Observant Anzacs have noticed something very suspicious in recent years. Both the Australian and the New Zealand Governments have embarked on a push towards “co-governance”. This is a poorly-defined concept that manifests in boondoggles like the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament in Australia and Three Waters in New Zealand. This article explains what’s going on.
Like most inexplicably popular political narratives, the narrative that we need co-governance is pushed by globalist forces. Their ownership of the apparatus of propaganda enables them to get everyone talking about whatever issues those globalist forces desire. What they want is people talking about identity politics, and what they don’t want is people talking about class.
So the narrative doing the rounds in Anzac political circles at the moment is that there is an urgent need for some kind of “reconciliation” between the filthy, thieving white invaders and the peaceful, innocent brown and black natives. Without this reconciliation, we can only expect more violence and social discord.
This narrative is also being pushed in North America, proving its globalist origins. In Japan and Korea also, the globalist forces that try to make white Westerners ashamed of their ancestors are pushing the same narratives. Making people hate their ancestors, and by extension their families and nations, is a core strategy of subversion. People who hate their ancestors won’t fight to defend their families and nations.
Predictably, the globalist class pushes two truly shitty subnarratives and demands that we plebs choose between them when, in reality, for us to make any choice is to lose. This is their modus operandi, as seen previously in the “Christianity vs. Atheism” false dilemma (previously described as The Clown World Fork), the “men vs. women” false dilemma and the “Communism vs. Capitalism” false dilemma.
The two subnarratives we get are “Anti-white vs. racist”. Either you hate white people, or you’re a racist. In practice, this means that if you’re white and you don’t agree with your own disenfranchisement, you’re a racist. Moreover, if you’re brown and don’t agree with the disenfranchisement of whites, you’re a race traitor.
Pushing these subnarratives all but guarantees that the population fights with itself and ignores their globalist oppressors. Every parent knows that if you unfairly favour one child they will inevitably end up fighting with the others who resent them. The same logic applies to nations. Help one subgroup at the expense of others, and those others will attack the subgroup that was helped, while the nation-wreckers sit back and laugh.
The purpose of the push to co-governance is not only to weaken white people (although this is a goal that is thereby achieved) but also to pit them against Maori and Aboriginal people. As with children, all it takes is for Anzac governments to give money and privilege to Maoris and Aborigines that they don’t give to equally poor white people, and the end result will be the people fighting themselves.
Job done.
Revealing the fact that co-governance is not intended to help white people, they are browbeaten into accepting it by having ‘racist!’ screamed at them. If co-governance was beneficial to the nation, it wouldn’t need abuse to sell it – it would sell itself through simple logic. The fact that people get called racist for not agreeing to it is proof that it’s not in their interests.
The subdivision of whites into middle-class oppressors, who are thrust into the spotlight, and a working class, who are forgotten, is a bonus for the globalists. The white middle class understand the privilege of their position, and so fight for the status quo. The working class, the only one capable of producing men of true revolutionary sentiment, are completely disenfranchised and marginalised.
What the globalists are ultimately trying to engineer is a situation where the average working-class white Anzac and the average working-class Maori or Aborigine can look at each other in the street and see an enemy. The more animosity that exists between the constituent elements of the Anzac working class, the less animosity goes upwards to the rulers of that working class.
Divide and conquer – it’s a strategy as old as time.
The absolute last thing they want is a situation where working-class Maoris stand up and say that Maoris and whites need to team up against a corrupt government, as an 83-year old one recently did at Waitangi (before getting dragged away). Anyone who claims that the government is the mutual enemy of the working class is decried as a conspiracy theorist or stochastic terrorist.
Paying reparations on a racial basis will inevitably privilege middle-class Maoris and Aborigines above working-class whites, leading to discord and internal strife. True justice would involve, as VJM Publishing has argued before, that reparations be paid to the working class on the basis that they were the working class. The globalists don’t want that, though – they want us at each other’s throats, which is why they’re pushing the co-governance narrative.
The New Zealand First Party were polling poorly in the lead-up to the 2020 General Election, and they did not recover on the night. Their 75,020 votes comprised 2.6% of the party vote, not enough to win representation in Parliament. With that, Winston Peters disappeared, perhaps for the last time.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
European
0.27
Maori
0.32
Pacific Islander
-0.18
Asian
-0.55
The most important thing to note about New Zealand First is that it is (or, at least, pretends to be) a nationalist party. As such, it appeals to demographic groups in proportion to how Kiwi those groups are. So the more loyalty a person has to overseas interests, the less likely they are to vote New Zealand First.
Almost all Maori voters were born in New Zealand, which is why the correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and belonging to a particular race was the most strongly positive in the case of Maoris (0.32). The next most positive correlation was with Europeans (0.27), and the strongest negative correlation was with Asians (-0.55).
This closely mirrors the depth of the roots that each of those groups has in New Zealand. It’s fair to say that, the deeper one’s roots, the deeper the nationalist sentiments, and so the more likely one is to vote New Zealand First.
Variable
% of electors NZ-born
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
0.55
Voting ALCP in 2020
0.69
Voting Advance NZ in 2020
0.72
Voting Labour in 2020
-0.05
Voting National in 2020
-0.24
Voting Greens in 2020
-0.24
Voting ACT in 2020
-0.01
Voting TEA Party in 2020
-0.75
Underlying New Zealand First’s nationalist credentials are a high proportion of NZ-born voters. No party got both more votes than New Zealand First and a higher proportion of New Zealand-born voters in 2020.
The only parties to get a higher proportion of New Zealand-born voters were the ALCP and the Advance NZ parties, who, like New Zealand First, are heavily supported by disenfranchised people. The globalist parties, like National, Greens and the TEA Party, were the opposite to New Zealand First by this measure.
Some might be surprised that the correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and being born in New Zealand was not higher. After all, very few foreigners vote for nationalist parties anywhere. The explanation is that New Zealand First voters tend to be disadvantaged, which means they are often forced to live alongside cheap labour imports and refugees, who almost never vote for nationalists.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
No qualifications
0.51
Level 1 certificate
0.59
Level 2 certificate
0.49
Level 3 certificate
-0.13
Level 4 certificate
0.62
Level 5 diploma
0.37
Level 6 diploma
-0.00
Bachelor’s degree
-0.55
Honours degree
-0.46
Master’s degree
-0.50
Doctorate
-0.34
New Zealand First voters in 2020 tended to be poorly educated. There was a significant negative correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and having any of the university degrees. These correlations were much weaker than in 2017, when all four correlations (between voting New Zealand First and having a degree) were around -0.70.
The strongest support for New Zealand First came from older people with School Certificate (Level 1 certificate) and younger people who have completed a polytechnic course (Level 4 certificate). This tells us that nationalist sentiments were more common among working class voters.
This set of correlations can best be explained by the fact that a large proportion of New Zealand First voters are rural and Maori, two groups that tend to be less educated than others.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
Working as a manager
0.10
Working as a professional
-0.41
Working as a technician or trades worker
0.28
Working as a community or personal services worker
0.31
Working as a clerical or administrative worker
-0.27
Working as a sales worker
-0.32
Working as a machinery operator or driver
0.17
Working as a labourer
0.36
Variable
Voting New Zealand First 2020
Working in agriculture, forestry or fishing
0.44
Working in mining
0.18
Working in manufacturing
0.09
Working in electricity, gas, water and waste services
0.33
Working in construction
0.29
Working in wholesale trade
-0.39
Working in retail trade
0.07
Working in accommodation and food services
-0.16
Working in transport, postal and warehousing
-0.03
Working in information media and telecommunications
-0.45
Working in financial and insurance services
-0.50
Working in rental, hiring and real estate services
-0.15
Working in professional, scientific and technical services
-0.50
Working in administrative and support services
-0.25
Working in public administration and safety
0.00
Working in education and training
0.02
Working in healthcare and social assistance
0.34
Working in arts and recreation services
-0.15
Working in other services
0.31
There was a significant positive correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and working as a technician or trades worker (0.28), as a labourer (0.36), or working in agriculture, forestry or fishing (0.44), electricity, gas, water and waste services (0.33) or construction (0.29). In other words, there was significant New Zealand First support among typical working-class people.
This can be easily explained with reference to the fact that working-class Kiwis are the big losers from mass immigration, which drives down their wages and drives up their rent. As such, working-class Kiwis are much more likely to support nationalist – and thereby anti-immigration – sentiments than middle-class ones.
There were significant negative correlations between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and working as a professional (-0.41) or working in professional, scientific and technical services (-0.50). This reflects the fact that nationalism often doesn’t appeal to the highly educated, who see it as potentially restricting their freedom to travel and to ply their trade in new places.
It’s necessary to note, however, that a high proportion of people working in professional industries are foreign-born. It might be that middle-class Kiwis are just as likely as working-class ones to be nationalists, but because the overwhelming majority of immigrants are middle-class and not nationalists (at least not Kiwi nationalists), middle-class people, taken as a whole, are not nationalists.
Contrary to the perception that New Zealand First voters are all selfish bigots, there were significant positive correlations between voting for them in 2020 and working as a community or personal services worker (0.31) or working in healthcare and social assistance (0.34). Selfish people don’t tend to choose occupations or industries where helping other people is the focus.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
No children
-0.52
One child
-0.34
Two children
0.14
Three children
0.55
Four children
0.60
Five children
0.45
Six or more children
0.32
Being nationalists, it follows that New Zealand First supporters like to breed. The correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and family size was strongest with those who have four children (0.60). There were also significant positive correlations between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and having three children (0.55), five children (0.45) or six or more children (0.32).
On the other hand, there was a significant negative correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and having no children (-0.52) or only one child (-0.34).
These correlations can best be explained by reference to the fact that New Zealand First voters tend to be rural, Maori and poorly-educated, which are three factors suggesting a higher-than-usual birthrate. Moreover, the sort of person who moves to a big city and does not have children is almost invariably attracted by globalist ideals.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
Is married
0.02
Is divorced/separated/widowed
0.64
Has never married
-0.23
One of the harder-to-explain correlations between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and another demographic variable is that with being divorced/separated/widowed, which was 0.64. It’s not immediately apparent why nationalists who have large families would so often be divorced or separated.
The most plausible reason is that New Zealand First has been highly demonised in the mainstream media and in popular consciousness, and therefore attracts an unusually high proportion of disagreeable people, the agreeable ones having fallen in behind the mainstream parties. As there is a correlation between being disagreeable and getting divorced, disagreeableness could explain the high divorce rates of New Zealand First voters in 2020.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
Lives in an urban electorate
-0.43
Lives on North Island
0.10
Is male
-0.00
New Zealand First had strong rural support in 2020. A correlation of -0.43 between living in an urban electorate and voting New Zealand First in 2020 was as strong as the correlation between living in an urban electorate and voting NZ Outdoors Party in 2020, and was exceeded only by voting Advance NZ in 2020 (-0.56).
The slight North Island bias of New Zealand First voters was not significant, and probably reflected Winston Peters’ personal support in his home electorate, rather than an actual North Island bias. It is probably not the influence of a higher proportion of Maori voters on the North Island, because there is a higher proportion of Pacific Island and Asian voters on the North Island as well.
New Zealand First voters tend to be sterotyped as angry men, but the correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and being male was -0.00, i.e. non-existent. Popular consciousness refuses to accept the extent to which nationalism and anti-globalism are supported by women. The voters of actual far-right parties, such as ACT and New Conservative, had a pro-male bias in 2020, whereas New Zealand First voters did not.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
Receiving NZ Super or Veteran’s pension
0.47
Receiving Jobseeker Support
0.34
Receiving Sole Parent Support
0.24
Receiving Supported Living Payment
0.25
Receiving Student Allowance
-0.31
New Zealand First voters are often characterised as angry pensioners who can’t handle change. This perception fits nicely with the stereotype of nationalists as elderly bigots. There might be some truth in this, but it’s misleading.
For one thing, the correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and being on a pension was 0.47, which is significant but not particularly strong. The correlations between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and being on other benefits were also significant: with being on Jobseeker Support it was 0.34, and with being on Sole Parent Support it was 0.24. Very few people on Sole Parent Support are elderly.
For another, the correlation between being on a pension and voting ACT in 2020 was 0.72, with voting New Conservative it was 0.65 and with voting National in 2020 it was 0.64. So the elderly bigot segment of the population would apparently much rather vote for right-wing parties led by whites than for a centrist party led by a Maori.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First in 2020
Aged 20-24
-0.44
Aged 25-29
-0.47
Aged 30-34
-0.50
Aged 35-39
-0.57
Aged 40-44
-0.40
Aged 45-49
-0.09
Aged 50-54
0.18
Aged 55-59
0.44
Aged 60-64
0.44
Aged 65-69
0.45
Aged 70-74
0.43
Aged 75-79
0.39
Aged 80-84
0.31
Aged 85+
0.19
New Zealand First voters are, true to stereotype, significantly older than average. There was a significant negative correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and belonging to any age group under 45 years of age, and there was a significant positive correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and belonging to any age group between 55 and 84.
These correlations are, however, not as strong as those between voting for other parties.
The strongest positive correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and belonging to any age group was with those aged 65-69. The correlation in this instance was 0.45. But the correlation between being in this age group and voting ACT in 2020 was much stronger, at 0.77. The correlations between being in this age group and voting National in 2020 (0.67) or voting New Conservative in 2020 (0.61) were also stronger.
In fact, the correlations between being in any age group above 45 years of age and voting National in 2020 were stronger than any of the correlations between being in those age groups and voting New Zealand First in 2020. So New Zealand First’s reputation as a pensioner’s party is mostly unfounded. The reality is that pensioners tend to be wealthy, on account of having much longer than average to accumulate wealth, and wealthy people prefer National to New Zealand First.
Variable
Voting New Zealand First 2020
No religion
0.18
Being a Buddhist
-0.55
Being a Christian
-0.09
Being a Hindu
-0.41
Being a Muslim
-0.43
Being a Jew
-0.37
Following Maori religions
0.36
Following Spiritualism or New Age religions
0.35
Further proof that New Zealand First voters are not from the political establishment comes from the correlations between voting for them in 2020 and religion.
Highly telling is the negative (if not significant) correlation between voting New Zealand First in 2020 and being a Christian. This was -0.09. Given how many Christians are in positions of power in New Zealand, the fact that few of them vote New Zealand First reveals the extent to which New Zealand First is an anti-Establishment party.
The most strongly negative correlations between being religious and voting New Zealand First in 2020 were with being a Buddhist (-0.55), being a Muslim (-0.43), being a Hindu (-0.41) and being a Jew (-0.37). This can be easily explained by reference to the fact that people in these four groups tend to be immigrants, and therefore do not possess nationalist sentiments.
The most strongly positive correlations between being religious and voting New Zealand First in 2020 were with the Maori religions (0.36) and with Spiritualism and New Age beliefs (0.35). The former can be easily explained by the heavy Maori support for New Zealand First. The latter can be explained by the fact that many New Zealand First voters feel like outcasts in a globalist system, and people who follow Spiritualism and New Age beliefs are also usually outside the mainstream.
In summary, New Zealand First voters are a cross-section of salt-of-the-Earth working-class Kiwis. They like to have children, don’t like to live in big cities and don’t care much about higher education. Most of them belong to similar demographics as Labour voters, but are put off by Labour’s pandering to globalist interests.
The stereotypes about them carry a grain of truth, in that New Zealand First voters tend to be older than average, but are grossly misleading in the main. For one thing, Maoris vote New Zealand First more than white people do; for another, New Zealand First voters are much more likely to be family people than crotchety old bigots.
The best hope for New Zealand First in the 2023 General Election is possibly that disaffection with Labour’s Maori Caucus sees many Maori voters switch to New Zealand First. Labour gets far more Maori votes (by absolute measure) than either The Maori Party or New Zealand First, and if New Zealand First can pick up most of those Maori voters who have abandoned Labour since 2020 they could get over 5% in the 2023 General Election.
*
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.
The Western ruling class has invented a term – stochastic terrorism – as part of their ongoing effort to silence all dissenters. The term has been invented specifically to shut down challenges to that ruling class. Mainstream media has even defined stochastic terrorism as “when Trump or his allies encourage violence”. But this, like most things the ruling class say, is a monstrous lie.
The term is used whenever a terrorist attack occurs, to link the attack to anyone the ruling class doesn’t like. So when Christian supremacist Brenton Tarrant shot up a mosque in Christchurch, anyone who had ever spoken out against mass Muslim immigration became a stochastic terrorist.
The Western ruling class uses the term so broadly that it even covers “misinformation” and “conspiracies”. Because the ruling class is our “sole source of truth” (as per Jacinda Ardern), misinformation is defined as anything the ruling class doesn’t agree with. A conspiracy theorist is defined as anyone who suspects their government of lying about anything.
In reality, the Western ruling class are the stochastic terrorists, and they commit acts of stochastic terrorism every single day.
The most notable recent example of this was the live television broadcast of the shooting of a Donald Trump doll on the Breakfast show in New Zealand. The presenters of the show took it in turns to shoot the doll with a plastic shotgun that fires salt, a device invented to shoot flies.
The entire point of this display was to normalise violence against Donald Trump, and by extension nationalists, who are the only real enemies of the Western Establishment. Our rulers would love nothing more than for someone to murder Donald Trump. Hence, by process of “monkey see, monkey do”, they plant thoughts of killing him in people’s minds with stunts like the Breakfast show shooting.
If I had recorded a video of myself shooting a Jacinda Ardern doll, or a Joe Biden one, or a Muslim one, I would have had the Police at my doorstep by the end of the day, and I would probably appear in the global news. Probably I would face terrorism charges, and at the very least I would be arrested and interrogated. But, in the same way that Kathy Griffin faced no consequences for her Trump beheading stunt, none of the Breakfast show hosts will be so much as inconvenienced by a Police officer.
Why? Because stochastic terrorism is only a bad thing when ordinary people can be accused of doing it against their oppressors. Like all other human rights abuses, it’s considered legitimate when the rulers to do it against the people.
The blueprint for the Western Establishment’s use of stochastic terrorism to take out their political enemies is the murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002.
The Dutchman Fortuyn sent shockwaves through European politics by standing up for his own people in the face of international banking and finance pressure to open borders. He enraged the globalists by declaring that the Netherlands was “full”, and did not need any more Third Worlders. In particular, he derided Islam as a “backwards culture” and promoted closing the border to further Muslim immigration.
His most provocative move was to found a political party called the Pim Fortuyn List and run for power in the 2002 Dutch General Election. He was pilloried for this in the European media, and labelled a “far-right extremist” despite being a homosexual who campaigned for gay rights in the face of Abrahamic oppression. Those media stirred up an atmosphere of hate against Fortuyn like nothing ever seen outside of wartime.
However, reflecting the massive latent support for nationalism and anti-globalism among Western peoples, Fortuyn’s Livable Rotterdam party (the local equivalent of the Pim Fortuyn List) became the largest party in Rotterdam, Fortuyn’s home town, during the municipal elections that preceded the national one. Shortly afterwards, Fortuyn had a pie thrown at him, leading him to accuse the Dutch political establishment of fomenting violence.
Panicked at the possibility of losing power to nationalists, the globalist ruling class convinced one of their minions, a left-wing extremist named Volkert van der Graaf, to shoot Fortuyn dead on the 6th of May 2002. This murder led to the collapse of the Pim Fortuyn List, and, with it, any hopes that the Dutch had of resisting the globalist onslaught.
The murder of Pim Fortuyn is as clear-cut an example of stochastic terrorism as it’s possible to give, coming as it did after months of hysterical fearmongering. But the media never mentions the Fortuyn case when bleating about it. Like racism, stochastic terrorism is a crime that only the enemies of the Establishment can commit. When they do it, it’s fine.
The real terrorists are the mainstream media and the international banking and finance interests who own them. These people will lie about absolutely anything in order to keep the rest of us in fear and submissive. Any nationalist who stands up for their own people will be targeted with the real stochastic terrorism: the relentless campaign to demonise anyone not following the globalist agenda.
With the release of Andrew Torba’s book titled ‘Christian Nationalism’, the subject is now prominent in the popular consciousness. Kanye West’s recent appearances in the alternative media, with assistance from Nick Fuentes’s America First channel, boosted the concept. But Christian Nationalism is nonsensical, an oxymoron.
To begin with, Christianity and nationalism are direct contradictions.
Nationalism is all about bonds of blood and soil. The word ‘nationalism’ shares a root with the words ‘Nature’ and ‘natural’. Nationalism is the natural form of organisation for an extended collection of families. Indeed, a nation can be considered an extremely extended family, in the sense that all members of it are related, however distantly.
Christianity, by contrast, is all about bonds of faith. The Christian Bible states that bonds of blood and soil are meaningless because all are one in Rabbi Yeshua. Christians are even encouraged to turn their backs on their own families if those families don’t worship the magical rabbi: they must hate non-Christian members of their own family to be worthy.
Rejecting one’s own blood because of a Jewish religion is utterly incompatible with nationalism.
Many Christians believe that their non-Christian ancestors are suffering eternal punishment as a result of their refusal to worship Rabbi Yeshua. The Christian belief that non-Christians are doomed to an eternity in Hell also applies to their own kin. They feel no shame at holding such contempt for their own people.
Neither do Christians feel any shame at their preference for sharing an eternity in Heaven with hordes of 70-IQ Africans over sharing an eternity with their own kin. Cult before kin is the motto of the Christian. This is fundamentally a traitor’s mindset. It’s the same mentality that led to acts of treason such as those committed by the Rosenbergs or the Cambridge Five.
If white Christian Nationalists are asked whether they would prefer a non-Christian white nation or a Christian non-white nation, they will opt for the latter. Some so-called Christian Nationalists would be happy for every non-Christian member of their own nation to be replaced with Africans, as long as those Africans were Christian.
Christians are more than happy to knife their own nationals in the back if they believe it will further their cult. This is one of the main reasons why Christian churches and NGOs are obsessed with refugee resettlement. Every sub-Saharan Christian they can import means another kick in the guts for nationalist sentiments, which depend on solidarity to exist, which itself depends on kinship intensity.
The deeper motivations behind this new wave of Christian Nationalism are twofold.
The first is to bring back theocracy. Christian Nationalists aren’t honest enough to admit that they want to go back to theocracy, so they hide it behind the label of nationalism. The truth is that they don’t want nationalism, they want theocracy. To them, the Dark Ages were good times: people may have been forbidden to read, but at least they were all Christian.
Christian Nationalism is identical to theocracy in almost every respect. Women are to be subjugated, non-Christians are to be banned from public office, pre-Christian spiritual traditions are to be destroyed, and Christianity is to be forced on everyone consenting or otherwise, as Christians did to Europeans between the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.
The second is to lure nationalists into Christianity. Being a universalist cult, and having the tenet that everyone on Earth will be made to worship Rabbi Yeshua whether they like it or not, Christianity endeavours to insert itself into every possible niche. So in the same way there are Christian Anarchists, Christian Communists and Christian Capitalists, there are also Christian Nationalists.
Christian Nationalists make a strenuous and immensely dishonest effort to shoehorn Christianity into nationalism. They will claim that all of the nation’s problems exist because of an absence of Christianity. They will twist any line from the Christian Bible to create the appearance of support for nationalism, even lines like Isaiah 40:17, which states that national divisions are as nothing to Yahweh.
They will even go as far as claiming that Christianity is a white supremacist movement if they think this will gain converts. Those who put on this act are in the habit of calling critics of Christianity Jews, even when it’s the Jewish origins of Christianity that provoked the criticism.
Ultimately, then, Christian Nationalism is merely the latest variant of the Abrahamic hydra. Christians will not rest until all competing religious or spiritual traditions are destroyed, and pretending to be nationalists is just the latest way they plan to wreak this destruction. But Christianity is, and always will be, a universalist cult, beholden to globalists, and in opposition to all natural interests.
