for the opportunity. Simple economic psychology explains why – and everyone younger than Boomers understands it.

If said farmhand works 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, he’ll earn a gross pay of $56,000. After income tax, that works out to $45,323. After rent is sucked out of him, he’s left with the princely sum of $37,003. Let’s say that he’s capable of living as cheaply as the average beneficiary, on about $350 per week or so. That leaves him with $18,803 in savings per year to go towards owning a house one day.

The average New Zealand house price is now $893,639. This means it would take our farmhand 47.53 years to save up enough money. Assuming he’s now 29, he should have enough money by roughly age 77. And this is assuming that house prices don’t rise in this time.

The obvious objection here is that our farmhand would get a mortgage. So let’s do the maths on that.

The WestPac mortgage calculator suggests that a person on a wage of $56,000 p.a. should be able to afford a mortgage of $249,360. If they already had a 20% deposit saved, they could potentially buy a house worth $311,700.

A TradeMe Property search reveals that there is almost nowhere that you can buy a house in New Zealand for $311,700. For reference, even leasehold land in Hokitika, a town more remote than 99% of New Zealand, is going for $249,000 right now. Almost everything else at that price is a bare section.

So with a 30-year mortgage, our farmhand could potentially aim to own enough land to pitch a tent on by the time he was 60. Finding a fertile woman as a 60-year old man living in a tent would no doubt prove an absurd challenge.

Buying an actual home is simply impossible on $28/hour. Homeownership and raising a family are unachievable dreams on such a wage. Ergo, it isn’t a fair wage, it’s exploitation. Which raises an obvious question: what would be a fair wage for a full-time worker today?

The first assumption is that the most accurate measure of a fair wage is the extent to which it provides for a decent (not luxurious) lifestyle, and this primarily means homeownership. People are not happy making high wages if all they can afford is televisions and takeaways and the money doesn’t stretch to establishing a home.

The second assumption is that the Boomers themselves got a fair deal. Thus, I will assume that the housing situation in 1992 (when the average Boomer would have been about 36-37) is representative of the Boomer life experience. This certainly meant homeownership; for many Boomers, it meant owning so many homes that they could live off the rents of the young for life.

In 1992 the average New Zealand house price was $109,000. Also in 1992, the average hourly wage was about $15. This works out to 7,266 hours of saved labour to own the average house.

If the average house price now is $893,639, we can divide that by 7,266 hours of labour, and then multiply the resulting hourly wage by 2,000 hours in the year, to find the annual wage that would give a late-20s farmhand today the same chance of owning a home that a late-20s Boomer had in 1992 (this is the youngest possible Boomer, and all older ones will have had an even easier time).

Therefore, a fair wage today, per annum, would be about $245,978. Only a wage of no less than $245,978 would allow today’s worker to own a home with the same ease that the Boomers enjoyed. Any less than that, and today’s worker is forced to work hours that Boomers were not forced to, in order to enjoy the same standard of living.

Note that this figure implies absolutely zero standard of living increase from all the technological advancement of the last 31 years. Let’s just assume (for the sake of humility, perhaps) that the corporates deserve all of the profits from all of that advancement, which includes the advent of the personal computer, the Internet, the cellphone etc. Let’s assume that our farmhand deserves a zero share of this bounty.

That still leaves us with a wage of $245,978 (some $123 per hour) minimum for today’s farmhand to have the same standard of living as a farmhand in 1992. Such a wage is necessary if he wants to buy today’s $893,639 average house with 7,266 hours of saved labour, as the average Boomer was privileged enough to do.

Of course, the average farmer or business owner would rather go out of business than pay a wage anywhere near that. Which leaves many people asking honestly where the New Zealand economy can possibly go from here.

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!

Racism Of The Gaps

The phrase “God of the gaps” is used to mock a particular kind of religious fundamentalist – the type who leaps on every gap in scientific explanation of natural phenomena, and declares it proof of God’s existence. Were the gap not proof of God’s existence, so the argument goes, then the materialist scientist ought to be able to explain it.

Thus, phenomena like the existence of the cosmos, the origin of life, the cause of diversity in animals and plants and the existence of consciousness are regularly attributed to the workings of God. If a scientist can’t explain them, then Goddidit.

The mockery is motivated by the fact that fanatics view the entire world through the lens of their obsession, and so they find that obsession everywhere, in every nook and cranny of reality. Hence, the religious fanatic sees their god hiding in every gap of the natural world, which seems ridiculous to others.

Today, in the Clown World of 2023, those who want to get a big dopamine hit from feeling morally superior to other people don’t use God. They use race. No-one cares about God any more. But race is everywhere and everything in the multicultural West. It’s rare now to find one street, one workplace or one television show without prominent virtue-signalling.

As such, there now exists a phenomenon that can be referred to as “the racism of the gaps”. This is when differences in outcome between any two human populations is ascribed to racism before any other explanation is considered, or when more plausible but non-race-based explanations are rejected. If a person from Race A has any kind of advantage over, or better outcome than, a person from Race B, then the gap is best explained by racism.

The most common example of the racism of the gaps fallacy relates to the so-called “wage gap”. The logic is that non-whites earn less money than whites because institutional racism discriminates against non-whites. This racism means that non-whites are passed over for promotions, or not hired in the first place, thereby giving them fewer opportunities to make money.

Blank slate logic only holds if a person believes that all human populations are precisely the same in all intellectual measures. The simple fact that most Asian groups in the West do as well, or better than, white people, despite suffering as much, or more, prejudice than much less successful immigrant groups, is sufficient evidence to disprove blank slate theory.

Moreover, the psychological literature clearly states that the most important factor determining the income of any individual or group is IQ, and the measured IQs of all the various races in the West correlate strongly with their economic outcomes. If the various races are as wealthy as the science predicts they should be, what’s the problem?

The term ‘racism of the gaps’ mocks the fact that no social justice warrior has ever been able to quantify the effect that all the supposed white supremacy has had on the beleaguered non-whites of the world. All the science explaining the differences between races is thrown out the window in preference of a Cultural Marxist narrative about racism – it’s right to mock such low-IQ thought processes.

Racism of the gaps also appears when people ask, for example, why there are so few Maoris or Pacific Islanders in the New Zealand cricket team. The implication is that some nefarious white conspiracy is preventing them from accessing opportunities. The reality, of course, is that Maoris and Pacific Islanders prefer to play other sports.

No-one makes the claim that the NRL is racist in favour of Maoris and Pacific Islanders because they are heavily over-represented in rugby league. The people pushing the racism of the gaps fallacy only care about something if there’s a racial angle that can be exploited, especially an anti-white one.

Much like the term ‘racism’ itself, ‘racism of the gaps’ refers to a deliberate strategy to undermine Western society by setting different racial groups against each other. It’s pushed by the ruling class, particularly the globalist ruling class, who want all the peoples they rule over divided and conquered along every possible fracture line. Thus they claim racism where it doesn’t exist, in order to stoke tensions and mistrust.

The best way to stop this pernicious logic from becoming even more widespread is to mock it at every turn. Any time someone leaps to blame racism for some difference in outcome, on flimsy and unscientific evidence, laugh at them for committing the racism of the gaps fallacy. Make them feel stupid for pushing long-debunked blank slate nonsense.

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!