The ceremonies before an All Blacks match are an essential part of setting the mood to enjoy the theatre. But many people sing along to the words of the Maori version of the national anthem without knowing what it means. I don’t sing the words to the Maori version of the national anthem because they are an insult to my people.
The God of Nations referenced in the English version of the national anthem is not the same as the God of Abraham. The English version of the national anthem was written by Thomas Bracken, a Freemason, and as such the God referenced is the true divinity beyond all cultures. It is not Yahweh, the God of the Jews.
Governor George Grey commissioned a Maori translation of Bracken’s poem in 1878. This was performed by Thomas Henry Smith, an English immigrant and a Christian. Being Christian, and following the Christian imperative to destroy all other spiritual and religious traditions, Smith took the opportunity to erase all reference to God in his translation and to replace it with reference to Yahweh.
Now why would I, as a person who does not worship Yahweh, sing an entreaty to the Jewish God?
As a Ngati Porou, being asked to sing a song about Jehovah is an insult. It was in the name of Jehovah that the spiritual traditions of the Maori people were destroyed and replaced with base superstition. Early Christian missionaries eradicated all knowledge of Io Matua Kore, the god of this part of the world, to replace it with knowledge of Yahweh, the god of a foreign land.
This was a great crime, and one which has never been acknowledged, much less made up for.
I would happily sing the Maori national anthem if it were replaced by a entreaty that praised Io Matua Kore instead of the God of the Jews. The Maori version of the New Zealand national anthem needs to be rewritten, preferably by a Maori and not an English immigrant, and in such a way that removes reference to the God of the Jews and replaces it with the God of Aotearoa.
Then I would sing the Maori version of the national anthem with pride.
Many people ask themselves why the mainstream media does so much race-baiting. It’s apparent that there a conscious and widespread effort to divide every Western nation along racial lines, and to promote racial consciousness wherever possible. The mainstream media does all this as part of a deliberate strategy to divide and conquer all Western nations.
The first thing to be understood is that the mainstream media of almost every Western nation is owned and controlled by international banking and finance interests. This is true of New Zealand, and it’s true of almost everywhere else as well, and has been true for over a century now.
These international banking and finance interests don’t permit the journalists of the mainstream media to present the news objectively. Control of the narrative is far too valuable to allow mere journalists to decide what information gets presented to the masses.
The mainstream media serves as the apparatus of propaganda, through which consent for the desires of the ruling class is manufactured. The owners of that apparatus make sure that its every action serves their interests. To that end, every story, article or bulletin is manicured to achieve the maximum possible propaganda benefit to the ruling class.
The major interest of the international banking and finance interests, a.k.a. the ruling class, is to maintain their position at the top of the social dominance hierarchy. Staying at the top, when you are grossly outnumbered, is primarily a matter of dividing and conquering the masses and setting them against each other. That way, they can’t unify and set themselves against you.
It is in serving this interest that the mainstream media does so much race-baiting. Their repeated emphasis on racial issues distracts from the class issues that are harming both working-class whites and working-class non-whites. This is true of every Western country.
Whether it’s whites and blacks, whites and Muslims, whites and Maoris – both or all sides have to be set against each other through constant emphasis of their differences and denial of their similarities. At no point, ever, may it be acknowledged that working-class whites and working-class non-whites have anything in common.
This is why the mainstream media dishes up shit like this week’s report about the Vodafone CEO telling one of his customers to fuck off in Maori, which is not news in any sense. The only purpose of stories like this is to normalise the division of the nation into racial groups, which is achieved by normalising race consciousness.
The Vodafone CEO is a wealthy, ruling class man, who benefits directly from the division of the working class, whose wages are his biggest expense. He is not a friend of Maoris in any sense, especially not working-class ones. But the apparatus of propaganda is willing to present him as an ally for the sake of race-baiting.
This is why New Zealand’s Stuff, the 12th most-visited website in the country (according to Alexa rankings), has an entire section devoted purely to race-baiting. The ‘Pou tiaki’ section runs nothing but race hate stories, usually with a particular focus on demonising white people. Even when white people are not demonised directly, this section propounds the narrative that every New Zealander is their race first and foremost.
Such narratives have an extremely destructive effect on working class solidarity. Working-class whites, many of who are still suffering intergenerational trauma from their ancestors’ participation in World Wars I and II, naturally resent being told that they are privileged. Working-class Maoris, for their part, are torn between loyalty to their fellow working-class whites and their own Maori elders, who tend to push race hate narratives.
This resentment and divided loyalties make it impossible for the working class to present a unified front to the ruling class.
The mainstream media, and the people who own them, don’t care whether the average white Kiwi sees Maoris as an angelic race of innocent victims or as a criminal race of grifters and gang members. All that matters is that they’re seen as an other. There’s a white Us and a brown Them, and class narratives don’t come into it at all, ever.
As long as people think that “we are our race”, they don’t ever think that “we are our class”. That would be the real danger – if working-class whites and working-class Maoris would come together to assert their class differences in the face of the ruling class. It is to prevent this outcome that the ruling class directs its lackeys in the mainstream media to fill the airwaves with race-baiting propaganda.
Normalising racial consciousness also abnormalises the idea that a random working-class white and a random working-class Maori can come together in bonds of solidarity. Racial consciousness means that the first thought of a white upon seeing a Maori, or vice-versa, is suspicion and mistrust. Class consciousness, by contrast, means that working-class people put all their mutual suspicion and mistrust aside to achieve a greater goal.
So the reason why the mainstream media does so much race-baiting is to keep the enemies of their owners divided. The owners of the mainstream media want a divided working class, one that cannot come together to effect any real change to the status quo of the political and economic systems. Every story about racial injustice is a story that distracts from class injustice.
The long-term strategy for building economic wealth appears to be holding house prices steady while waiting for wages to catch up. This article does the maths to answer one question: how long until the average wage has the same housebuying power of the average wage in 1992?
By 2021, the average New Zealand house price has climbed to some $750,000, while the average wage languishes at around $34 an hour. This means that most Kiwis today are looking at putting in 22,000 hours of labour before they can get to the position of homeownership.
Economists predict that the average New Zealand house price will increase by double-digit percentages in 2021. 5% increases are expected for the two years after that, up until March 2024, which is as far ahead as anyone responsible will try to predict.
Let’s make two assumptions: firstly, that these forecasts are broadly correct; secondly, that house prices stop increasing after March 2024, allowing wages to catch up.
This suggests that house prices will top out at a national average of about $910,000 ($750,000 x 1.10 x 1.05 x 1.05). This assumes that they increase by around 10% in the year to March 2022, and then 5% for the two years after that, before remaining stable thereafter. The reality is, of course, anyone’s guess, but let’s say for simplicity’s sake that house prices reach $910,000 by March 2024 and then stay there in perpetuity.
To buy a $910,000 house with 7,000 hours of labour, a worker would have to be getting paid $130 per hour. Assuming that all other things (labour share, taxes, rents, non-rent living costs) are equal, $130/hr is what the average wage would have to be for the average worker to have the same housebuying power as the average worker in 1992.
As mentioned above, the average wage in New Zealand is around $34 right now. This means that it has to increase 3.82 times for the average worker to have the same housebuying power that the average worker had in 1992 – without house prices increasing beyond March 2024.
Wage growth over the past 28 years in New Zealand, from just under $15 an hour in 1992 to around $34 an hour at the end of 2020, has run at about 3% per annum.
If we assume future wage increases of 3% per annum, and no further house price increases beyond March 2024, then we will have to wait around 48 years for the average wage to catch up to the housebuying power that the average wage had in 1992.
In reality, it’s unlikely that house prices will remain exactly the same for the next 48 years. When the Boomers start dying off en masse, beginning in about 15 years, the demand for housing will rapidly fall all across the Western World. At that point, house prices could go in any direction depending on how much immigration takes place.
Of course, if house prices continue to increase beyond March 2024, then wages will simply never catch up. The West will become more and more verticalised until we effectively regress into a feudal-style economy where 99% of people are renters for life.
What can be said with confidence, however, is that it will take around half a century, at current rates, for wages to catch up to the point where the average worker has the same housebuying power they had in 1992. And that is even if one assumes that house prices don’t continue to increase.
Vernon Tava’s Sustainable NZ party made a transparent attempt to target the center of the political spectrum. The logic was that they would be an environmentalist movement that wasn’t tarnished by the social justice obsession of the Greens. In the end, they received 1,880 votes, which amounted to less than 0.1% of the total.
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Voting ACT in 2020
Voting National in 2020
Voting Greens in 2020
Voting New Conservative in 2020
Voting The Opportunities Party in 2020
Voting Labour in 2020
Voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2020
Voting Maori Party in 2020
Sustainable NZ may not have won many votes, but they succeeded in positioning themselves somewhere between the National Party and the Green Party. The correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting National in 2020 was 0.50, and with voting Greens in 2020 it was 0.26. Both are significantly positive.
The correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 was not significant, at 0.02. This suggests that Sustainable NZ was successful in avoiding the label of ‘left-wing’. In fact, there was even a correlation of 0.37 between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting New Conservative in 2020.
The strongest negative correlations with voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 were with voting for the parties representing disadvantaged demographics, such as the ALCP (-0.41) and the Maori Party (-0.46).
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
The general rule is: the wealthier the voter, the more likely they were to vote Sustainable NZ in 2020. The reason for this, as it is for the Greens and The Opportunities Party, is that environmental issues are high up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and people suffering from housing or income insecurity will vote on the basis of that instead.
The strongest support of any income bracket for Sustainable NZ came from the $70,000+ bracket. The correlation between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having a personal income of over $70,000 was 0.44. This is a curious result, given that votes for alternative parties are normally cast by disenfranchised people, and disenfranchised people normally vote for left-wing parties. This paradox may explain why Sustainable NZ got so few votes.
The financially disenfranchised avoided voting for Sustainable NZ. The correlation between having an income between $10,000 and $20,000 and voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 was -0.37.
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Level 1 certificate
Level 2 certificate
Level 3 certificate
Level 4 certifiate
Level 5 diploma
Level 6 diploma
As with the Greens, ACT and The Opportunities Party, highly educated voters were more likely to vote Sustainable NZ than poorly educated ones. There was a significant positive correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having any of the university degrees. On the other hand, there was a correlation of -0.46 between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having no academic qualifications.
Unlike the Greens, the correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having a highest educational qualification of a level 3 certificate was significantly negative. This reflects the fact that the Greens have broad appeal among university students, a niche that Sustainable NZ were unable to gain entry to.
From these three sets of correlations, we can see that Sustainable NZ voters were considerably more privileged than the average voter.
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Sustainable NZ voters walked the talk when it comes to the sustainability of their breeding. The strongest correlation between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having any number of children was two (0.39). There was also a positive correlation of 0.19 between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having no children.
On the other hand, there were significant negative correlations between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having four, five or six children. All three of these correlations were at least as negative as -0.46. Sustainable NZ voters are clearly aware that having more than two children is unsustainable.
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Working as a manager
Working as a professional
Working as a machinery operator or driver
Working as a labourer
A curious outcome of the election is that there was a significant positive correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and both working as a manager and working as a professional. Working as a manager and working as a professional are the archetypal occupations of National and the Greens, respectively.
The working-class occupations, by contrast, were relatively less likely to vote Sustainable NZ in 2020. As mentioned above, people who are worried about housing affordability generally consider environmentalism to be a luxury concern.
In summary, Vernon Tava and his Sustainable NZ movement were successful in positioning themselves in the “blue-green” space that appeals to educated, long-sighted people, whether managers or professionals. The problem is that they failed in the much more important objective of obtaining enough votes to threaten the 5% threshold.
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.