new zealand

In Defence Of Mike King, And Of Alcohol

New Zealand mental health awareness campaigner Mike King copped mountains of abuse for saying that “alcohol has prevented more young people from taking their own lives than it makes them take their own lives.” This provoked outrage from the usual wowsers, psychopaths and control freaks. But there is great truth behind this hard-earned wisdom.

I worked as a bartender for eight years. In that time I saw alcohol ruin many people. I was assaulted several times and no doubt the alcohol I sold contributed to countless acts of domestic violence. It might have caused a million dollars of physical health damage, and a million dollars of lost productivity from hangovers or absentee days.

It also had some great effects.

In those eight years I saw a lot of people who were barely hanging on come through the doors. People who were deeply depressed, stressed, anxious, even despairing. And I saw that, for a lot of these people, the promise of getting a buzz from alcohol was helping to keep them going. The daily life was unpleasant, but it could be endured because, after it, a good time could be had with a few drinks.

Some of the patrons would even admit as such. For them, a drink was the finish line of the day, time to celebrate and say Yes to life again. I am certain that the alcohol I sold prevented several million dollars’ worth of depression thanks to providing the sociability that led to great mirth and great memories for hordes of people. The average bartender, in my experience, does as much good for mental health as the average psychiatrist.

Mike King has been close enough to suicide to know that, when you’re on the edge, it’s often small things holding you back, like an occasional moment of mirth.

This might be impossible to understand for anyone who has never been mentally ill. But if you have ever felt enduring suicidal ideation, you may have also discovered that getting drunk can stop those thoughts for a while. I have broken multiple bones, and the suffering of suicidal ideation tops them all. It doesn’t take much of it before one starts thinking about a permanent solution. Alcohol can provide blessed relief from such thoughts.

Sometimes, when your mental health is so low that you know you can’t endure the suffering forever, the promise of the next drink can be what’s stopping you ending your life. Just the simple knowledge that solace can eventually be had, in the form of a pint, can be enough to keep taking one step after the next. Drinking alcohol can reclaim enough power over your own mental health to make you say Yes to life again.

Mike King understands this, because he’s been low enough to need to find reasons to stay alive. He ought to be respected for the insight that he has brought back from the psychiatric underworld. Instead of ripping down someone who has stood so close to the edge, we ought to listen (if with scepticism). This is especially true for people with no personal experience of depression.

This defence is not intended to excuse my own conduct. For many years now, I have hardly used alcohol at all – only for celebrations once every few months, and even then in moderation. I am therefore not a drinker but neither am I an abstainer. I argue that this middle way, plus my bartending experience, makes my opinions more objective.

I also have extensive experience with antidepressant use – I have taken five different ones, off and on, for 30 years. What people need to realise about antidepressants is that they, at best, only mildly alleviate depression, and even then they work as a background substance. You can’t take an antidepressant as an emergency fix for an acute suicidal mood. If you’re going to attempt suicide in the next half an hour, and only an antidepressant or alcohol can save you, alcohol will be by far the most effective short-term fix.

That’s not to say alcohol is a long-term fix; in the long term, drinking alcohol will make you more depressed. Not only is it an actual depressant, but it causes an astonishing range of physical health ailments (see Prof. David Nutt’s Drink? for more).

Alcohol is definitely a second-rate drug. But the popular claim (often repeated in the mainstream media) that it only causes harms, and has no benefits, is ridiculous. In any case, most people who chimp out on it could have been encouraged to use weed or MDMA, if only either were legal. Most of the harms of alcohol would be ameliorated if people had access to less harmful recreational drugs, because those would serve as exit drugs for alcohol users to transition away. It’s hypocritical to complain about alcohol harms while also criminalising all the exit drugs from alcohol.

The ideal arrangement would be a properly-funded mental health system, which would include training people in trauma-based therapy and de-emphasising the biomedical model, and a sensible drug policy based on scientific evidence of relative drug harms.

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!

VJMP Anzac Day Address 2026: It’s Time To Make Good On The Promise Of Gallipoli

As Anzac Day dawns in 2026, the situation in the Western World is exceptionally dire. Our fertility rates have collapsed, and our economies are following them. Populations are in total despair. But, despite the immanent disaster, the ruling classes of the West appear to have no idea about either the suffering their people are in or what to do about it.

It’s time to make good on the promise of Gallipoli.

When the British Empire attacked the Ottoman Empire in World War One, Australia and New Zealand went with it. The reasoning back then was that we were British, and therefore wherever the motherland went we had to go as well. Across all the theatres of World War I we lost over 66,000 killed in action, from a population of just over six million.

While our boys died at Gallipoli, British commanders remained aloof. Some legends have it they relaxed drinking tea while the combat was raging. It was soon apparent to the Anzacs that their lives were worth very little to their overlords. The sentiment naturally arose that we would be better off in charge of ourselves.

What we learned at Anzac Cove, in theory, was that we ought to be making our own decisions instead of blindly following orders from the other side of the world. This learning was the beginning of our ethnogenesis. Thus it was at Anzac Cove that we started to transform into the Anzac nation. This was the Promise of Gallipoli: that we would one day become an independent and free people.

These theoretical learnings were sort of put into practice. During World War II, John Curtin chose to defend Australia with Australian troops instead of defending Britain. New Zealand, unfortunately, broke ranks with Australia and sent troops to defend Britain instead. But the thought was established: Anzac troops ought to defend Anzac territory as a first priority. We ought to put ourselves before Britain or anyone else.

After World War II, Europe and America opened themselves up to the madness of replacement migration. That could have been the cue for Anzac civilisation to plot a different course, like Eastern Europe did. Today, Poland has a larger economy than Australia, and they did it without mass immigration of Third World cheap labour and the resulting crime and misery. We could have done the same.

We still can. Only our will prevents us from doing so. We can take a cue from Eastern Europe – and from other places – and take a path away from Anglo-American neoliberalism and its attendant social chaos. It’s time for us to stand up, as an independent people, and to think for ourselves, and to blaze our own trail into the future.

For instance, we could say to ourselves, as Anzac Civilisation, that there shall be no more mass immigration of cheap labour to the Anzac Empire. Let America, Europe and Britain import all the cheap labour if that is what they wish to do. We don’t need to follow them. We never imported slaves like America did, so why not double down on the tradition of doing our own labour, and refuse to import Third Worlders?

Why not go even further, and get rid of globalist neoliberal immigration policy full stop? We could open immigration up to culturally compatible people if we wanted. We could even make an effort to only attract the high-IQ white people that once made the West great, and who still exist in large numbers, neutered by insane politics. Once we achieve psychological independence, we can do anything!

If the European and North American parts of Western Civilisation are to collapse into ethnic-based civil war, as several professors of conflict studies suggest they will, Anzac civilisation needs to stop thinking of ourselves as merely the juniormost partner in the Western coalition.

We will always be part of Western Civilisation. But, as the Romans once looked at the Greeks and saw a great people weakened by age and degeneracy, we Anzacs now look at Europe and America and see great peoples weakened by age and degeneracy. As the Romans surpassed the Greeks, so too will we surpass Europe and America. We just need to cut ourselves loose.

The Promise of Gallipoli is that we Anzacs are not bound by cultural links to the rest of the Western World. Those links exist and we are pleased for them, but they do not bind us. We are not forced to accept a miserable fate merely because the British decided that it would be that way. We can think for ourselves! We can rise up as one Anzac nation!

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!

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!

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!

Paper Citizens And Roots Citizens

Because of mass immigration, and the propaganda to manufacture consent for mass immigration, there is now mass confusion when it comes to citizenship and nationality. Many people now don’t believe the words ‘citizenship’ or ‘nationality’ even mean anything. This essay clarifies the various misconceptions.

The mainstream conception is that citizenship confers membership of a nation-state.

In this mainstream conception, there are three ways to acquire citizenship. The first is ‘jus sanguinis’, which means ‘right of blood’ and refers to those who are born as children of existing citizens. The second is ‘jus soli’ which means ‘right of soil’ and refers to those who are born within a certain legal territory. The third is naturalisation and refers primarily to immigrants.

The problem with this conception is that nation-states are now so diverse that members of them often have little in common with each other. Thus the citizenship itself, regardless of how it was acquired, no longer means anything.

One sunny day in Spring many years ago, when returning home from working in Europe, I was waiting in line at the arrivals terminal at Auckland International Airport. In front of me was a woman in a burka. I couldn’t see her eyes or any part of her body except for – sticking out from under the black folds – one greasy hand clutching a New Zealand passport. In that moment, I realised that New Zealand citizenship was a meaningless concept. If people like this, who had nothing in common with me at all, also belonged to the category, then the category was meaningless.

The argument of this essay is that our existing citizenship system is an ad hoc mishmash of various ideas that needs to be redesigned, rationally, from the ground up.

When I immigrated to Sweden, it was made clear to me by everyone that, no matter my official citizenship status, I would only ever be a “paper Swede”. A paper citizen is someone who is not a member of the biological nation, but who has nevertheless been granted citizenship by the ruling class. In other words, their claim to be part of the nation only exists on a bit of paper.

A roots citizen, by contrast, is someone who did not need to be naturalised on account of that they already had roots in the soil of the country. In this sense, they are inseparable from the country itself.

Paper citizenship can be granted and taken away with the stroke of a pen. Roots citizenship, by contrast, is a biological fact. ‘Naturalisation’ is therefore, correctly understood, a nonsense term: there’s nothing less natural than a bureaucrat in a capital city deciding who is a member of the ingroup and who isn’t. A natural member is someone who is born into it.

If someone would ask me how to clean up the citizenship mess that has been made by decades of globalist immigration policy, here would be my suggestions.

All existing New Zealand citizenship would firstly be converted to paper citizenship. This paper citizenship would primarily confer residency rights and rights to vote in local body elections.

Then, the citizenship of anyone who has ancestors in New Zealand before September 1939 (i.e. before the globalists launched their war of domination that would lead to mass immigration) would be converted to roots citizenship. The logic is that these people are the descendants of those who built the country, and therefore constitute the New Zealand nation proper. It was for these people that the country was built in the first place, and so these people must remain the beneficiaries of it and in charge of it.

Roots citizenship would confer greater privileges than paper citizenship, in particular welfare and voting privileges. Roots citizens would be entitled to a universal basic income and to the right to vote for representatives of the New Zealand nation in the New Zealand Parliament. They would also be able to take on paper citizenships of other countries without losing roots citizenship of New Zealand.

From there, one of two options would be taken depending on national preference expressed at referendum. Either paper citizens would be converted to roots citizens after they could prove a hundred years of ancestry in New Zealand, or they wouldn’t. The logic of not converting them is that the descendants of paper citizens will eventually marry in to the nation of roots citizens anyway, therefore there is no need to naturalise them. And if they are unwilling to marry in to the New Zealand nation, they are obviously not our friends and therefore shouldn’t have citizenship.

This conception of roots citizenship would include 100% of Maoris but would exclude white immigrants, thus is in no way whatsoever a white supremacist policy. Foreigners would still be free to immigrate to New Zealand under the usual visa to residency to citizenship pathway, but only paper citizenship would ever be available (an exception could be made for foreign parents of roots citizens, i.e. those who have had children with a roots citizen, as such parents are committed to the success of the New Zealand nation through their offspring).

The main advantage of this policy is that it would realign the concepts of citizenship and nationality, bringing them back from the globalist free-for-all they have been since World War II. This would strengthen Kiwi identity, as we would once again know who we were: not the whole globe in microcosm, but those with roots in the New Zealand land.

Such a change would make an immediate improvement. If paper citizens did not have voting rights, the 2020 cannabis referendum would have passed, and freedom would have prevailed. New Zealand would be a better country if it was run by roots citizens for the benefit of all who live here.

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!