Understanding New Zealand 3: Who Voted Greens in 2020

Like the ACT Party, the Greens have been described as the next generation’s alternative to the Establishment. Also like the ACT Party, the Greens increased their vote from 2017, although the Greens only increased slightly, from 162,443 votes (6.3% of the total) to 226,757 votes (7.9% of the total). This was enough for ten seats in Parliament.

As in previous years, those who voted Greens in 2020 were much better educated than the average New Zealander. This, more than anything else, was the most distinguishing characteristic of the Greens voter.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
No qualifications	-0.64
Level 1 certificate	-0.58
Level 2 certificate	-0.53
Level 3 certificate	0.31
Level 4 certificate	-0.60
Level 5 diploma	-0.71
Level 6 diploma	0.05
Bachelor’s degree	0.59
Honours degree	0.77
Master’s degree	0.74
Doctorate	0.77

The correlation between having any one of the three highest university degrees and voting Greens in 2020 was at least 0.74. This is one of the strongest correlations between any demographic variable and voting for a particular party in 2020.

The reason for this is simple, but widely denied. People who can understand scientific literature understand that the human race is on a path to destruction, and that our current lifestyles are not sustainable. As such, they vote for environmentalism. This pattern is replicated in most other Western countries.

On the other hand, the correlation between having no qualifications and voting Greens in 2020 was -0.64. Poorly-educated people often resent the scientific approach taken by the Greens, and don’t consider it particularly intelligent. In general, the more poorly-educated a person is, the more they will resent being told that our current lifestyles are unsustainable.

The Greens are a large enough movement to present different faces to different people. Although some might see Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman, and decide that the Greens are a dangerous pack of Brown Communists, others see Chloe Swarbrick and James Shaw and decide that the Greens are the only party who take science and scientific evidence seriously.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
Special voting Yes for euthanasia	0.70
Special voting Yes for cannabis	0.68

This latter point is shown most clearly in the results of the cannabis referendum. There was a very strong positive correlation of 0.68 between casting a special vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum and voting Greens in 2020.

The reason for this is clear: anyone who actually looks at the scientific evidence will understand that cannabis is medicinal and not anywhere near as harmful as its detractors have claimed it to be (two points that VJM Publishing discussed at length in The Case For Cannabis Law Reform). Given this, it seems unreasonably cruel to keep locking people up for using it.

The correlation was even more strongly positive for the euthanasia referendum, which speaks to the absence of religious superstition among Green Party voters. The most common reason for people to vote No in the euthanasia referendum was a superstitious fear of death, and not many Green voters suffer from this.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
No religion	0.31
Buddhism	0.22
Christianity	-0.39
Hinduism	0.09
Islam	0.10
Judaism	0.54
Maori religions	-0.30
Spiritualism and New Age religions	0.34

It’s easily possible to overstate how irreligious the Greens are. Although there was a significant negative correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and being either Christian (-0.39) or a follower of a Maori religion (-0.30), these were the only religions to be so negatively correlated.

The strongest positive correlation between voting Green in 2020 and belonging to a religion was with Judaism, at 0.54. Next was Buddhism, at 0.22. For the most part, this follows the rule that, the better educated a voter is, the more likely they are to vote Green.

The one notable exception is people who follow Spiritualism and New Age religions. This group is not particularly well educated, but they like to vote Green nevertheless. The correlation between being a Spiritualist or New Ager and voting Greens in 2020 was 0.34. The explanation is probably because Spiritualists and New Agers share with the Greens many anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist sentiments.

There was a significant positive correlation, of 0.31, between having no religion and voting Greens in 2020. This speaks to the extent to which Greens supporters are members of the scientific and technical elite, which is educated into a scientific materialist paradigm at high school and university.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
Living in an urban electorate	0.30
Living on the North Island	-0.08
Percentage of males	-0.16

Surprising to many is the fact that Greens voters in 2020 were significantly more urban than rural. Some might suggest that this shows the Greens to not really care much about environmental issues. A more plausible explanation is that educated people have to move to urban environments to get jobs that make the most of their skills, and so it’s the fact that Green voters are highly educated that explains why they are so urban.

Green voters are slightly more likely to live on the South Island. These correlations reveal that their strongest support is in places like Christchurch, Dunedin and Nelson. Indeed, these are the places where environmentalist and anti-consumerist sentiments are strongest.

Green voters are also slightly more likely to be female, although the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and percentage of males was also not statistically significant, at -0.16. This suggests that educated young women like Julie Anne Genter and Chloe Swarbrick represent the archetypal Green supporter.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
Working as a manager	-0.04
Working as a professional	0.75
Working as a technician or trades worker	-0.50
Working as a community or personal service worker	-0.03
Working as a clerical or administrative worker	0.03
Working as a sales worker	-0.09
Working as a machinery operator or driver	-0.58
Working as a labourer	-0.48

The most striking thing about Greens voters is how heavily represented they are among professionals. The correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and working as a professional was 0.75, one of the strongest between any party and any occupation. This is inevitable given how well-educated Greens voters and professionals both are.

There were significant negative correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and working as a machinery operator or driver (-0.58), as a technician or trades worker (-0.50) or as a labourer (-0.48), three of the most typically working-class occupations.

These correlations might seem strange, given that the Greens are a firmly left-wing party and therefore are supposed to represent the working class. The paradox at the heart of the Greens is that, despite their positioning, few working-class people vote for them.

The reality is that the Greens, like all Parliamentary parties, represent not a specific part of the population but a specific part of the Establishment. The Greens’ turf is the young, well-educated globalists whose parents usually vote National.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
European	0.19
Maori	-0.27
Pacific Islander	-0.19
Asian	0.12

Many will also be surprised, given the virtue signalling that the Greens do around Maori issues, that there was a significant negative correlation (-0.27) between voting Greens in 2020 and being Maori. There was also a negative correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and being a Pacific Islander.

On the other hand, there were positive correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and being either a Kiwi of European descent or Asian. Neither of these correlations were significant, but they reflected the general trend that the better-educated any one group of New Zealanders is, the more likely they are to vote for the Green Party.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
< $5,000	-0.01
$5,001-$10,000	0.34
$10,001-$20,000	-0.37
$20,001-$30,000	-0.37
$30,001-$50,000	-0.52
$50,001-$70,000	-0.04
$70,000+	0.52

That voting Green is not considered a working-class option is underlined by the fact that there is a negative correlation of -0.52 between voting Greens in 2020 and having an income of $30,001-$50,000. Someone working 2,000 hours a week, or close to it, at or just above minimum wage will be in the middle of this income bracket.

On the other hand, there was a strong positive correlation of 0.52 between voting Greens in 2020 and having an income of $70,000+. Many people in the top 15-20% of income are Greens supporters, which is a function of the fact that Greens supporters tend to be better educated than average and that educated people tend to earn more than average.

Variable	Voting Greens 2020
Aged 20-24	0.56
Aged 25-29	0.45
Aged 30-34	0.34
Aged 35-39	0.24
Aged 40-44	0.21
Aged 45-49	0.08
Aged 50-54	-0.02
Aged 55-59	-0.13
Aged 60-64	-0.17
Aged 65-69	-0.16
Aged 70-74	-0.16
Aged 75-79	-0.17
Aged 80-84	-0.15
Aged 85+	-0.04

Up until pension age, there is a clear trend: the younger someone is, the more likely they are to vote Greens.

The aged 20-24 demographic, or the “student” demographic, are the strongest supporters. The correlation between being in this age bracket and voting Greens in 2020 was 0.56. This contrasts sharply with the correlation between being aged 20-24 and voting Labour in 2020, which was -0.02.

For every age bracket older than this up until pension age, the correlation between being in that bracket and voting Greens in 2020 becomes less positive or more negative. The correlation between being aged 60-64 and voting Greens in 2020 was -0.17, and the correlations for older age brackets were similar.

These numbers support the idea of the four basic political niches, with the Greens representing young women (or the alternative left). It remains to be seen whether Green-voting young women switch to Labour in coming years as they get older.

Variable	Voting Greens 2020
Work in agriculture, forestry and fishing	-0.34
Work in mining	-0.12
Work in manufacturing	-0.69
Work in electricity, gas, water and waste	-0.20
Work in construction	-0.46
Work in wholesale trade	-0.30
Work in retail trade	-0.23
Work in accommodation and food service	0.41
Work in transport, postal and warehousing	-0.41
Work in information media and telecommunications	0.64
Work in financial and insurance services	0.44
Work in rental, hiring and real estate services	0.05
Work in professional, scientific and technical services	0.62
Work in administrative and support services	-0.05
Work in public administration and safety	0.51
Work in education and training	0.29
Work in healthcare and social assistance	0.04
Work in arts and recreation services	0.61

Examining the industries in which Greens supporters work reveals that they are heavily represented in cultural and social jobs as well as intellectual ones.

Given the strength of the correlations between having a university degree and voting Greens in 2020, it’s unsurprising that Greens supporters are heavily represented among those working in professional, scientific and technical services. The correlation between working in such services and voting Greens in 2020 was 0.62.

There was an even stronger correlation between working in information media and telecommunications and voting Greens in 2020 – this was 0.64. As with professional, scientific and technical services, employment in this industry generally requires a good education. The information media and telecommunications industry also attracts many young people, which increases the proportion of Greens voters among them.

The third industry to have heavy Green representation is working in arts and recreation services. This industry is heavily populated with the young and talented and these people tend to vote Green. Women like Eleanor Catton are typical of the kind of high-IQ Green supporter that works in the arts.

Green voters are least likely to work in typical working-class industries, which is again surprising to those who consider the Greens to be a leftist movement. There was a significant negative correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and working in manufacturing (-0.69), working in construction (-0.46), working in transport, postal and warehousing (-0.41) or working in agriculture, forestry and fishing (-0.34).

The significant correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and working in accommodation and food services can be explained by the fact that many Greens voters are students, and students comprise a large proportion of those working in that industry.

Variable	Voting Greens 2020	Voting Greens 2017
Voting Labour same year	0.29	0.11
Voting National same year	-0.16	-0.25
Voting ACT same year	-0.08	0.17
Voting New Zealand First same year	-0.24	-0.48
Voting Maori Party same year	-0.15	-0.06
Voting ALCP same year	-0.23	-0.13
Voting New Conservative/Conservative same year	-0.35	-0.33
Voting The Opportunities Party same year	0.84	0.77
Voting Advance NZ same year	-0.36	n/a
Voting Sustainable NZ same year	0.26	n/a

The Greens might not have that much in common with their fellow leftists in Labour, but there was a significant positive correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 (0.29). The correlation between voting for these parties was not significant in 2017.

The strongest positive correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting for any other party that year was with voting The Opportunities Party in 2020, which was 0.84. Both parties seem to be targeting the same niche, of young urban leftists. The danger for the Greens in 2023 will be that The Opportunities Party wins so many votes that the Greens fall under the 5% threshold.

Some might be surprised to see that the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting National in 2020 (-0.16) is more strongly negative than the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting ACT in 2020 (-0.08). After all, ACT is even further to the right than National is, and the Greens are a far-left party.

This can be explained by the fact that both the Greens and ACT appeal primarily to younger and better-educated people, whereas National (like Labour) appeals more to older and more poorly-educated people. This means that the support base of the Greens and ACT overlap demographically in ways that they do not overlap ideologically.

The strongest negative correlations with voting Greens in 2020 were with voting Advance NZ in 2020 (-0.36) or voting New Conservatives in 2020 (-0.35). The reasons for these are obvious: Advance NZ and New Conservatives are the two parties with the most poorly-educated followers. They both attract old, poorly-educated and religious voters, which is the exact opposite of the Greens.

Variable	Voting Green 2020
Median income	0.37
Mean income	0.49

Unsurprisingly, given the heavy representation of Greens voters in highly-paid occupations and industries, there were significant positive correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and both median income (0.37) and mean income (0.49). These correlations aren’t quite as strong as the correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and having any of the university degrees, because many Greens voters are still too young to have achieved any workplace seniority.

Variable	Voting Greens in 2020
Income from wage or salary	0.44
Income from self-employment or owning own business	0.15
Income from interest, dividends, rent or other investments	0.43
Income from ACC or private work insurance	-0.47
Income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension	-0.20
Income from Jobseeker Support	-0.27
Income from Sole Parent Support	-0.31
Income from Supported Living Payment	-0.06
Income from Student Allowance	0.54

Unsurprisingly for a party with so much student support, the correlation between between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving an income from the Student Allowance (0.54) was stronger than any correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving income from any other source.

Some, however, might be surprised to learn that there was a significant positive correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving an income from interest, dividends, rents or other investments (0.43). This statistic speaks to the paradox at the heart of the Greens: they are privileged people speaking for the non-privileged.

In summary, the typical Greens voter is young and urban, and is either on a Student Allowance or has earned a postgraduate degree and is earning a full-time salary as a professional in a major urban centre.

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 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!

How The Television News Works

The six o’clock television news is the single most powerful force in existence for manipulating public opinion. At no other time during the day are so many people tuned into one single source of information. This unique dominance means that whatever is spoken about on The News is spoken about at work the next day. The News sets the agenda.

The sad, bitter truth is that The News is not, in any sense, a genuine effort to inform honestly about the issues of the day. The News is, and always has been, propaganda, i.e. an effort to regiment the minds of the public and to persuade them to consent to certain actions.

This propaganda is put together by the television programmers – exceptionally skilled psychologists who order the segments of the television shows to achieve the best effect. Here, “best effect” is defined as whatever is desired by the beneficiaries of the programming – the corporate interests who buy the advertising.

The television news is a simple work, but it’s possibly the most effective and powerful one on Earth, if one measures how many people are affected by it. The work occurs in two phases: the first is when the viewer is made to feel tension by watching a news bulletin, and the second is when the viewer is given relief from the tension by watching an advertisement.

The news bulletins themselves are of two kinds.

The first sells fear. In this category are stories about rising Chinese military power, global climate change, Islamic terrorism and financial collapse. The News usually leads with one of these stories, to set the tone. Once the viewer is made afraid, the television programmer can then double down on the fear.

The second sells anger. In this category are stories about lesser humans getting away with it, such as dark-skinned people getting light sentences for violence or sex crimes, or welfare increases, or a lower-class person questioning whatever their society’s noble lie is (in our case, the noble lie is equalitarianism).

The advertisements can be anything, but their common characteristic is that they relieve the fear and anger generated in the previous phase. To this end, it doesn’t matter if the advertisements are selling power, leisure, excitement, style, class, friendship or any other emotion. They only have to release the tension built up in the first phase.

So long as the advertisement causes the body to release tension, natural physiology will lead to that person forming a positive association with whatever product is displayed at the same time. Even if only at a subconscious level, the person watching The News comes to associate the product advertised with a decrease in anxiety and stress. Having formed such an association, the viewer is effectively programmed to behave in a way that benefits the advertiser (usually by buying their product).

It’s all but impossible to avoid being programmed in this manner if one watches television. The only way to escape is to not react emotionally to anything displayed on the screen.

The usual result of such programming is that, when a person is at the supermarket and sees a product that was advertised during The News, they recall the pleasant, relaxed feeling that they felt during the advertisement and associates that with the product in front of them. This often leads to a sale.

Even if the programming doesn’t cause people to buy a particular product, it achieves a more sinister objective: to regiment the minds of the public.

Most people are far too busy with their everyday lives to conduct a philosophical investigation into what’s right or wrong, so they just go along with the crowd. But they’re also too busy to conduct an accurate and objective survey of what the crowd thinks, so they trust The News to tell them.

The News tells its audience what the issues of the day are, what most people think about those issues and what they should be outraged over. They do this by normalising certain attitudes and by abnormalising others.

For instance, by making a big deal out of race issues, and by prominently featuring people to speak about race issues, The News promotes race consciousness, and normalises viewing the world through a racial lens. At the same time, they minimalise or trivialise class issues, denying class consciousness, and abnormalise viewing the world through a class lens.

The result has been the intensification of race neurosis to race hysteria level. This myopic focus on racism has made it impossible for people to develop the necessary class consciousness to resist the ruling class and its depredations. The television news, by dividing the people up among racial and gender lines, plays a crucial role in destroying that class consciousness.

The television news, then, works by modifying the behaviour of its audience to the benefit of its sponsors. The corporate, banking and financial interests that buy television advertising get to decide how the viewers will be programmed, and then the television programmers schedule their programs to make this possible.

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!

Free Speech Under Attack VI

This reading carries on from here.

The 16th chapter in Free Speech Under Attack is ‘Free Speech and the Fate of Socrates’ by Tim Wikiriwhi.

This chapter recounts the trial and death of Socrates, who angered the elites of ancient Athens by telling the truth. Those who represented the status quo, and who therefore benefit the most from the commonly-accepted lies, were happy to tell lies about Socrates or to use political force against him.

This is not much different to how Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt got the mainstream media to tell the nation that VJM Publishing was similar in mentality to Brenton Tarrant, just because we sold ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts. There is nothing that a corrupt ruling class hates more than an honest person explaining the lies and falsehoods used by the ruling class to maintain their dominance.

Wikiriwhi puts it best when he says that “Free speech has always been despised by those seeking to perpetuate falsehoods and control the minds of the ‘sheeple’.” This point cannot be laboured enough – those against free speech always take their position because they wish to perpetuate lies.

Unfortunately, Wikiriwhi credits Protestant Christianity with free speech in the West, when Protestants were still burning people at the stake for heresy as little as 400 years ago. Calvinists in Switzerland were even happy to burn to death as great a man as Michael Servetus. The truth is that all the rights we possess have been prised from the claws of an Abrahamic theocracy that has darkened the West for over 1,600 years.

However, Wikiriwhi is dead right when he says that free speech has to be defended to the utmost, for, without it, all the other freedoms are lost in turn. He’s also right when he points out that the modern left hate no-one more than a member of a slave demographic who has escaped the plantation (Wikiriwhi is Maori). He concludes by pointing out that trying to silence people is the real hate.

The 17th chapter is ‘Hey, Give Us Back Our Rights’ by Robert Stanmore.

Stanmore opens this chapter by recounting the ways that free speech rights have been stripped away in favour of supposed other rights. The New Zealand Human Rights Act makes abusive and insulting language illegal – Stanmore contends that this should be changed. Laws must punish actions, not thoughts.

He points out that most of the political elite support restrictions on free speech, as shown by their widespread support for the Harmful Digital Communications Act in 2015. As such, the people are going to have to fight them in order to assert their rights to free speech.

This chapter mentions, at several points, David Seymour’s Freedom to Speak Bill. It also points out that it is often foreign interests that are against our rights to speak freely. Fundamentally, however, our enemies are not foreigners but the enemies of Western Civilisation themselves, whether external or internal. Free speech is an essential human right, and anyone who would take it from us is our enemy.

In summary, Free Speech Under Attack is an excellent and brave book by some intelligent and original thinkers. It’s a very timely volume, given the relentless and broad-fronted assault on free speech currently being carried out by authoritarians, particularly leftist ones. With any luck, many of the suggestions in it will be adopted by a wider movement of free people.

Anyone who believes in cognitive liberty and who doesn’t trust the mainstream media (i.e. the typical VJM Publishing reader) would enjoy reading this book.

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!

Neoliberal Totalitarianism

The 20th Century gave us the right-wing totalitarianism of the Nazis and the left-wing totalitarianism of the Communists. The trauma caused by these ideologies caused people to gravitate towards the centre, in the belief that this was the opposite of totalitarianism. But the 21st Century has given us a new, centrist form of totalitarianism: the neoliberal form.

Neoliberal totalitarianism announced itself last week with the unpersoning of American President Donald Trump. Trump was first banned from Twitter, and then FaceBook, and then the rest of the neoliberal establishment piled in. Within days, he was even banned from Spotify.

The tech tyrants justified this by saying that Trump had violated the terms and conditions of the respective websites. But Twitter continues to host representatives of ISIS – who have been described as “winning the social media war” – as well as supporters of the Chinese Communist Party who argue in favour of concentration camps, and people sharing videos celebrating the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Nazi totalitarianism sought to control everyone’s lives down to the minutest detail, and was willing to destroy anyone who resisted. Communist totalitarianism also sought to control everyone’s lives down to the minutest detail, and was also willing to destroy anyone who resisted. The rhetoric that these forces used may have been different, but fundamentally both were authoritarian movements.

Neoliberal totalitarianism is just as bad. Like Nazism and Communism, it seeks total control over the lives of the citizens. Much like other totalitarian systems, it involves Big Business and Big Government working together against the common person. The degree of authoritarianism is the same. As Trump learned, when the neoliberal totalitarians decide that you’re gone, you’re gone.

Neoliberal totalitarianism is much more sophisticated than either Nazism or Communism.

The crude tyrannies of the 20th Century were not at all shy about making enemies, whether external or internal. Theirs was very much a rule of iron. Dissenters were crushed, sometimes literally as in the case of Tienanmen Square. Consent was achieved through submission to fear. Secret police were an everyday menace.

The tyrannies of the 21st Century are more the rule of silver. The logic is to abnormalise violence as much as possible, with the intent of making it unthinkable for any of their victims to use it against them. Neoliberal totalitarianism achieves its power through absolute control of the media matrix.

The reason for the current purge of wrongthinkers from social media is to maintain the effectiveness of that media control.

Josef Goebbels, in his Principles of Propaganda, wrote that “Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority. It must issue all the propaganda directives. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale. It must oversee other agencies’ activities which have propaganda consequences.”

This totalitarian approach was the basis of the Nazi propaganda strategy. Far from recognising the value of free speech, the Nazis banned every propaganda organ that wasn’t under their control. The Nazi Party would be the sole source of truth for the German citizenry. A similar situation arose in Communist countries.

Goebbels understood that, if all other voices were silenced, people would unquestioningly follow the narratives they were given. It was only when other voices started to question the veracity of the Nazi propaganda that it started to become less effective. So all those questioning it were silenced. Anyone pointing out how the Nazis were lying were liquidated, many in concentration camps.

Totalitarian governments attack free speech with more fervour than they attack any other freedom. This is because free speech is the basis of every other freedom. Without free speech, the other freedoms cannot be peacefully defended. The loss of free speech is therefore the breach in the dam that leads inevitably to tyranny.

The neoliberal totalitarianism of today is pushing for the same degree of central control over media content that existed in Nazi or Communist countries. They do this out of similar motivations to the Nazi and Communist totalitarians. Desiring power, and being indifferent to the suffering of the people whose freedoms would be lost, the totalitarian is happy to trade those freedoms away for more control.

The only major difference between the neoliberal totalitarians of 2020 and the Nazi/Communist totalitarians of 1940 is that today’s tyrants are more subtle. They use their total control of the apparatus of propaganda to train the citizens to police each other. They don’t need to put wrongthinkers in gulags if they can train the citizens to shun those wrongthinkers into submission.

Because the citizens themselves act as the overseers of the slave plantation, it feels like they are doing so consensually. As long as no-one questions why it is that people think they way they do, or who decided that they should think that way, the hate machine can roll onwards unimpeded. In this manner, wrongthinkers can be neutralised without provoking resistance.

Any future solution to neoliberal totalitarianism must base itself on anti-totalitarian grounds. This will require common agreement across all of left, right and centre that totalitarian measures are unacceptable. The first step might be to declare common agreement with George Washington that “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

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!