Understanding New Zealand 3: Who Voted TOP in 2020

Surprisingly for many, TOP went backwards between 2017 and 2020, from 2.4% of the vote (63,261 votes) to 1.5% of the vote (43,449 votes). This was despite the fact that, this time, they had a charming and personable leader in Geoff Simmons.

The major problem facing TOP is that they appear to be a Green Party B team made up of those too weird or too unprofessional to represent a Parliamentary party. As such, they have no real niche.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020
Voting Labour 2020	0.33
Voting National 2020	0.11
Voting Greens 2020	0.84
Voting ACT 2020	0.18
Voting New Zealand First 2020	-0.17
Voting New Conservative 2020	-0.05
Voting Maori Party 2020	-0.34
Voting Advance NZ 2020	-0.36
Voting Sustainable NZ 2020	0.32
Voting ALCP 2020	-0.34
Voting TEA Party 2020	-0.18
Voting Heartland NZ 2020	-0.11
Voting Social Credit 2020	0.07
Voting NZ Outdoors Party 2020	-0.08
Voting ONE Party 2020	-0.07
Voting Vision NZ Party 2020	-0.38

The TOP voting bloc is extremely similar to the Green Party voting bloc. Voting Greens in 2020 and voting TOP in 2020 had a correlation of 0.84. This was much stronger than the correlation between voting for any other party in 2020 and voting TOP in 2020.

As long as this correlation remains so strong, it’s hard to see TOP having much success if they stay on the same path.

Significant positive correlations also existed between voting TOP in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 (0.33) and voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 (0.32). All these results place TOP firmly among the left.

The strongest negative correlations were between voting TOP in 2020 and voting for one of the parties with many poorly-educated brown supporters. The correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and voting for Vision NZ Party in 2020 was -0.38; with voting for Advance NZ in 2020 it was -0.36; with voting for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party or Maori Party in 2020 it was -0.34.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Having no NZQA qualifications	-0.64	-0.64
Having Level 1 certificate	-0.48	-0.58
Having Level 2 certificate	-0.44	-0.53
Having Level 3 certficate	0.14	0.31
Having Level 4 certificate	-0.49	-0.60
Having Level 5 diploma	-0.61	-0.71
Having Level 6 diploma	0.30	0.05
Having a bachelor’s degree	0.55	0.59
Having an honours degree	0.75	0.77
Having a master’s degree	0.66	0.74
Having a doctorate	0.77	0.77

Two patterns are immediately obvious when looking at the correlations between education levels and voting tendencies.

The first is that the better educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote TOP. All of the correlations between voting TOP in 2020 and having a university degree were stronger than 0.50. At the other end of the spectrum, voting TOP in 2020 was significantly negatively correlated with having no NZQA qualifications, or only a level 1 or 2 certificate.

The second is that TOP shares the above pattern with the Greens, and for similar reasons. In fact, the correlations between having a university degree and voting either TOP or Greens in 2020 are almost identical – and they are identical in the case of having a doctorate and voting either TOP or Greens in 2020 (0.77). The correlations between having no academic qualifications and voting either TOP or Greens in 2020 were also identical (-0.64).

The largest differences here between TOP and Greens are with those at level 3 and those at level 6. TOP is significantly weaker than the Greens among voters at level 3, and significantly stronger than the Greens among voters at level 6. Voters at level 3 are usually at university, having completed high school and moved on. Voters at level 6 have usually completed a tertiary qualification at polytech level.

This suggests that TOP is more polytech in comparison to the Greens’ university, more working-class to the Greens’ middle-class. This revelation might serve to guide future TOP policy.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Being European	0.41	0.19
Being Maori	-0.42	-0.27
Being Pacific Islander	-0.37	-0.19
Being Asian	0.06	0.12

TOP is a much whiter party than the Greens. The correlation between being of European descent and voting Greens in 2020 was not significant, but the correlation between being of European descent and voting TOP in 2020 was 0.41.

Maoris and Pacific Islanders, for their part, were both much less likely to vote TOP in 2020 than to vote Greens in 2020. There was a significant negative correlation between being either Maori or Pacific Islander and voting TOP in 2020. This may be because both groups feel like they are already well-represented by the Labour Party. Asians were almost perfectly indifferent to TOP.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Median age	-0.15	-0.24
Mean age	-0.05	-0.14

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Aged 20-24 years	0.39	0.56
Aged 25-29 years	0.28	0.45
Aged 30-34 years	0.25	0.34
Aged 35-39 years	0.24	0.24
Aged 40-44 years	0.30	0.21
Aged 45-49 years	0.20	0.08
Aged 50-54 years	0.09	-0.02
Aged 55-59 years	0.01	-0.13
Aged 60-64 years	-0.01	-0.17
Aged 65-69 years	-0.01	-0.16
Aged 70-74 years	0.02	-0.16
Aged 75-79 years	0.04	-0.17
Aged 80-84 years	0.09	-0.15
Aged 85+ years	0.22	-0.04

TOP voters are older than Greens voters in general, especially in the upper age brackets. Although the correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and median age is negative (-0.15), it isn’t significantly negative, as it is between voting Greens in 2020 and median age (-0.24). The correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and mean age (-0.05) is also weaker than the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and mean age (-0.14).

The main difference is that TOP voters are more equally represented across all age brackets. There are significant positive correlations between voting TOP in 2020 and being in any age bracket under 35, but the correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and being in any of those age brackets are all stronger.

By contrast, the correlations between voting TOP in 2020 and belonging to any age bracket above 69 were all positive (if not significant). These correlations were all negative for voting Greens in 2020. The overall difference in support for TOP and Greens between the various age brackets is probably because TOP has a heavier online presence, especially a FaceBook presence (which appeals to old people), while the Greens have a heavier presence at universities.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Percent of electorate female	0.24	0.16

Both TOP and the Greens are movements that appeal to the socially conscious, and women tend to be a lot more socially conscious than men. Both TOP and Greens also get a lot of votes from universities, where there are more women than men. These factors explain why both TOP and the Greens get more female voters than male ones.

Curiously, the correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and being female (0.24) was stronger than the correlation between voting Greens and being female (0.16). This is probably because a majority of elderly people in New Zealand are female, and a higher proportion of elderly voters vote TOP compared to the Greens.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Having no children	0.57	0.75
Having one child	-0.19	-0.15
Having two children	-0.04	-0.30
Having three children	-0.31	-0.53
Having four children	-0.55	-0.61
Having five children	-0.65	-0.56
Having six or more children	-0.63	-0.48

The correlation between having no children and voting Greens in 2020 (0.75) was much stronger than the correlation between having no children and voting TOP in 2020 (0.57), which speaks to the extent which TOP voters are closer to the demographic average than Greens voters.

When it comes to having children, TOP voters are more normal than Greens voters, in the sense that the correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and having two children (-0.04) was much closer to neutral than the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and having two children (-0.30). This was also notably true when it comes to voting TOP in 2020 and having three children (-0.31) when compared to voting Greens in 2020 and having three children (-0.53).

These differences are probably mostly caused by the fact that TOP voters tend to be older than Greens voters, and so have had more time to have children (both TOP and Greens are very strong among university students, who are mostly too young to have had children).

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Working as a manager	0.05	-0.04
Working as a professional	0.73	0.75
Working as a technician or trades worker	-0.34	-0.50
Working as a community or personal services worker	-0.10	-0.03
Working as a clerical or administrative worker	0.07	0.03
Working as a sales worker	-0.09	-0.09
Working as a machinery operator or driver	-0.67	-0.58
Working as a labourer	-0.52	-0.48

All of this suggests that TOP voters are generally less exceptional and more representative of the mainstream than Greens voters. This is despite that the correlation between working as a professional and voting TOP in 2020 (0.73) is barely different to the correlation between working as a professional and voting Green in 2020 (0.75).

So the truth is that TOP voters aren’t any less intelligent or competent than Greens voters, but they are more representative of ordinary people. Unsurprisingly, then, there is no significant correlation between being foreign-born and voting for TOP in 2020 (0.19) when there is a significant correlation between being foreign-born and voting Greens in 2020 (0.24).

Also like the Greens, TOP finds itself in the difficult position of claiming to be a left-wing party in favour of social change, but at the same time getting little support from working-class occupations. The correlations between voting TOP in 2020 and working as a machinery operator or driver (-0.67) or working as a labourer (-0.52) were both strongly negative.

This is the core problem TOP faces: its message is fundamentally a left-wing one, based on a supposed will to redistibute resources to the working class, but its representatives are not themselves from that class. As a consequence, actual working-class people don’t see themselves represented by TOP candidates.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Own house in family trust	0.23	0.05
Own or part own house	0.05	-0.19
Don’t own house	-0.12	0.14

The most surprising correlation is between owning or part-owning a house and voting TOP in 2020 – this was 0.05, much more positive than the -0.19 between owning or part-owning a house and voting Greens in 2020. This is mostly a function of the fact that TOP voters are significantly older than Greens voters, because homeownership rates increase sharply as age increases.

It’s also a function of another correlation that will surprise many – the negative correlation of -0.15 between living on the North Island and voting TOP in 2020. It’s easier to own a home on the South Island because houses are cheaper, but, despite that the housing crisis is not as desperate there, South Islanders are more willing to vote TOP. This suggests that many TOP voters cast their vote out of concern for the national housing situation, and not out of mere self-interest.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Living in an urban electorate	0.28	0.30

Some might think that the differences in homeownership rates could be explained by a rural bias on the part of TOP voters. After all, the Greens are known to be a highly urban party and urban dwellers are much less likely to own their own homes.

However, TOP voters and Green voters are almost identical when it comes to the proportion of them who live in an urban electorate. Therefore, it’s more likely that the differences in homeownership rates are a function of the greater age of TOP voters.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Income less than $5,000	-0.22	-0.01
Income between $5,000 and $10,000	0.12	0.34
Income between $10,000 and $20,000	-0.42	-0.37
Income between $20,000 and $30,000	-0.26	-0.37
Income between $30,000 and $50,000	-0.43	-0.52
Income between $50,000 and $70,000	0.12	-0.04
Income greater than $70,000	0.56	0.52

If the biggest problem faced by the Greens is that they are full of middle-class people claiming to represent the working class, TOP has that same problem, only bigger.

Both TOP and the Greens do very poorly among working-class Kiwis. All of the correlations between voting TOP in 2020 and being in an income band between $10,000 and $50,000 were significantly negative. The most strongly negative correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and being in any income band was -0.43, with the $30,000-$50,000 band, where minimum wage workers working 35-40 hour weeks will be.

On the other hand, there was a correlation of 0.56 between voting TOP in 2020 and having an income of $70,000 or more. This was even higher than the 0.52 between voting Greens in 2020 and having such an income. This means that TOP voters are disproportionately highly-educated professionals.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Receiving NZ Super or Veteran’s Pension	0.01	-0.20
Receiving Jobseeker Support	-0.45	-0.27
Receiving Sole Parent Support	-0.47	-0.31
Receiving Supported Living Payment	-0.11	-0.06
Receiving Student Allowance	0.43	0.54

TOP gets many of its votes from university students: the correlation between voting TOP in 2020 and receiving a Student Allowance was 0.43, much stronger than for any other benefit type. The correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving a Student Allowance was notably stronger, at 0.54.

A higher proportion of TOP voters were pensioners, though, in comparison to the Greens. The correlation between receiving NZ Super or a Veteran’s Pension and voting TOP in 2020 was 0.01, in comparison to -0.20 with voting Greens in 2020. This reflects the fact that the correlations between being in any age bracket above 70 years old and voting TOP in 2020 were all positive, but the same correlations with voting Greens in 2020 were all negative.

Variable	Voting TOP 2020	Voting Greens 2020
Not religious	0.38	0.31
Is a Buddhist	0.14	0.22
Is a Christian	-0.31	-0.39
Is a Hindu	-0.05	0.09
Is a Jew	0.46	0.54
Is a Muslim	-0.04	0.10
Is a follower of the Maori religions	-0.45	-0.30
Is a Spiritualist or New Ager	0.31	0.34

TOP voters are so similar to Greens voters that similarities remain even when you divide them both into religions.

The greatest difference between voting TOP in 2020 and voting Greens in 2020 was with followers of the Maori religions (-0.45 and -0.30, respectively). This is a small difference and can be easily explained by the fact that TOP and Greens voters tend to be from enfranchised classes and followers of Maori religions tend to be from disenfranchised classes.

The differences between voting TOP in 2020 and voting Greens in 2020 was even less when it came to followers of other religions.

The strongest positive correlations between voting TOP in 2020 and religious category were with Jews (0.46), people with no religion (0.38) and Spiritualists and New Agers (0.31). The first two can be easily explained by the strong correlations between being in those categories and working as a professional. Spiritualists and New Agers might choose TOP because they consider them the closest thing to a revolutionary party that might usher in a new age.

In summary, TOP voters are similar to Greens voters, only older, whiter, wealthier, more female and generally more mainstream.

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!

The Globalist Obsession With Co-Governance

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.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Understanding New Zealand 3: Who Voted New Zealand First in 2020

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.

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!

Whose Baby Is It Anyway? The Ethics Of Child Upliftment

The case of Baby Will has received international attention in recent weeks. Will needed heart surgery and his parents, quite reasonably, requested that the surgeons use blood that did not contain a Covid vaccine. The logic of Will’s parents was that the Covid vaccines have not been adequately tested, and therefore are not safe to put into an infant. The Government disagreed.

The Government’s position, as it always is, is that the Government decides what you’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. It doesn’t matter if you’re the one that ends up suffering from getting it wrong. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got a postgraduate degree in the topic under discussion. Might makes right, and the Government has the might, therefore the Government is right.

The Government didn’t want Baby Will to be given unvaccinated blood. No official reason was given, but from unofficial statements it appears their chief concern was the logistical expense and hassle of needing to give unvaccinated blood to everyone who wanted it. As is often the case, the Government was reluctant to treat people humanely in case it set a precedent that they would be expected to live up to.

However, there was an impasse. Will’s heart surgery was urgent. Any delay waiting for official permission to use unvaccinated blood risked his death.

Rather than accede to the parents’ request, the Government uplifted Baby Will, sending Police officers in to rip him out of his mother’s arms. The surgery was performed with vaccinated blood, and Will was returned to his parents. As far as the Government is concerned, the story ends there. But questions remain.

If Baby Will had been given vaccinated blood, and if this blood turned out to have been harmful on account of that the vaccine had not been properly tested, and thereby may have had unexpected side-effects, the Government would have taken no responsibility for any of it. But Will’s parents – and Will – would be the ones who had to wear the consequences.

All the hypotheticals reduce to one question: whose baby is it anyway?

In the ancient Roman pater familias system, the fathers of the family exercised absolute control over the individual members. Not only did those fathers have the legal right to kill members of their own family, they were even obliged to in some cases, such as obvious deformities. Life was cheap in the ancient world.

Today we don’t have the same resource scarcity that Ancient Rome did. There is no longer a fear that feeding deformed children will lead to famine. So now we have a compromise position. The popular opinion today is that parents may exercise authority over their children, subject to certain exclusions that are widely agreed to cause harm.

Difficulty arises when it comes to areas where the existence of harm is not widely agreed upon. The real question is who gets to decide, in these edge cases, what constitutes harm. Like so many social issues, this question tends to break down into two sides: one authoritarian and the other libertarian.

The authoritarian position is that the Government should get to decide. In the case of Will, that means that the Government decides whether Covid-vaccinated blood is safe or not.

The libertarian position is, of course, that the parents, having the closest kinship bond with the child, ought to decide. It is the parents who will end up suffering the most if the Covid-vaccinated blood kills the child or not.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian side of social issues is in the ascendancy thanks to various recent outcomes like the cannabis referendum. With that referendum, a narrow majority of us said, yes, the Government can lock us up if we presume to decide for ourselves what goes into our own bodies. Because of outcomes like this, and others, the authoritarians within the Government have become emboldened.

As a result of the weak pro-freedom sentiments among Kiwis, the Government has seen fit to override the wishes of Will’s parents, reasoning that the New Zealand population will accept such authoritarianism. And we mostly have. The authoritarians in the New Zealand public howled for Will to be taken away and his parents prosecuted. So far, there have been no prosecutions, but a precedent has been set.

A predictable risk for the New Zealand people is that the same logic is next used for gender reassignment surgery. Globohomo likes to make the argument that denying gender reassignment surgery is risking that the trans person commit suicide. So in the eyes of the Government, denying gender reassignment surgery can carry a similar degree of risk to delaying Will’s surgery. And they were willing to uplift a baby over that.

Being torn away from one’s parents is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can go through. In order to justify it, the Government has to have excellent reason to believe that they’re preventing significant harm. In the case of Baby Will, the only potential for harm came from the Government itself. As such, they are very much the bad guys in this story.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!