Why The Greens Should Lose Voters To TOP In Coming Weeks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Is It Time To Rename Arnold Schwarzenegger?

2020 has been the year of the revaluation of values. Many things once thought acceptable are being re-evaluated with a new mindset. One thing once thought acceptable is the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This article asks: is it time to rename him?

The name ‘Schwarzenegger’ evokes many sentiments in the modern Western mind – similar sentiments to Arnold’s former nickname “The Austrian Oak”.

Physically, one thinks of the superbly well-crafted physique that won multiple world bodybuilding titles as well as the role of Conan the Cimmerian. Mentally, one thinks of the preternatural will and ambition that took a teenage Austrian boy to Hollywood superstardom and from there to a successful term as Governor of California.

Linguistically, the name evokes other sentiments. ‘Schwarz’ is German for ‘black’, and ‘neger’ is German for… well, you guessed it. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name literally means ‘black nigger’.

A white man going around calling himself “black nigger” cannot be acceptable under today’s moral standards. It’s no different to a white man conducting his daily affairs entirely in blackface. The name Schwarzenegger must be cancelled.

Perhaps Schwarzenegger could instead be called Arnold von Osterreich, a name that respects the black community while still evoking Arnold’s heritage. American President Donald Trump should pass a law renaming him as soon as possible in the hope of appeasing the black rioters currently rampaging through American inner cities.

Note: this article is a pisstake! If you really thought that we support the renaming of Arnold Schwarzenegger, you’re stupid!

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!

Clown World Chronicles: What Is ‘White Erasure’?

All over the West, destruction reigns. Statues are coming down, cities are being renamed, history is being rewritten. The destruction can seem so mindless, but there’s one thread running through it all. This article discusses that thread: the concept of ‘white erasure’.

White erasure, in short, is the genocide of white people. This occurs in four sequential stages.

The first is the demonisation of white people. This is achieved by preventing people from speaking favourably about white people (by calling it “racist”), while encouraging people to speak disfavourably about white people. Speaking disfavourably about white people involves insinuating that all white people are racist, and that their history is one of evil.

There are many examples of this in today’s world. Most notable is the outrage generated by the expression of innocuous statements such as “It’s Okay To Be White” or “White Lives Matter“. In both cases, the men making these statements were slammed as racists by their national mainstream media, the first even being compared to Christchurch mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant.

The latter case is especially incredible, as the statement about white lives was made days after a racist terror attack in Reading, England, that claimed the lives of three white people. The end point of the demonisation of white people is that anyone claiming that white people have a right to exist is a racist.

The second stage is minimising white influence in the institutions. This occurs in a variety of ways depending on the institution in question. In all cases, however, it begins with a commitment to diversity, where diversity is defined as a minimum of white people.

In the universities, it starts with offering scholarships to non-white people on the basis that they are not white. The usual argument given is that non-white people are poorer than whites, and therefore deserve help more, but this ignores the fact that working-class white people are also poorer than the white average, and there is no help for them.

A similar phenomenon exists in government. It’s now considered extremely important that the government supports diversity, so much so that even the conservative parties are judged on how many non-white members they have. Again, diversity here is not defined as viewpoint or ideological diversity but simply as an absence of white people. A black person who thinks the same way as middle-class whites is better than a working-class white who thinks differently.

The third stage is minimising the proportion of white people in the population. This is achieved in two major ways: mass non-white immigration and the suppression of white birth rates.

Mass non-white immigration inevitably leads to a lower and lower proportion of white people in the local population. The Brazilianisation of formerly white societies causes white people to fall back into gated communities, ceding public spaces. It has also led to the idea, now popular in Europe as well as in the New World, that Western countries are not inherently white ones. They are the common property of the whole world.

The suppression of white birth rates is achieved by the manufacture of an economic environment in which raising a family is all but impossible. In order for it to be possible, the minimum wage has to pay enough that a man can afford shelter and food for a family of at least two children, a wife and himself – on one wage. This seems ridiculous now, as it is a long way from the case today, but it was once standard.

Mass immigration plays a direct role in this, by destroying the negotiating position of the white working classes. The more desperate they are, and the more imported cheap labour they have to compete with, the lower the wage they will be able to negotiate. The lower the wage, the more precarious their condition, and the fewer children they will be able to afford to bring into the world.

The fourth stage is changing the environment to remove any trace of white influence or presence. This is a multifaceted approach, which simply seeks to erase any sign of white people.

This is all over the world today, especially in the frenzied and ongoing efforts to pull down all statues of white men. The logic is that all white men are guilty of the collective historical sins of the white race, and therefore no memorials to them can be left standing. Everything that reminds of white people is to be erased.

The problem is, as Solzhenitsyn put it, that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. This means that there are no men who are perfectly innocent. Every historical figure is guilty of at least some sins. So sins can be found in any historical figure, as long as there is sufficient will to uncover them. Anyone can be cancelled.

Another major component of this stage is the movement to rename colonial streets, cities or territories. The idea here is that the “real name” of a place is the indigenous one, such that even native speakers of English are obliged to use it when speaking English. The ultimate goal of this is to remove all trace of white people, as if they had never been present.

The most difficult thing to grasp about all this is why white people are doing it to themselves. It isn’t easy to understand why – it seems at least masochistic, if not outright suicidal. This has caused a number of conspiracy theories to arise, including the usual anti-Jewish ones.

The brutal reality is that this is how life is at the end of an empire. The Roman Empire went through it, when the Christian mobs destroyed all the temples and holy places of the Greco-Roman religion. Their gods destroyed, the citizens lost touch with their conceptions of good and evil. A Dark Age, lasting centuries, was the result. It may be the same for us.

History goes in cycles, and the measure of the swing of the Great Pendulum of history to the left is the measure of its swing to the right. The last five hundred years has seen white people assert themselves upon the world with only the scantiest resistance. The next five hundred might see the world assert itself upon white people.

White erasure may end with a Holocaust of white people, or it could end with their gradual replacement, or it could lead to a resurgence of will that strikes a death blow to Clown World. There’s no way to know yet.

This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!