They Would Go Back To Chattel Slavery If They Could

A number of wage subsidy scams are being reported right now, usually involving a worker being coerced into working for free or for discounted wages. Many people seem surprised that employers would be so brazen as to take advantage of a struggling person, especially in times when solidarity is needed. The reality is that employers would go back to chattel slavery if it wasn’t against the law.

The typical attitude of an employer in New Zealand is most accurately summarised by the Magic Talk caller known only as “Mark”. Mark called in to say that Kiwis were lazy and that immigrants made much better workers. This contempt for New Zealand workers is shared by most of the ruling class. John Key spoke for this ruling class when he said that we need to import foreign workers because Kiwis are lazy and on drugs.

As any Kiwi who has worked overseas knows, Kiwi workers are highly sought-after specifically because we are not lazy. If we had been lazy, we would never have survived the challenges put before us in our short history, because those challenges demanded that we shape an entire nation out of almost nothing, and we overcame them.

The truth, as is widely understood if not widely admitted, is that workers who are dependent on their employer for a visa will be much more submissive, and will accept much worse treatment, than those who are not dependent. This is why foreign workers are desired in New Zealand and New Zealand workers desired in foreign countries.

The mentality of the average employer, anywhere in the world, hasn’t changed much from 200 years ago. People from the working class are still considered cattle; their suffering is routinely ignored in the pursuit of profit. The mindset of today’s employer is still to put profit first and to discount human suffering, especially if those suffering are poor. It’s little different to the mindset of a cotton plantation owner.

Understanding the psychology of the employer – and, thereby, understanding why our economies are structured the way they are – requires the realisation that the ruling class would rather pay the workers nothing at all. If society was governed by an employers and landowners union, it would happily go back to chattel slavery.

Because the ruling class can’t get away with that, they can only push the worker as close to chattel slavery as the law allows. This is achieved by taking away as much of their productivity as legally possible. And so, most of the productivity of every worker is taken from them by the three lions of profits, taxes and rents.

The employer in a capitalist system is obsessed with profit. Profit is a matter of maximising incomes and minimising expenses, and the major expense is usually labour. It’s not cheap to get a person to work on your plantation all day when they’d rather be at home taking care of their family and community. So employers usually have to pay big. This has conditioned them to seek out any and all opportunity to maximise their access to cheap labour.

It can be said that cheap labour makes the world go around.

One of the first things that Brazil did after coming into existence was to import slaves – some 5 million were brought to Brazil before 1866, mostly to farm sugar cane. America, likewise, didn’t wait long before importing African slaves of their own. Even though only 300,000 were brought to the United States, it was enough to significantly depress wages in the Deep South. Much of colonial South and Central America operated on the slave plantation model pioneered by the Portuguese.

Australia and New Zealand never operated on this model. The Anzac ruling classes, however, have always been subject to the same temptations as the other colonial ruling classes. The temptation to maximise profit by minimising the cost of labour has always been present, sometimes intensely. We can see this from the fact that the Western ruling class have pushed the workers as close to slavery as possible without calling it slavery.

Rather than import slaves, and maintain them at the employer’s own expense on their plantations, it’s easier for those employers to import foreign cheap labour, and dump them into working-class neighbourhoods to fend for themselves. This is not only as profitable as chattel slavery, but it outsources the mental labour of arranging to feed, clothe and house the workers back to the workers themselves.

The importation and then naturalisation of cheap labour externalises the cost of diversity onto wider society, while keeping all the profits for the employer. The major negative consequence of diversity is lower wages. This occurs because diversity makes it more difficult for the working class to present the united front necessary to force the employer class to share the productivity of the workers.

The net result of 70 years of the mass importation of cheap labour: our wages have fallen so far that the average worker has no hope of owning their own home. The mainstream media screams ‘Racist!’ at anyone who draws the connection, but even high-school economics students understand that an oversupply of cheap labour will inevitably crash the price of working-class wages.

In 1992, the average Kiwi could buy the average house after about 7,000 hours of labour at the average wage. Today, so much of the average Kiwi’s productivity is sucked away in profits, taxes and rents that it takes over 25,000 hours of labour at the average wage to buy the average house. Vast numbers have completely given up hope. It’s already becoming the case that people are working just to stay alive, and some have to borrow money just to be able to do that!

All this was made possible by the working class getting pushed, closer and closer, over several decades, towards chattel slavery.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of 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, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Explaining The ‘Young Couple Buys House’ Propaganda

Observant Kiwis will have noticed a recent deluge of articles featuring young couples who have just bought a house. These are presented as heart-warming tales of plucky young people overcoming the odds, but they’re actually very insidious works of propaganda. This essay explains.

The New Zealand housing crisis is now so bad that, if it was half as bad, houses in Auckland would still be considered “severely unaffordable”. The Demographia international housing affordability survey (link goes to .pdf) considers a country’s housing to be unaffordable if it is three times the median household income, and severely unaffordable if it is more than 5.1 times the median household income.

According to the housing affordability calculator at interest.co.nz, the average New Zealand house price was 8.43 times the median household income in July 2021. The average Auckland metro house price was 11.32 times the median household income. These figures mean that even second-tier cities like Nelson and Dunedin are severely unaffordable. The thought of owning one’s own home, once considered a standard part of life, is now just a distant dream to most Kiwi workers.

This housing crisis is having severe consequences. It has meant that great numbers of young Kiwis have seen their dreams evaporate. Their hopes – if not expectations – of raising a family that they could be happy with are gone. Raising a happy family is a function of many things, but one of the most important ones is security of housing. Security of housing is only for the rich when the median house price is ten times the median household income.

Without a hope of raising a happy family, many people give up. The prospect of genetic immortality through one’s offspring appears to be the fundamental drive keeping great numbers of people going. Without it, a deep sense of anomie sets in, usually followed by nihilism. This latter condition can lead to all manner of atrocities, as the 20th Century demonstrated beyond doubt.

The obvious risk facing Western society in coming years is, by now, apparent to most. The widespread anomie and nihilism brought about by the housing crisis could lead, in short order, to equally widespread chaos and destruction. In other times and places, an entire generation getting locked out of housing would lead to civil unrest. The ruling class knows history, so they know that mass violence is potentially not far away.

Kiwis are a gutless slave race, as shown by our current wretched state, but even we will protest if we’re all made homeless. It’s to pre-empt these potentially riotous emotions that the mainstream media runs so many “Young couple buys a house!” stories. Their intention is to normalise the idea that a typical young couple can easily buy a home in today’s market.

If it was widely believed that a young couple could easily buy a home in New Zealand today, much of the discontent from the way the country is being run would be neutralised. Any young person complaining about how much easier the Boomers had it could simply be referred to the young couple in the NewsHub article linked in the first paragraph.

“If they can do it, why can’t you?” the Boomers will cry. You just need to get off your arse etc.

At times like these, it has to be borne in mind that the mainstream media is owned by international banking and finance interests, and so the media only runs stories that serve those interests. Banks want the highest possible house prices, because that means the maximum possible mortgage profits. To that end, they want to normalise mass immigration and million-dollar mortgages, and to abnormalise multi-generational housing.

Ultimately, the reason for all the “Young couple buys house” propaganda is to stop young people from getting angry at the intergenerational rape being committed against them by the Boomers. Pre-empting this anger will allow those Boomers to ride the gravy train for as long as possible.

The mainstream media will do everything it can to create the impression that homeownership is still normal for young people, and to deny the grim reality that even families with two working adults have trouble owning the roof over their heads. If they would admit the latter, they would run the risk of powerful revolutionary sentiments taking hold.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

All The Rights We’ve Lost Thanks To Immigration

Kiwis were disappointed last month to hear that the Sixth Labour Government is taking away our rights to free speech. Any speech that the Government hates will now be “hate speech” and subject to criminal sanction. As is the case in Scotland, an immigrant Justice Minister, from a culture that doesn’t value free speech, has stripped those rights away from a population that has cherished them for centuries. But, as this essay will show, free speech is just one of the many rights we’ve lost thanks to mass immigration.

Free speech is the fundamental value of Western civilisation. Without it, society cannot self-correct. So without free speech, small problems snowball into catastrophes. Legal recognition of the importance of free speech is one of the main reasons why Western countries are so stable in comparison to others.

But the value of freedom is generally only understood by Westerners.

The reason why men like Kris Faafoi and Scotland’s Humza Yousaf can so glibly annihilate one of the most important aspects of Western culture is that they weren’t raised to respect it. Their cultures do not have a history of struggling to assert freedom at all, and so they were not raised to value free speech. It was inevitable that making these men Justice Ministers would lead to a loss of those freedoms.

Import the Third World, become the Third World – and the Third World does not have a culture of free speech. If the Justice Minister of New Zealand had been a proper Kiwi, raised in Kiwi culture to appreciate the Greco-Roman-Anglo heritage that made New Zealand worth living in, we would still have our rights to free speech today. But that’s only the beginning.

Our right to use cannabis was also lost because of immigration.

In the 2020 cannabis referendum, the No side of the vote got 1,474,635 votes, and the Yes side got 1,406,973. This equals a difference of 67,662 votes. This narrow margin was enough for the Sixth Labour Government to declare that Kiwis wanted to keep locking themselves up for growing medicinal plants. But that margin would have been in favour of Yes if it wasn’t for immigrant voters.

An article in the South China Morning Post referenced a survey that found 80% of ethnic Chinese voters intended to vote No in the cannabis referendum. Some simple maths is enough to show that these Chinese voters alone tipped the overall outcome from a Yes to a No.

There are some 231,000 ethnic Chinese people in New Zealand. If we assume that 80% of them are eligible to vote, and that 80% of those actually did vote, that suggests some 147,840 ethnic Chinese voters voted in the cannabis referendum. If 80% of those voted No, that means 118,272 ethnic Chinese voted No and 29,568 ethnic Chinese voted Yes, for a balance of 88,704 more No voters than Yes voters.

The maths tells us that non-Chinese Kiwis voted Yes in the cannabis referendum, by a margin of some 21,000 votes. But these votes were cancelled out, and more, by the heavy Chinese opposition to cognitive liberty. And the Chinese weren’t the only immigrant group to vote to imprison cannabis-using Kiwis.

Pacific Islanders also voted against cannabis freedom, mostly out of religious sentiments.

The three electorates with the most Pacific Islanders in 2020 were Mangere at 59%, Panmure-Otahuhu at 46% and Manurewa at 39%. These were also among the electorates with the lowest Yes vote in the cannabis referendum: Mangere 38.7%, Panmure-Otahuhu 41% and Manurewa 39.5%. Many of the Pacific Islanders who voted against cannabis freedom were mindlessly following the orders of their pastors.

Religion also inspired Muslim immigrants to vote our rights away. The New Zealand Muslim Association came out in favour of Kiwis getting locked in cages for using cannabis, and the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ proudly allowed their logo to be displayed on the Say Nope to Dope supporters page. For them, tolerance and respect is an entirely one-way street: Kiwis are obliged to tolerate and respect Islam, but Islam is in no way obliged to tolerate and respect cannabis-using Kiwis.

If the cannabis referendum had been left up to white people and Maoris, it would have passed with around 60% in favour. But the mass importation of cheap labour from backwards cultures ultimately tilted the balance in favour of a No vote.

Our rights to use other spiritual sacraments are likewise gone. As a recent article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry noted, there is now ample evidence that sacraments such as psilocybin have immense therapeutic potential, “However, Australia and New Zealand are currently failing to acknowledge such evidence and, as a result, are falling behind in this crucial time of biomedical research and innovation.”

As noted in the article, the refusal to acknowledge the evidence for psychedelic therapy is political. Sadly, because conservative Third World immigrants now make up a significant proportion of our voters, we can kiss all research into psychedelic therapy goodbye. The Islanders don’t want it because of Jesus, the Muslims don’t want it because of Allah and the Asians don’t want it because drugs are bad.

Immigration also cost us our rights to free assembly, as was observed when Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux tried speaking about the consequences of mass immigration in Auckland.

Even though the NZ Bill of Rights Act explicitly states that Kiwis have both the rights to receive information and to free assembly, we were banned from assembling to listen to the Canadian duo at Auckland Council venues because Phil Goff, the Auckland mayor, was afraid of losing support from Muslim voters. Thanks to the mass immigration of conservative cheap labour, we’re no longer free to gather to discuss certain topics in public.

Most of our firearms rights were stripped from us after an Australian immigrant shot up a mosque full of Muslim immigrants on March 15, 2019. Even though no Kiwis were involved until Brenton Tarrant was arrested, the incident was used as an excuse to confiscate semi-automatic rifles all across the country.

Had we not opened the borders to the same cult of hate responsible for the Rotherham rape gangs and for the Drottninggatan truck attack, and had we not sat impotently while the Al Noor Mosque produced multiple terrorists, we would never had suffered such an atrocity on our shores. But, as many other Western nations had already learned, mass immigration from violent, supremacist cultures inevitably leads to violence.

The worst loss of freedom from mass immigration, however, was the loss of our right to own a home and raise a family.

In 1992, the average New Zealand house cost around $105,000, and the average wage was close to $15, which meant that a person had to save about 7,000 hours of labour at the average wage to own the average house. After three decades of mass immigration, the average house now costs $820,000, while the average wage has only risen to $35. This means a person now has to save over 23,000 hours of labour at the average wage to own the average house.

Mass immigration means more people competing to bid up the price of housing, as well as more people competing to bid down the price of wages. Anyone with a high school economics education could have told you that mass immigration would lead to higher house prices and lower wages. The combined effect of these two phenomena is that it’s now impossible for the average Kiwi worker to buy a house and to support a family with their own wage.

The loss of the freedom to buy a home and to support a family with one’s wage is the worst loss of all, because it effectively makes us the slaves of the bankers who hold our mortgages, and of the employers whose $20/hour we need to pay those mortgages off. Yet this loss is the inevitable consequence of mass immigration, the last thirty years of which has reduced us to this wretched condition.

We were told that mass immigration wouldn’t cause the loss of any freedoms because the immigrants would become like us – appreciative of the freedoms of Western culture and willing to defend them. However, we were lied to. The immigrants we let in never had any intention of respecting our culture and our values. In reality, we lost everything. We lost all our rights, all our freedoms, we lost our entire culture.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Generation Ruthanasia

Many Kiwis were shocked by a video circulating this week depicting a mass brawl at Te Aro Park in Wellington. The scene made it appear like public violence is now just part of everyday life in New Zealand. The nihilism reflects the rotten state of our economy – a rot that began with the Fourth Labour Government’s introduction of neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism came to New Zealand under the friendly name ‘Rogernomics‘. The Fourth Labour Government, following the trends established by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher overseas, adopted a number of neoliberal measures that would supposedly increase New Zealand’s economic performance. To some extent, they did. The real suffering didn’t begin until after Labour’s 1990 election defeat.

The Finance Minister of the Fourth National Government, Ruth Richardson, took the scythe to New Zealand’s poor with the 1991 Budget. The combination of the $14/week cut to the unemployment benefit, the $27/week cut to the sickness benefit, the $25 to $27/week cut to the families benefit and the abolition of universal payments for family benefits was a kick in the guts to those already at the bottom of society.

The act was dubbed ‘Ruthanasia’. In the same way that a useless old person is put to death with euthanasia, the useless lower classes were put to death with Ruthanasia. The narrative from the media was that beneficiaries were lazy, thieving scum anyway, and cutting their benefits should motivate them to get off their arses and into work. If not, they could die, it would be just as good.

The measures were particularly brutal to solo mothers, who found themselves $40/week or more worse off. The idea was that solo mothers were society’s filth, and in breeding outside of a stable marriage they were responsible for all of society’s ills, and needed to be punished for it. Their children were surplus to economic requirements, and therefore should be made to understand that they were not needed or wanted.

To a major extent, this strategy succeeded. Today, New Zealand’s youth suicide rates are the second-highest in the developed world. Every year, 14.9 out of every 100,000 Kiwi adolescents decide permanently that their life isn’t worth living. The vast majority of those are from the poorer classes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the abuse and neglect of New Zealand’s poor was normalised by Ruthanasia.

However, the children that Ruth Richardson threw to the wolves in 1991 mostly survived.

Some are now the ironhearted gang leaders who hold the loyalties of other violent young men. Winning the favour of such hard men may have been the reason for the fight in the video link in the first paragraph. Such mindless aggression might sound barbaric, but that’s the reality for young men in Clown World.

The children born into beneficiary families between 1980 and 1995 are now Generation Ruthanasia. Many of these children killed themselves as adolescents. Many more turned their hatred outwards and mutilated others. Too many of them are missing some of the part of the mind that allows humans to feel empathy with other living beings.

This absence of empathy is an inevitable consequence of the way they themselves were treated – as before, so after. Yet therein lies a great danger for New Zealand society over the next couple of decades.

Generation Ruthanasia might be outnumbered by people who were raised well, but they are still numerous enough to have a significant influence upon the nature of our society and upon the minds and the values of the following generations. It is their nihilistic cynicism that one sees expressed in the gang brawls at Te Aro Park this week, and in other places.

The now-adult men of Generation Ruthanasia don’t know how to love, neither themselves nor others. The loving parts of the mind and heart have long since been closed off for only bringing sorrow. But these men are already old enough so that the next generation looks up to them. As such, there’s a risk that their absence of empathy becomes normalised.

The natural, logical realisation that went through the minds of Generation Ruthanasia as children is that human life is without value. If children are worth so little that it’s fair to withhold money from their parents so that those children can’t eat, then what does have value? Certainly not this society. This logic is why the savagery of the gang lifestyle is no longer enough to scare everyone away.

This way of thinking is not dissimilar from that of the generations raised in places like inner-city America and Brazil – and that’s what New Zealand is now on track to become like, if the process of social decay is not arrested. But solving the problems posed by this cohort of severely mentally and spiritually damaged people will take decades.

The least part of any effective solution will be a massive financial investment – one large enough to reset the mental health situation. A universal basic income, to give people time to mentally recover, might be necessary here. Any government refusing to consider such measures would do well to bear in mind Machiavelli’s maxim that “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!