Why The Greens Should Lose Voters To TOP In Coming Weeks

With a general election now less than three months away, the various political parties are trying to position themselves front and centre in the mainstream media. Most days now bring a major announcement from at least one registered party. The announcements made yesterday have the potential to cause a great deal of support to switch from the Greens to The Opportunities Party. Numbers man Dan McGlashan explains.

In the second edition of Understanding New Zealand, I showed that the demographics of Greens voters and TOP voters were very similar. The correlation between voting Green and voting TOP was on the order of 0.8, which shows that the two groups overlapped to a major degree.

Both voting blocs are young, highly educated, urban and white. They are the kind of people who are doing relatively well but who do not wish to use the Government to force themselves into an even better position (in contradistinction to National and ACT voters). They are very similar in demographics and psychology to their social democratic counterparts in places like Northern Europe. In fact, many Green and TOP ideas originally became popular in Northern Europe before being adopted.

When I wrote the article linked in the paragraph above, in 2017, there were no major distinctions between the two parties. This year’s election campaign has already revealed some and will, I suspect, reveal more. Support for my suspicion comes from recent policy announcements.

The Green Party shot themselves in the foot yesterday with their announcement of a Guaranteed Minimum Income. This policy promises to ensure that no New Zealander need live in poverty, by topping up whatever income they get to a minimum of $325 per week. This would mean that all part-time workers would get topped up to $325 per week, as would beneficiaries (apart from pensioners, who already receive more than this).

Green Party support for a GMI will, in my estimation, cause them to lose a significant number of votes to The Opportunities Party.

Although some of the smarter Green supporters have been trying to remedy the error by describing the policy as a universal basic income, it isn’t one. It’s something significantly worse – so much so that The Opportunities Party have stolen a major trick on them through their support of a UBI.

Those who counter that the Greens’ $325 is much better than TOP’s $250 need to take into account that TOP’s offer leaves the part-time worker much better off. The worst thing about the Greens’ guaranteed minimum income policy is that it massively disincentivises part-time work.

Let’s assume, for simplicity’s sake, that our part-time worker is doing 20 hours a week at $19 an hour, for a total of $380 before tax (let’s say $327 after tax, according to this tax calculator).

The Greens’ proposal would see this person not benefit at all. Earning $327 would see them receive no top-ups. This means that, incredibly, anyone working less than 20 hours a week might as well not bother showing up to work anymore. They wouldn’t get any net benefit from working 19 hours or fewer, because their total wage wouldn’t be higher than the $325 guaranteed minimum.

TOP’s proposal is entirely different. A part-time worker working 20 hours would first of all get the $250 universal basic income. The full value of any wage they received from an employer would then get added to that (minus taxes, of course). Because that wage would be taxed at a flat rate, they would come out miles ahead compared to the Greens’ proposal.

Let’s use an extreme example, and say that the part-time worker’s taxes go up 5% under TOP’s proposal (this is not close to being accurate, but let’s assume it for simplicity’s sake). This would leave them with $308 of their wage after tax, plus the $250 UBI, for a total of $558 – i.e. $233 ahead of where they would be under the Greens’ proposal. Even if their taxes went up 10% (an absurdity) they would be over $200 a week better off.

So the Greens’ proposal amounts to maximising the risk of the welfare trap. Anyone employed for fewer than 20 hours would have no incentive to continue with their job. If they can’t get full-time work, they’re better off not working at all.

This is arguably even worse than the status quo, in which beneficiaries make slightly less than $325 but can earn up to $150 from part-time work before their benefit is docked. Someone on the Jobseeker’s Allowance working eight hours a week would make around $250 from the Jobseeker’s Allowance plus $150 from their part-time job, for a total of $400.

A cynic might even say that the Greens’ policy was intended to create welfare dependency in the knowledge that welfare beneficiaries heavily support left-wing parties (as I demonstrated here). That’s possible but it’s more likely that the Greens have erred on account of their naivety and fundamental misunderstanding of economic psychology.

With regards to 21st Century welfare policy, TOP have cleverly positioned themselves close to alt centrism. They oppose the Establishment but are neither left nor right. By supporting a UBI – something closer to a right-wing position – TOP have avoided giving in to the politics of envy that have caused many centrists to become disappointed in the left in recent decades. This gives them a major point of distinction with the alt left, represented by the Green Party.

By avoiding ACT’s politics of greed and the Greens’ politics of envy and dependency, TOP have set a pragmatic, sensible course as the centrist alternative to the Establishment. I predict that the superiority of their UBI proposal to the Greens’ GMI policy will win TOP a significant number of votes from the Greens. The next move to distinguish themselves from the loony left should be for TOP to abandon any proposal to raise New Zealand’s refugee quota.

*

Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing, is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people. It is available on TradeMe (for Kiwis) and on Amazon (for international readers).

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

If You Thought Race-Baiting Was Bad In New Zealand Now, You’re Not Ready For What’s Coming

Many Kiwis have never seen serious race-baiting in the mainstream media, and so they have been appalled by the levels it has reached in recent weeks. Maori Party co-leader John Tamihere has been featured, claiming that all non-Maoris are racists. The sad and bitter truth is that race-baiting in the media is about to get worse over the next three months. A great deal worse.

If you thought to yourself, upon hearing Tamihere’s outburst, that there’s no way the mainstream media would platform a white person making a blanket insult about Maoris, you might be in for an inkling of what’s coming.

The example has been set by America, where any accusation of racism is held up by the mainstream media as if it were major news. In America, anyone can get 15 minutes of fame simply by making a big enough fuss about how something is racist. That thing doesn’t have to actually be racist – it’s only necessary to get some hysteria about it started and the mainstream media will throw itself in behind you.

America has fallen into such an advanced state of race neurosis that a mere accusation of racism is enough to cause paroxysms of guilt, fear and rage. These powerful emotional reactions prime a person to respond to advertising suggestions. So the profitability of race-baiting has led to a spate of it – and now it’s coming to New Zealand.

The race-baiting in America is more sophisticated than simply letting two sides throw excrement at each other. The 21st Century way to do it is to let one side throw excrement while excoriating the other side for defending itself. The old way had a tendency to lead to both sides becoming friends, in the manner of drunks after a fistfight. The new way guarantees lasting and bitter hatred.

New Zealand, as ever, is following America’s lead here. In America, it has been proven that shameless race-baiting is a successful method for getting media attention. If a talking head on the television says that the existence of some law, policy or monument is racist, then a shitfight will begin.

The Maori Party, noting the example set by American race-baiters, are going full steam ahead in imitation. John Tamihere seems eager to complete the negrification of the New Zealand Maori, adopting wholesale the slavery-and-struggle narrative of the American blacks. Not for him the narrative that white people and Maoris struggled together for over a century, from New Zealand to Northern Africa, and won a great peace for each other.

The Maori Party narrative is that Maoris and non-Maoris are enemies.

They have now abandoned any pretence of impartiality. “Upsetting the rednecks” is their now stated aim. The race-baiter’s narrative is that a state of war exists between Maoris and non-Maoris, and that any defeat for the latter is a win for the former. The angrier a given policy proposal makes non-Maoris, the better it is.

The claim that a state of war exists between two groups who share the same public space is obviously not a peaceful one. As can be seen from the state of affairs in America, adopting a racial conflict narrative will lead to a worse time for everyone, with more paranoia, hate and violence all round.

The problem is that the Maori Party’s main goal, of dividing the New Zealand people in order to claim a chunk for themselves, coincides perfectly with the mainstream media’s goal of dividing the New Zealand people so that they cannot resist the Establishment. As such, the media will be more than happy, over the next three months, to give attention to any and all race-baiting efforts made by the Maori Party.

Because the Maori Party is more than willing to supply the mainstream media with race-baiting content, the mainstream media never has a shortage of it. Consequently, we can expect a barrage of it between now and the General Election (and beyond). It will be wall-to-wall racial grievance mongering.

We can expect Tamihere and co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to come out and say all kinds of ridiculous shit over the next three months. Expect to hear calls for every city and street to be renamed, for every Government and council agency to make a grovelling apology and for Maori quotas in everything, from Parliament down to Parent Teacher Associations.

No matter how ridiculous, the maintream media will broadcast it all into the homes of every Kiwi, alongside the implication that anyone objecting to any of it is a filthy racist who effectively stands with Hitler a traitor to the nation.

It can be expected, also, that Tamihere and Ngarewa-Packer will avoid making an effort to solve real problems facing Maori people. They will avoid mentioning the benefits to Maori of cannabis law reform, just as the gutless Tamihere shied away from the issue while a Labour MP. This is despite the fact that the imposition of cannabis prohibition onto the Maori people was one of the greatest crimes the New Zealand Government ever committed.

Genuine issues don’t concern the race-baiters, because they win not by alleviating the suffering of their people but by stirring up racial animosity. This animosity gives them more attention and, so they hope, more votes. Over the next three months, it can confidently be predicted that the race-baiting in the media will increase, the quality of public discourse will decrease, the New Zealand people will lose, and our enemies and our exploiters will win.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

Should The Mainstream Media Abandon Kayfabe?

‘Kayfabe’ is a professional wrestling term which means acting like what you are doing is real, although it isn’t. The professional wrestlers have since abandoned kayfabe, choosing now to present themselves as sports entertainment instead of as serious competitors. This essay asks: should our mainstream media follow suit?

In the early days of professional wrestling, people took things a lot more seriously than they do nowadays. Life was much more brutal a century ago, and people were far less given to flights of fancy. As such, the vast majority of people wanted to watch real wrestling matches between two fit, determined men out to triumph over the other. Although professional wrestling was fake, this couldn’t be admitted.

By the 1990s, when life had become easy, people had come to take things less seriously. It no longer seemed important to pretend that the matches were real and that the outcomes were not fixed. The definitive moment came in 1996 when superstars Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Shaun Michaels and Triple H all embraced in the middle of the ring after a match, when, according to the WWF coverage, they all hated each other (see image above).

In professional wrestling, where the wrestlers are playing characters, the actual wrestlers are usually great friends. After all, they have to trust each other very closely in performing their dangerous physical stunts, and this combined with the inherent danger of the job leads to a strong sense of camaraderie. Their feuding and battling is just an act, one that is now admitted to. Kayfabe has now been abandoned.

A convincing argument can be made that it’s time for the mainstream media to follow suit, and to admit that what they say does not reflect reality. Should they come out and admit that the product they sell is not information, but dramatic entertainment portrayed as political conflict? Is it time for the mainstream media to abandon kayfabe?

In professional wrestling, it’s understood by all that Vince McMahon runs the company, and his primary interest is making money by producing a quality entertainment product. So no-one pretends the matches are real anymore, they just go along with it as if it were pantomime. The sporting media reports on it as if it were entertainment, and it’s understood as such.

When two politicians clash, however, the mainstream media portrays it as if they genuinely hated each other. Election debates are presented to the populace as if they were heavyweight title fights, with two sides going head-to-head for an accolade that only one of them can possess. The television journalists describe mere insults as if politicians were ripping into each other like pit fighting dogs.

The story we’re sold is that all sides are ready to beat each other’s brains out. In reality, every single politician has a mutual interest in keeping the gravy train going, and this sentiment is shared with the owners of the mainstream media. For the political class, it’s very much them against the people whose taxes keep them in luxury. They will choose to put each other first before the plebs, anywhere and always.

Evidence for this assertion comes from how closely members of the political class interact with each other when the cameras aren’t rolling. They populate think tanks together, they party with each other, they marry each other. Politicians might ostensibly represent interests that are implacably opposed to each other, but the reality is that almost all of them come from the ruling class, and represent the interests of that class above any other.

This is why New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, of the Labour Party, can have a cousin named Shane Ardern, who is a Member of Parliament for the National Party. It’s no contradiction that one family can produce MPs for both sides of the fence, because Parliament is a ruling class institution, and the Arderns are a ruling class family.

The average man in the street had figured out 20 years ago that professional wrestling was fake, but is only just figuring out today that the mainstream media is equally as fake. Yes, the mainstream media is just as scripted, dishonest and utterly unreal as any professional wrestling show. Now that this is widely recognised, it’s time to admit it.

It should be openly accepted by the mainstream media that they are the employees of their owners, the international finance and banking interests. As such, they are presenting a program that serves the interests of those owners. Their product is drama, in particular drama between different political actors and/or factions. They aren’t selling objective information, or an objective overview of what’s going on in the nation and in the world.

The WWF, its acronym redolent of the Olympic wrestling federations, rebranded as the WWE and started calling itself “sports entertainment”. It’s time for our mainstream media to do something similar – to stop pretending that their role is to inform or to hold power to account, and to start calling itself “journalistic entertainment”.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!

Could We Abolish The Police In New Zealand?

Most people never imagined that, one day, we would seriously discuss the possibility of abolishing the Police in New Zealand. It’s usually just assumed that society would fall back into savagery without a police force to keep order. Yet, here we are. This essay outlines the considerations involved in disbanding the New Zealand Police.

The first thing is to distinguish between what we’re told the Police do, and what they really do.

What we’re told is the Police enforce law and order. The story we’re given is that the Police are another government service, like road construction or defence. It’s paid for out of general taxation like any other government service, and Police officers themselves are selected for the job on the basis of demonstrating a will to serve the people.

We’re told that the Police enforce law and order for the same reason that all other government officials do their jobs: a general will to end the suffering of all citizens. The predation of criminals causes a great deal of harm, especially when it goes unopposed. Thus, the suffering of the citizens can be minimised by raising a Police force to battle criminals.

What the Police really do is protect private property.

The Police originated with the first chieftain to horde more wealth than he could realistically defend himself. In the really old days, this would mean that other people teamed up to take his wealth off him. The civilised way to defend wealth is not to defend it oneself, but to pay gullible sycophants to do it.

Today, the Police protect the investments of alcohol company shareholders by attacking anyone who produces alternatives in the form of cannabis, MDMA, LSD or other substances. They protect the investments of the importers of cheap labour by harassing anyone who speaks out against mass immigration. They protect the investments of those who hold fiat currency by kneeling on the necks of people who try to pass counterfeit bills.

If you have no investments, the Police don’t care about protecting you. If you doubt this, try being working class and reporting a crime against yourself to them. They won’t give a fuck – they’re not there to protect people like you. They’re there to protect the property of those paying their wages from people like you.

The sad reality is that the New Zealand Police are a pack of dogs that the New Zealand ruling classes sic onto their enemies when they want them destroyed. Those enemies don’t have to be causing harm to anyone – they can be peaceful cannabis users or political dissidents. The Police will destroy them anyway because they are not taking orders from the people, but from their rulers.

Most adults understand now that the New Zealand Police, like Police forces everywhere, are waging a war against the people on behalf of their paymasters. The New Zealand Police see the New Zealand people as a common enemy and, as such, co-operate and conspire against them; it’s extremely rare that one Police officer testifies against another in court.

The grim facts about human nature show that if we abolished all peacekeeping and orderkeeping services, society would soon decay into a Lord of the Flies-style permanent chimpout. However, this doesn’t mean that abolishing the Police would lead to such an outcome. It would in the short-term, if we abolished the Police immediately, but with a bit of thought we could simply deprecate them instead.

What would happen if we gradually abolished the private property-protecting force that is the New Zealand Police, and replaced them with some kind of peacekeeping and orderkeeping force that operated with the consent of the people it kept in line? A community police force whose role was to keep peace and order with the consent of the policed?

We could base such a policing model on the example of the Commando used by the Boers in the Boer Wars.

This would involve all of the able-bodied men from a particular community or neighbourhood getting together on occasion to elect officers. Perhaps for every hundred able-bodied men, ten officers are elected, and these officers choose a sergeant from among themselves.

This sergeant would then be tasked with enforcing peace and order. His rights and responsibilities would be little different to that of a regular Police constable, but with one major difference. The sergeant would serve at the pleasure of his fellow officers for the sake of the community, and could be dismissed at any time by those officers. This would be very different to today’s model, where he serves at the pleasure of the ruling class for the sake of the ruling class.

As such, our hypothetical community sergeant would not enforce laws such as cannabis prohibition, or prohibition of psychedelic sacraments. Anyone who came into the community from the outside, however, and started selling something the community did not approve of, would get dealt to. So would anyone who broke any actual law, such as thieves, rapists, thugs and murderers.

These community sergeants could come together on a town level to vote for a captain of police, who could in turn come together on a regional level to vote for a regional inspector, who could in turn come together on a national level to vote for a national superintendent. The captains, inspectors and the superintendent would have their own separate budgets with which to hire detectives and other specialists.

Should the community sergeant require, he would be able to deputise the other officers previously elected by the community’s menfolk. This would occur in cases of public disorder, or if a violent criminal needed apprehending safely.

This is entirely different to today’s model, where the ruling class appoints a caste of political administrators through a sham process called democracy, who in turn appoint lackeys to the highest ranks in the Police Force, who in turn hire arse-licking dogs willing to enforce laws against the population without their consent.

This model has led to an unaccountable paramilitary who operate more like a horde of goons than a community peacekeeping force. It’s little wonder that the world is currently wracked by protests against police brutality. The time is perfect to replace today’s top-down model with a community policing model under which officers operate with the consent of the policed.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 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 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!