Understanding New Zealand 3: Who Turned Out To Vote In 2020?

The final chapter of this book answers the question of which demographics turned out to vote in the 2020 General Election. In total, 2,919,073 people cast a party vote, out of 3,549,580 eligible voters, for a turnout rate of 82.24%. This was higher than in 2017, breaking the usual trend of declining turnout rates in Western democracies.

Turnout rate is very closely related to general disenfranchisement, hence the General Disenfranchisement Rule. As we can see in the analysis below, it’s possible to tell who is running society from the extent of their engagement in the political system. The higher the turnout rate, the higher the engagement, the more power and influence.

Variable	Turnout rate 2020
Voting Labour 2020	0.28
Voting National 2020	0.69
Voting Greens 2020	0.39
Voting ACT 2020	0.81
Voting New Zealand First 2020	0.10
Voting New Conservative 2020	0.52
Voting The Opportunities Party 2020	0.63
Voting The Maori Party 2020	-0.69
Voting Advance NZ 2020	-0.16
Voting Sustainable NZ 2020	0.53
Voting ALCP 2020	-0.52
Voting TEA Party 2020	-0.24
Voting Heartland NZ 2020	0.06
Voting Social Credit 2020	0.34
Voting NZ Outdoors Party 2020	0.28
Voting ONE Party 2020	-0.03
Voting Vision NZ 2020	-0.68

Perhaps more than any other measure, the correlations between party affiliation and turnout rate reveal who the true ruling class of New Zealand is. Those who turn out to vote are those psychologically engaged with the political system. They are those with a reasonable expectation that a politician might listen to them.

The top tier by this measure are ACT, National and The Opportunities Party. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting ACT in 2020 was 0.81; with voting National in 2020 it was 0.69; with voting The Opportunities Party in 2020 it was 0.63. These voters comprise society’s insiders – the wealthy and influential. They are the people who are in charge almost no matter what the political system is.

Immediately underneath them are New Conservative, Greens and Labour voters. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting New Conservative in 2020 was 0.52; with voting Greens in 2020 it was 0.39; with voting Labour in 2020 it was 0.28.

New Conservative voters are old and old people have very high turnout rates (see below). Greens voters are young but are usually from wealthy families and are usually well-educated. The significant positive correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 is harder to explain. In truth, Labour voters are part of the political Establishment.

The three parties whose supporters were least likely to turn out to vote were the Maori Party, Vision NZ and the ALCP. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting Maori Party in 2020 was -0.69; with voting Vision NZ it was -0.68 and with voting ALCP it was -0.52. It’s not news that Maori people tend to be disenfranchised, and all three of these parties have a high proportion of Maori voters.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
No NZQA qualifications	-0.30
Level 1 certificate	0.01
Level 2 certificate	-0.10
Level 3 certificate	-0.49
Level 4 certificate	-0.10
Level 5 diploma	-0.25
Level 6 diploma	0.73
Bachelor’s degree	0.20
Honours degree	0.42
Master’s degree	0.27
Doctorate	0.42

It’s well understood that the more educated someone is, the more enfranchised they tend to be. Educated people can express themselves in agreeable and persuasive ways, and tend to be more influential thereby. People with university degrees are heavily over-represented in Parliament, even among Labour Party MPs.

Therefore, it’s not surprising to see significant positive correlations between having any of the postgraduate university degrees and turnout rate in 2020.

It might be surprising to see that the correlation between having a Bachelor’s degree and turnout rate in 2020, while positive, was not significant. After all, a large proportion of the managerial class have that qualification. But the explanation is simple: most people with degrees are young, and young people tend not to vote (see below).

There was a significant negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having no NZQA qualifications (-0.30). Many would have expected this to be stronger, but people in the older age groups are much more likely to have no NZQA qualifications than people in the younger age groups, balancing out the fact that older age groups are more likely to vote.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
Aged 20-24	-0.26
Aged 25-29	-0.23
Aged 30-34	-0.15
Aged 35-39	-0.07
Aged 40-44	0.27
Aged 45-49	0.54
Aged 50-54	0.63
Aged 55-59	0.67
Aged 60-64	0.65
Aged 65-69	0.64
Aged 70-74	0.65
Aged 75-79	0.65
Aged 80-84	0.64
Aged 85+	0.65

The origin of the widespread dislike of Boomers can be noted in the table above. Old people are far more likely to turn out than younger ones. Even taking into account the fact that people under 18 can’t vote, old people are much more likely to vote in New Zealand than younger ones.

There was a negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being in any age group under 40 years old. This shows that New Zealand is little different to other modern democracies when measured by the turnout rate of young people.

There was a strong positive correlation (0.63 or stronger) between turnout rate in 2020 and being in any age group above 50 years old. The over-50s hit the polling booths in massive proportions. If the General Disenfranchisement Rule shows us anything, it’s that Boomers are enfranchised.

The age group between 40 and 50 appears to be when, in New Zealand, the transition from liberal to conservative is made. This is also when the transition from renter/mortgage holder to homeowner is usually made. These two apparent facts are intimately related. Not until most people become homeowners themselves do they feel an interest in conserving the status quo.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
Percentage of males	-0.04

Contrary to the expectations of some – but which could be surmised by many – there is no statistical evidence that men are more enfranchised than women. Although the historical example has been one of male dominance, there is little evidence that this state of affairs exists in the present day. Indeed, the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being male was negative (if too weak to be significant).

This could be guessed by anyone who knew that the correlations between being male and holding any of the university degrees were all negative. However true the historical example of male dominance might be, the experience of today is closer to the opposite.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
Being European	0.83
Being Maori	-0.67
Being Pacific Islander	-0.63
Being Asian	-0.20

Anyone who thinks that white Kiwis and Maori Kiwis are roughly equally enfranchised would get a shock from looking at the statistics.

The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being of European descent was extremely strongly positive, at 0.83. This is one of the strongest correlations in this entire study, of either direction. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being of Maori descent, by contrast, was strongly negative, at -0.67.

It might be true that Maoris are technically over-represented in Parliament, in that there are more Maori MPs than the Maori proportion of the population would warrant, but that isn’t the same thing as enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is when you can reasonably expect your MP to listen to you and to take your concerns seriously, whatever their race.

Pacific Islanders are about as disenfranchised as Maoris. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being a Pacific Islander was -0.63. This cannot be explained by Pacific Islanders being outside the bicultural system, because the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 was much less negative, at -0.20. Thus, poor education and low levels of wealth better explain the low Pacific Islander turnout.

Some might argue that Asians vote in high numbers out of a sense of duty, and are not truly enfranchised. That may be true to some extent. Nonetheless, the fact is that if Asians do vote in high proportions, they will have a significant influence on the vote (see the cannabis referendum for an example).

Variable	Turnout rate 2020
Income < $5,000	-0.70
Income $5,000-$10,000	-0.43
Income $10,000-$20,000	-0.23
Income $20,000-$30,000	0.16
Income $30,000-$50,000	-0.19
Income $50,000-$70,000	0.28
Income > $70,000	0.45

The correlations between income groups and turnout rate in 2020 will surprise few. With a few exceptions, these correlations follow the General Disenfranchisement Rule closely, in that the rich tend to vote and the poor tend to not vote.

Voters in every income group below $20,000 had a significant negative correlation with turnout rate in 2020. This is not surprising, as most beneficiaries will be in this category, and beneficiaries comprise a large proportion of society’s most disenfranchised people.

Voters in both income groups above $50,000 had a significant positive correlation with turnout rate in 2020. The strongest was between having an income above $70,000 p.a. and turnout rate in 2020, which was 0.45. It is people in this group who politicians listen to the most.

The general rule is obvious: the wealthier a person is, the more enfranchised they tend to be. This rule is already widely understood, but it’s useful to put some numbers to it.

It might seem paradoxical that the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having an income between $20,000 and $30,000 is positive, while the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having an income between $30,000 and $50,000 was negative. This is because those receiving between $20,000 and $30,000 tend to be students and pensioners, and therefore not really disenfranchised, whereas those between $30,000 and $50,000 tend to be minimum wage workers or in other working-class occupations, and therefore closer to the bottom of society than either students or pensioners.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
Working as a manager	0.56
Working as a professional	0.30
Working as a technician or trades worker	0.01
Working as a community or personal services worker	-0.33
Working as a clerical or administrative worker	-0.14
Working as a sales worker	-0.35
Working as a machinery operator or driver	-0.61
Working as a labourer	-0.30

The two most privileged occupations are the two most enfranchised ones. Both of the correlations between turnout rate in 2020 and working as either a manager (0.56) or as a professional (0.30) were significantly positive. Ultimately it’s managers and professionals who run society, and so it’s them that politicians listen to the most.

People in middle-class jobs had moderate levels of enfranchisement. Neither of the correlations between turnout rate in 2020 and occupation were significant in the case of working as a clerical or administrative worker (-0.14) or working as a technican or trades worker (0.01). The latter correlation might even be more positive than expected, a result of the fact that technicians and trades workers tend to be in the relatively elderly age groups, and those age groups have high turnout rates.

Working-class Kiwis were the most disenfranchised. There was a significant negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and working as any of a machinery operator or driver (-0.61), sales worker (-0.35), community or personal services worker (-0.33) or labourer (-0.30). Politicians don’t generally care what people in these occupations think, hence the disenfranchisement.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
No source of income	-0.69
Income from wage or salary	-0.19
Income from self-employment or own business	0.68
Income from interest, dividends, rents or other investments	0.83
Income from ACC or private work insurance	-0.13
Income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension	0.64
Income from Jobseeker Support	-0.74
Income from Sole Parent Support	-0.77
Income from Supported Living Payment	-0.39
Income from Student Allowance	-0.22

The cynical will feel proven correct when they hear that the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving an income from interest, dividends, rents or other investments was 0.83, one of the strongest correlations in this study. It is people who receive an income in this manner who are the most enfranchised of all.

Also highly enfranchised are people who receive an income from self-employment or one’s own business, and people who receive an income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and the former was 0.68, and with the latter it was 0.64.

These three groups of income recipients are the people that politicians listen to the most. A high proportion of them work as managers, whether hired or inheritors.

Perhaps dishearteningly, there was a negative (if not significant) correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving an income from a wage or salary: -0.19. This suggests that the people who do most of the work in our society, whose efforts keep it running, are disenfranchised, nearly significantly so.

The most disenfranchised Kiwis are those on unemployment, sickness or invalid’s benefits. These are society’s forgotten, who have the lowest status and who politicians listen to the least. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving income from Jobseeker Support was -0.74, and between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving income from Sole Parent Support was -0.77.

The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving income from a Student Allowance was negative, but not significantly so (-0.22). Again, this is because students occupy an usual place in the class hierarchy: disenfranchised by age, enfranchised by class. As such, their turnout rate was higher than the other non-pensioner beneficiaries.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
Has no religion	0.48
Is a Buddhist	-0.10
Is a Christian	-0.20
Is a follower of the Maori religions	-0.62
Is a Hindu	-0.29
Is a Jew	0.22
Is a Muslim	-0.32
Is a Spiritualist or New Ager	0.33

That New Zealand is a materialist society is shown by many things, and the correlations between turnout rate in 2020 and following a religion is another of those things. The religious affiliation that had the strongest positive correlation with turnout rate in 2020 was having no religion (0.48). This will surprise many who think of atheists as degenerate outsiders. In fact, the people running this society tend to have no religion.

There was a strong negative correlation between following one of the Maori religions and turnout rate in 2020 (-0.62). This is no doubt a function of the significant negative correlation between being Maori and turnout rate in 2020.

Weaker, although still negative, correlations were found between turnout rate in 2020 and being a Muslim (-0.32), a Hindu (-0.29), a Christian (-0.20) or a Buddhist (-0.10). The correlation with Christianity will surprise many, as it is generally assumed that Christians comprise a large part of the power structure in New Zealand. Although this is true, a high proportion of practicising Christians in New Zealand are relatively disenfranchised Pacific Islanders.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
No children	-0.03
One child	-0.38
Two children	0.56
Three children	0.34
Four children	-0.21
Five children	-0.58
Six or more children	-0.74

Another nonlinear set of correlations are those between turnout rate in 2020 and number of children.

Some might expect that, since people with no religion have a high turnout rate, and since people with no religion often have no children, that people with no children must have a high turnout rate. This is not the case. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having no children was -0.03.

The strongest positive correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having any number of children was with two children (0.54), followed by three children (0.34). These correlations represent modal families, in the sense that most upper-middle-class families will have two or three children.

There was a negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and any of having four children (-0.21), five children (-0.58) or six or more children (-0.74). This reveals that two is the normal number of children to have, and that a person becomes more disenfranchised the more children they have beyond two.

Variable	Turnout rate in 2020
Own or part own house	0.68
Own house in family trust	0.62
Neither outright ownership of house nor house in family trust	-0.79

One of the main reasons why housing is a major issue in most Western countries right now is that it relates to the feeling of being part of society. For many people, if they don’t own a house they don’t feel like they have a stake in society, and those who don’t feel like they have a stake in society tend to not bother voting.

Reflecting this is the extremely strong negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and neither owning a house nor owning a house in a family trust. This was -0.79, showing that non-houseowners are one of New Zealand society’s most disenfranchised groups, despite also being a very large one.

The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and owning or part-owning a house, by contrast, was 0.68. This is very strong, and shows that homeowners definitely consider themselves listened-to by the political establishment.

In summary, the turnout rates among the various demographics in the 2020 General Election reflect the extent to which those various demographics are enfranchised by the political establishment. ACT/National-voting, old, educated, atheist, white, homeowning managers and professionals of either gender are those primarily enfranchised by the current order, and Maori Party/ALCP-voting, young, poorly-educated, Maori and Pacific Islander, renter labourers and beneficiaries are those primarily disenfranchised.

This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.

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!

The Biggest False Assumptions Made By Western Culture

The talking heads representing Western culture like to pretend that we’ve got everything squared away. That our ruling class has an accurate perception of the world and where it’s going, and therefore that everything is in good hands. The truth is far from this. Mainstream Western culture actually makes a number of false assumptions.

One of the most prominent is that nationalism is inherently violent. This falsehood is pushed heavily by the globalist interests who own the mainstream media. They have created the impression that nationalism and xenophobic aggression inevitably go together. This impression is reinforced by history channels full of footage of goosestepping German soldiers and snippets of Hitler speeches.

In reality, pro-nationalist sentiments are no more violent than pro-family ones. Nothing about a general attitude of caring for fellow members of one’s own nation is inherently more xenophobic or aggressive than a general attitude of caring for fellow members of one’s own family. In-group favouritism only implies out-group antipathy in a relative sense, not an absolute one.

Related to this is the delusion that democracy is inherently anti-tyranny. As with the previous false assumption, this delusion has resulted from propaganda in World War II and the Cold War. Democracy fought authoritarian national socialism and then authoritarian communism in the Cold War, therefore democracy is considered to naturally oppose tyranny.

In reality, democracy is just as capable of tyranny as any other system. The concept of “the tyranny of the majority” refers to this. New Zealand saw an blatant example of it with the 2020 cannabis referendum, the end result of which was that 48.4% of the population lost the right to use cannabis because 50.7% of the population voted for authoritarianism.

Underpinning democracy in the 21st Century is the false assumption that there is no genetic influence on behaviour. Humans are blank slates, we are told, and all are much the same as any other. Therefore, it’s possible for any number of them to be swapped out for cheap labour from across the world, and for everything to work out just as well.

It’s true that humans are born closer to a blank slate than any other animal is. However, human behavioural outcomes are still highly restricted by what the genes will allow. Intelligence is some 80% heritable by adulthood, which means that some populations will invariably become wealthier than others. Ultimately, society is a racial construct. As such, changing a society’s racial composition inevitably changes that society.

Another major behavioural false assumption states that behaviour is mostly the consequence of schooling. This assumption is commonly heard in reference to the Australian 501 deportees to New Zealand. The logic is that because these deportees are graduates of the Australian school system, their behaviour is Australia’s fault. But a person’s criminal inclinations are wired into place long before they finish (or even start) their schooling.

Erik Erikson accurately described the psychosocial challenges of human development, explaining that the first 24 months of life are the most crucial. Infants who don’t receive a loving and supportive environment in the first 24 months make up a majority of the world’s criminals. Early childhood abuse and neglect are the ultimate causes of most antisocial behaviour. So the parents are to blame far more often than the schooling.

Related to all the false assumptions about human development is the popular globalist falsehood that all human populations are precisely the same intellectually. Evolution, many believe, may have created a variety of different skin colours, hair colours, eye colours, body shapes and musculatures, but at no point did it play any role in shaping the brain, whether neurologically or behaviourally.

In fact, human populations vary greatly in intellectual capacity. Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70, whereas North East Asians have an average IQ of 105. This is over two standard deviations of difference. National IQs correlate more strongly with national distance from the Equator (supporting the late Richard Lynn’s Cold Winters Theory) than with any social measure. As such, the varying economic outcomes among the different human populations can most accurately be ascribed to different IQ levels.

The same over-agreeable fools who believe that particular false assumption also tend to believe another one: that women are happier having careers than families. This falsehood has been engineered by corporate media interests who want women joining the workplace to increase the labour supply. In truth, as anyone who has worked in an office knows, women are only rarely happy in full-time work outside of the family home.

Gaddafi, in his Green Book, lays out the reality about women in the chapter devoted to that topic. Of course women ought to be free to work and to have careers if they so choose. But their natural function is to bear and to raise children. Therefore, if women are prevented from this function on account of that they are forced to work, then they aren’t free, and can’t be expected to be happy. The assumption that career women are happier than other women is nonsense.

Perhaps the most pervasive false assumption of all – so pervasive that even to question it is considered by most people to be tantamount to admitting insanity – is that science has proven materialism. Before Darwin, the common story goes, some people believed that God created everything. But after Darwin, God was disproven.

Scientific proof of evolution is one thing, but scientific proof of consciousness is another. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the brain generates consciousness. This means, logically, that there is no evidence that consciousness ends when the brain dies. It follows, therefore, that consciousness is the prima materia, and not the physical world.

This logic is denied by most. Few people today have avoided falling under at least one of the false assumptions listed above. This is one of the primary reasons why life in the clown world of today is so bizarre, frightening and obscene.

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!

Decolonisation In Practice: A Historical Perspective

It’s common to hear demands nowadays for something called “decolonisation”. Apparently colonisation was the worst thing that ever happened to the peoples of the New World, and justice cannot be served until it is reversed. The media, educational and political machinery of the West is fully behind pushing the term and its logic. But what is it?

Some definitions of decolonisation refer to the colonised nation becoming independent of the colonising power. But this cannot be the sense in which most people use the term, because New Zealand has been independent from Britain for decades already and there are still calls for decolonisation. So the term must mean something else.

In most discourse, ‘decolonisation’ is a synonym for white erasure. This means the systematic removal of all white people and all white culture. It means the destruction of all white institutions – whites must not be allowed to organise in any sense. It means the criminalisation of all pro-white speech, even if spoken in self-defence (see the ‘It’s Okay To Be White‘ saga for proof). It means the demonisation of whites in speech and media (as per Marama Davidson).

Understanding this, it’s possible to look back on historical examples of decolonisation to get some clues about how it works in practice.

The first major example is Haiti. The island contained the first European settlement in the Americas, founded by Christopher Columbus in 1492. The French built it into a sugarcane colony, creating immense wealth from the product of slave labour. At one point, there were some 30,000 French living there and 700,000 African slaves.

Decolonisation came in the form of the Haitian Revolution, beginning in 1791 and ending in 1804. This sentence, from Wikipedia, says it all: “On 1 January 1804, Dessalines, the new leader under the dictatorial 1805 constitution, declared Haiti a free republic in the name of the Haitian people, which was followed by the massacre of the remaining whites.”

A second major example comes from Algeria. A French colony since 1830, Algeria was considered an integral part of France for over a century. Algerian French culture was established enough that it managed to produce a mind as great as that of Albert Camus. After Algeria became independent in 1962, some 800,000 French colonials were driven to France.

The next major example is Rhodesia. The white population of Rhodesia peaked at around 300,000 in the mid-1970s. After the Rhodesian Bush War and the reformation of Rhodesia as Zimbabwe in 1980, wholesale ethnic cleansing began. Between 1980 and 1990, some two-thirds of the white population were driven overseas.

Rhodesia is, along with Haiti and Algeria, an archetypal decolonisation story, in the sense that it ended with the extermination of white settlers. Anyone who thinks that decolonisation is about equity is either dishonest or stupid. The spectre of decolonisation should, if we are thinking clearly, invoke images of mass slaughter and rape.

South Africa is the best major example of ongoing decolonisation today. Since 1993, the year of the referendum that introduced black rule, the white proportion of the population has halved, from 16% to 7.5%. Almost one million white South Africans have been driven overseas, an ethnic cleansing that surpasses Algeria in absolute numbers, if not proportion.

Decolonisation in New Zealand would likely involve a path similar to the places above. There is a sizable number of radicals, aided by the usual communists and fellow travellers, who dream of doing to white New Zealanders what was done to white people in Haiti, Kenya, Algeria, Rhodesia, South Africa and other places. Some of them are influential.

It might be argued that Maoris simply don’t have the numbers to repeat the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Haiti, Algeria or Rhodesia. That may be true, but the main principle of decolonisation is the progressive exclusion of all white people from all positions of power or influence, however long it takes. This can be enacted without needing to win any military victory.

For example, some co-governance arrangements involve a 50:50 powershare between Maori interests and non-Maori interests. This is naturally a form of white erasure because it reduces the proportion of power held by whites, from the 70% befitting their population, to less than 50%.

From there, it’s possible to disenfranchise white people further by awarding scholarships preferentially to non-whites, by reserving spaces in prestigious educational courses specifically for non-whites, requiring some proportion of Government procurement to be made with non-white businesses, funding and promoting non-white arts and media, and dozens of other tactics.

It’s easy to imagine that, after a few decades of this, the situation for New Zealand’s whites would start to look like the situation of South African whites today.

The reason why co-governance is so controversial is that New Zealand’s white majority, consciously or not, can sense that the push for it is motivated by the same sentiments that led to the extermination of white populations elsewhere. As such, resisting co-governance might prove to be a matter of survival.

Decolonisation, in practice, amounts to white erasure. It’s not a sure thing that we will ever read the phrase “massacre of the remaining whites” in the context of New Zealand. However, it’s apparent that there are radical elements in New Zealand who would like to massacre whites, and that there are powerful foreign interests who would like to encourage such a thing in order to destabilise an enemy.

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!