Materialism is a Religion

The main characteristic of a religion, according to the bastion of the bluepilled, Wikipedia, is “a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to… an order of existence.”

A cynic might say that the true characteristic of a religion, aside from all that, is the fundamentalist belief in something that cannot be proven, and the absolute inability to countenance any possibility that one may be wrong.

As this essay will examine, this description perfectly fits the system of beliefs known as materialism.

The cult of materialism has its own creation mythology, in the form of the Big Bang story, which Wikipedia pompously describes as the “prevailing cosmological model”.

The Big Bang story falls flat on its own face in several regards, the most obvious of which is the failure to account for time before the Big Bang.

Invariably, this mythology is defended by high-ranking members of the cult, who dismiss criticism from any non-materialist on the basis that the criticism isn’t “scientific”, in much the same way that criticisms of Church dogma were dismissed as heresies in the Dark Ages.

In order to be considered “scientific” a person needs a postgraduate degree – and, because a person will only very rarely be motivated to get a postgraduate degree unless they are already “scientific”, the cult filters out those least receptive to its dogma.

Obviously what is meant here by “scientific” is, in fact, “materialist”, but it is a taboo in the cult of materialism to admit that one is a materialist – the pretense of ultimate objectivity must be maintained at all times.

And so materialist dogma is called “scientific” in the hope that people think “rational” when they hear “scientific” and so come to conflate rationality with materialism.

There is nothing rational in a sentence like “Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially during which time density fluctuations that occurred because of the uncertainty principle were amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe.”

Such a sentence cannot be made sense of without the guidance of an authority figure, namely a physicist… and in that case you might as well just be listening to a priest on the basis that he is an authority on spirituality.

In the same way that the Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths referenced the early universe as being made of earth, water, air and fire, the Big Bang creation mythology views the early universe as a simple matter of protons, neutrons and electrons – it’s essentially the same story.

Likewise, the waves and particles beloved of quantum physicists are just yin and yang seen through a lens of materialism.

Anyone who has seen beyond, of course, knows that neither story has a superior claim to truth; people will believe in materialism if they trusted their high school teachers over their priests and religionism if it was the other way around.

The second major way in which materialism is like a religion is that it forces its followers to make faith-based assumptions about the nature of reality.

The most common of these assumptions is the assumption that the brain generates consciousness. One will find, even after the most exhaustive research, that there is no hard scientific evidence whatsoever to support this assumption.

The truth – which materialists know they are forbidden from uttering – is that this is an assumption made for the same reasons that we once assumed that the Sun rotated around the Earth: because it looks like it.

People with severe brain damage tend to die, and because materialists have already made the assumption that the brain generates consciousness, it follows logically that significant damage to the brain will impair its ability to generate consciousness, and so the consciousness that was previously present no longer is.

A moment’s thought exposes this line of logic as the utter bullshit it is.

For one thing, there is no evidence that any given person is conscious anyway, even before their brain is damaged. It is simply believed as an article of faith on the basis that they have a brain (a brain being both sufficient and necessary for consciousness in materialist dogmatism).

This is clearly a circular argument.

More specifically, scientific thought is very clear regarding the principle that physiological adaptations have to have some kind of selective advantage in order to evolve. God did not create the world and the creatures in it out of a whim; they evolved in their struggle to adapt to an ever-changing set of environmental conditions, the laws of which are mostly understood.

All well and good, but this cannot account for consciousness.

There is no selective advantage to being conscious, in and of itself. There are probably selective advantages to all other mental or psychological phenomena, but there is no advantage at all in being conscious of the operation of these phenomena.

All of the supposed benefits of consciousness suggested by materialists as reasons for why it might have evolved do not even require consciousness, e.g. an increased capacity to calculate or to think ahead, to remember weather patterns, to tell stories or to detect falsehoods.

For a computer can calculate anything that a human mind can calculate, and we do not generally make the assumption that a computer is conscious. It is only because of materialist dogma that one assumes consciousness exists where one has no evidence for it.

In short, materialism is a religion because its followers are not willing to reason in good faith. Were they willing to do so they would not be able to defend baseless positions such as the idea that the brain generates consciousness.

The Police Will Kill to Enforce Any Law, No Matter How Trivial

There are many power-worshippers in the world today who think it would be just great if their area politicians passed a law banning this or that – some minor irritation that probably does not affect the quality of their life in any meaningful way but which they believe ought to be stamped out for the sake of maintaining good order at the very least.

These people are as dangerous as any fanatic that put a dictator into power.

The reason for this is that the Police, who are tasked by politicians with enforcing laws, will go as far as killing any citizen to enforce any law that they have broken, no matter how trivial.

A lot of people balk at this assertion, usually because they have neither encountered Police officers in operation nor thought the whole process through as a thought experiment.

But if you think it through as a thought experiment, the meathook clarity of it cannot be denied.

Take the case of a medicinal cannabis user. If you have a psychological condition such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or if you have pain related to terminal cancer and do not want to take opiates, you might end up as another of New Zealand’s hundreds of thousands of cannabis users.

Now let’s say that the Police come to your house with a search warrant, on the grounds that they have reason to believe that you have cannabis in your possession or a cannabis operation in your house. They are going to arrest you, and you know that you face up to seven years in prison for the offence.

You might well protest that you are fully within your rights to use cannabis as it is a medicine which legitimately alleviates human suffering, whether physical or psychological. And so the search warrant is not valid, because it was granted on the grounds that a crime had been committed, and none has.

This is perfectly reasonable – after all, you have harmed no-one. But what will happen at that stage is violence. The Police will escalate to violence at this point, probably by forcing their way into your home.

Let’s say that they are unsuccessful at doing so, either because you manage to lock the door in time or because you brandish a weapon in an effort to show them that you are willing to respond to their violence with violence of your own in order to defend yourself and your home.

In that case, you can probably assume that the Police officers will withdraw – and come back with the Armed Offenders Squad. They will call the AOS on the grounds that you threatened a Police officer with a weapon – the fact that you were only doing so to defend yourself against an immoral attack will not help you at all.

The AOS will then lay siege to your house, as they did to Jan Molenaar. This may even involve, as it did in Molenaar’s case, the Special Tactics Group – formerly known as the Anti-Terrorist Squad.

Jan Molenaar ended up shot dead at his own hand, probably in full awareness that escape was impossible.

Note here that this pattern of escalation of violence all the way to your death will happen if you don’t submit to the Police for any reason, no matter what it is.

It doesn’t matter what the crime is. It could be a hundred counts of serial murder, or it could be a parking fine. The inescapable rule is that you must submit to any state-allocated legal punishment for any offence you have been deemed to have committed, no matter how vindictive and cruel the punishment or how petty and victimless the offence, or the Police will kill you in the enforcement of it.

This is why there is cause to think very deeply before deciding that something should be illegal. Constable Len Snee would not have been shot dead if cannabis had not been legally prohibited, as Jan Molenaar would have been left in peace to treat his mental condition in the way that he knew best.

Anyone who supports a law also supports the consequences of enforcing that law. Those consequences might involve the Police shooting up a house with no-one in it, as happened in Napier last year.

In the case of cannabis prohibition, this means also supporting the expense of $400,000,000 per year and the occasional death of a Police officer – is it worth it?

Peter Dunne Just Made it Legal to Violate the Bill of Rights Act

The Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill received Royal Assent this week, now making it legal for any New Zealander to violate Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as long as the victim uses a psychoactive substance.

This column has already reported on human rights abuses of psychiatric patients in New Zealand, and it seems Peter Dunne, in his decades-long, multibillion war on the poor and vulnerable, has laid the legal foundations for more.

Like the Psychoactive Substances Act – another invention of the psychopathic Dunne – the Substance Addiction Act is worded so vaguely as to almost be meaningless. Almost anyone can be involuntarily interred for almost anything, raising the possibility that the barbaric New Zealand mental health system is about to get even worse.

Section 7 of the Act lays out the criteria for compulsory treatment. These are vague enough that use of almost any psychoactive substance, legal or otherwise, is enough to force compulsory treatment on someone.

Section 8 lays out the criteria for severe substance addiction. They are broad enough that most of the New Zealand population would have qualified at one point in their lives. For example, anyone who has tried to give up cigarettes but has found it hard could have “treatment” forced on them.

Why is the New Zealand mainstream media so obsessed with whether or not Donald Trump is a fascist, when our own Government is passing laws giving itself the right to force mental health treatment on any Kiwi expressing their right to cognitive liberty?

Having a “very serious addiction” that “seriously diminishes the person’s ability to care for himself or herself” is one thing – but the problem is that the people defining what a serious drug addiction is don’t have an accurate idea of what the drugs they are legalising compulsory treatment for actually do.

New Zealand has, after all, fallen behind Arkansas, Uruguay and South Africa in social progress on the medical cannabis issue. Many New Zealand mental health patients have had the experience of trying to explain their medicinal cannabis use to a doctor who, by some crude calculus, simply decides that the regular use is a sign of addiction.

Section 9 states “A person’s capacity to make informed decisions about treatment for a severe substance addiction is severely impaired if the person is unable to…(a) understand the information relevant to the decisions.”

Potentially this means that if you disagree with a doctor that your medicinal cannabis use causes reefer madness, creates holes in your brain or makes you psychotic/schizophrenic/depressed/anxious/insomniac/narcoleptic (or whatever stupid shit the Govt. says that cannabis does), then you can be said to not understand the relevant information.

Given the rubbish our authority figures already believe about drugs, how can we trust them for one moment to make accurate decisions about who is so addicted that they need to be forced into treatment?

It’s already clearly not in the interest of medicinal cannabis users to be forced into prison, yet they are, at the cost of $400,000,000 per year – so how can we trust that the same Govt. doing that won’t also use this new law to aggress against medicinal cannabis users?

Section 12 of the Act states “the interests of patients should remain at the centre of any decision making.” But the Government is already supposed to be making decisions on the basis that the interests of the governed are at the centre – and they have utterly failed, because they have made it a law that medicinal cannabis users are to be brutalised by the Police and by the Health and Justice Systems.

In the Hansard record of the third reading of the Bill, Ruth Dyson said “We are putting a significant number of new patients into the system under this compulsory treatment regime.”

So we can expect that these new powers to detain the mentally ill will be used against them, and especially against those who have found relief for their mental illness in medicines that they do not have Parliamentary approval for.

It’s worth noting that the New Zealand Police can and will go as far as killing any Kiwi who resists treatment under this law.

If a patient will not go voluntarily, even if they have a good reason – like being one of the five New Zealanders who had electroshock therapy forced on them after they had explicitly withdrawn their consent last year – the Police will use force to get them to comply.

And if the patient resists that, the Police will kill them. We know this because the Police will go to that extent to enforce any law, no matter how trivial.

For the Catholic Dunne, this latest persecution of the mentally ill is a continuation of the brutal religious tradition he embodies; a tradition of abuse stretching even further back than the Inquisition.

The Psychoactive Substances Act made it illegal for anyone to have anything to do with any psychoactive substances that were not on a Government-approved list, and this Substances Addiction Act makes it possible for the Govt. to go as far as violating the Bill of Rights Act in enforcing compliance with that.

The mainstream media, of course, is too busy copy-and-pasting the latest social media gossip about Donald Trump to report on any of this. Other channels will keep you informed.

Understanding New Zealand: Demographics of Age


Some might be surprised by how much those aged from 30 to 49 dominate the bulk of the income earning in New Zealand. The correlation between being in this age group and median personal income was 0.73.

The correlation between being in the 50 to 64 age group and median personal income was almost, but not quite, significant, at 0.18. Some might find this surprising given that people in this age bracket tend to comprise the bulk of the senior positions in industry and government.

The reason for it is that there are very few such people, and the majority of the people in this age bracket reflect the educational standards of half a century ago, which were considerably lower.

The main reason why the bulk of the wealth is in the 30 to 49 age bracket is that this is also where the bulk of the education is. Being in this age bracket has a correlation of 0.60 with having a Master’s degree.

Most people are well aware that the bulk of old Kiwis are of European descent. And so, the correlation between being of European descent and being in the 65+ age bracket is 0.67, and with being in the 50-64 age bracket it is 0.71.

There are still many people of European descent in the younger age brackets, but the proportion of Maoris in these brackets is relatively much higher. The correlation between being Maori and being in the 0-4 age bracket is a very strong 0.82. For being in the 5-14 age bracket it is even stronger, at 0.85.

Pacific Islander Kiwis have positive correlations with all of the young age brackets, but they are only significant with the youngest two. Being a Pacific Islander and being aged 0-4 had a correlation of 0.44, and with being aged 5-14 it was 0.27.

The age of Asians reflect the strong correlation between being Asian and being foreign born, which was an extremely strong 0.91. Because so many Asian New Zealanders are foreign born, they will have had to have gone through the immigration system, which puts a high priority on young people who can work and pay taxes for a long time.

And so, there is a correlation of 0.49 between being aged 20-29 and being Asian, as well as a correlation of 0.57 between being aged 30-49 and being Asian.

One could surmise from the above that there is a significant correlation between being born overseas and being in the 20-29 age bracket (0.38) and being in the 30-49 age bracket (0.61). This reflects the fact that our points-based immigration system prioritises letting in those who have a large number of productive years ahead of them.

Some industries are well-known for being filled with people of a certain age group. Few readers will be surprised that there is a correlation of 0.51 with being aged 20-29 and working in the hospitality industry. There is also a predictable correlation of 0.37 between being aged 20-29 and working as a sales worker.

Some might be surprised at some of the correlations between age and income. There is a correlation of 0.25 with having an income of $150K+ and being aged in the 20-29 age bracket, and a a correlation of 0.24 with having an income of $100-150K and being in that age bracket.

The reason for this may be clear to anyone who has read the education chapter already. Young adults are often very well educated because of the liberalisation of access to higher education, and correspondingly there is a correlation of 0.53 with being aged 20-29 and being a professional. This is only marginally lower that the correlation of 0.55 with being aged 30-49 and being a professional, despite the much larger number of people in the latter group.

Those in the 30-49 age bracket, however, make up the vast bulk of Kiwi economic activity. This age bracket has a significant positive correlation for every income band above $50K. The most notable was a correlation of 0.60 between this age bracket and the $100-150K income band.

On the subject of the 20-29 age bracket, there was also a significant correlation between this and being in the two lowest income bands. Being aged 20-29 had a correlation of 0.57 with having an income between $0-5K, and a correlation of 0.47 with having an income between $5-10K.

The 30-49 age bracket, by contrast, has a significiant negative correlation with being in both of those income bands. Here it is -0.27 with being in the $0-5K income band and -0.42 with being in the $5-10K band.

As Kiwis get older than this, there are fewer who have extremely high incomes and fewer who have extremely low incomes. The bulk are in the comfortable middle zone. This may be because previous generations were more egalitarian in their outlook

It can be seen when our culture generally started to go off the idea of smoking cigarettes – it was in the mid 1980s. We know this because the 30-49 age bracket has a correlation of 0.58 with having never smoked, which stands in stark contrast with the figure for the 50-64 age bracket, which was -0.02.

People don’t seem to mind walking to work in their twenties. The correlation between walking to work and being aged 20-29 was 0.68. The next age bracket – people between 30 and 49 – had a correlation with walking to work of -0.02, which was much, much lower. This will reflect both increasing physical difficulty, naturally increasing laziness, an increase in the means to maintain a private vehicle and an increase in the desire to keep up the appearance of a certain social status.

Older people were significantly more likely to be South Islanders. Being in the 50-64 age bracket had a correlation of 0.33 with being in the South Island, and the 65+ age bracket had one of 0.27 with living there.

*

This article is an excerpt from Understanding New Zealand by Dan McGlashan, due to be published by VJM Publishing this winter.

The “Hard Question” of Consciousness Was Solved Thousands of Years Ago

The hard question of consciousness is the label given to the question of how consciousness arises from the brain. All manner of extremely important, respected and influential professors and philosophers have spent much time pondering this weighty question.

Bafflingly, despite the concerted effort of many of the planet’s most advanced intellects, no progress has ever been made. No definition of consciousness has ever been agreed upon, no measurement of consciousness has ever been made, and no apparatus that can detect the presence of it has ever been built.

Now, anyone who has seen beyond might allow themselves the pleasure of a little snigger here, because it’s obvious to us that the entire question is arse about face.

The hard question of consciousness is only a conundrum for anyone trying to explain consciousness under the assumption that the material world is real and the primary basis of reality.

Anyone who knows the truth – that consciousness is the primary basis of reality – knows that there simply is no hard question of consciousness, because it was the consciousness that gave rise to the brain and not vice versa.

Consciousness is the one and the only thing that does not need an explanation, because it is the one and the only thing that is sufficient in itself. Consciousness does not need a material world because it can simply dream one up… as it has done a hundred trillion times in the past, and as it will do a hundred trillion times in the future.

In fact, everything is pretty straightforward once it is understood that the illusion of the material world is merely a divine parlour trick brought about by the slowing down of the vibration of consciousness.

Being allowed into this degree of insight is a rare privilege, and one that makes much of the mystery of the world clearer.

The material world doesn’t need a creator because it doesn’t really exist; it’s just been dreamed up by consciousness in the same way that consciousness dreams up dream worlds in sleep at night.

So there is no need to believe in a creator God.

It won’t ever go anywhere, as consciousness is capable of dreaming it up again at any point in the future. Because consciousness is complete and eternal, it will never lose its capacity to dream up material worlds.

So there is no need to fear the death of the physical body or the extermination of life on Earth.

Consciousness does not need to be ‘created’ and it cannot ‘disappear’. Both of those concepts apply only to forms in the material world, and because the brain does not generate consciousness it simply doesn’t matter that the brain grows from an embryo and that it dies upon the expiration of the body.

The brain, like the body, like the entire material world, is fundamentally something that consciousness is conscious of. And just because consciousness is conscious of something does not mean that thing necessarily exists in an actual material world.

In other words, reality is divided into consciousness, which is unchanging and eternal, and the contents of consciousness, which are always different, unpredictable and fleeting.

Consciousness is the yang to the yin of the contents of consciousness.

Ironically, the reason why these truths are so seldom known is not because people haven’t accumulated enough knowledge but because the truths have been occulted by lies, ignorance, gullibility, delusion and so much ‘knowledge’ that we have become paralysed with confusion merely by trying to comprehend it.

This helps explain the oft-observed phenomenon that the more intelligent a person is, and the greater and more powerful their mind is, the greater their capacity for reasoning themselves into delusion. Therefore, all other things being equal, an intelligent person will understand consciousness less and the contents of consciousness more.

So conceited is the average human that they do not comprehend that their grasp of the true nature of things is even less than that of a worm or ant, because those creepy-crawlies do not have the brain capacity to delude themselves into believing something truly, cosmically stupid – which humans routinely do as if it was the defining essence of our entire species.

Bizarrely, all of this was widely known thousands of years ago, in the times of Hermes Trismestigus and the mystery schools of Memphis, of Giza and of Eleusis. As science continues to advance, and as humans continue to accumulate ever more knowledge and hard facts, we fall ever deeper into enchantment with the material world, and thus drift ever further from the truth of reality.

Essentially, the so-called “hard question of consciousness” is something a mind can only conceive of if it is far enough into the illusion. If one is not deep enough in, the question simply cannot be taken seriously.

Do you have the courage to consider the possibility that everything you know is wrong, that the world as you know it does not even exist? That you are eternal, and that you are always and never alone? That you will eventually experience everything that is possible to experience, but will forget it at an even faster rate, so that the material world is forever new, eternally something to be explored?

And if so, do you have the courage to accept that all of that which is possible to experience can be modelled by a single mathematical equation known as the Great Fractal?

Very, very few have that courage, although many will claim it. If you do, you are truly one who has seen beyond.

The Red Pill and Those Who Have Seen Beyond

The phrase “to get redpilled” means to get woken up, usually painfully, to the true nature of things, especially in the context of having previously believed something that wasn’t true. It comes from the famous scene in the 1999 film The Matrix.

In the scene, Morpheus offers Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) two pills: a blue one and a red one. If he takes the blue one, he will wake up again in his ordinary life having forgotten that he ever realised there was anything unusual about it. If he takes the red one, he wakes up into the real world, which is, of course, the foundational reality underneath the matrix.

And there, as Morpheus puts it: “We see how deep this rabbit hole goes.”

It is thus slightly different to merely learning something through suffering, which is a superset to the specific case of learning that something previously thought to be true was in fact false.

This means that the red pill, and the phrase “to become redpilled” is the modern expression of an ancient sentiment. It is how 21st century people talk about having taken some steps along the shamanic path – the path for those who have seen beyond.

Usually a person gets redpilled by being treated much worse than they expected to be by an authority figure, and thereby becoming aware that the promises of solidarity from those authority figures – promises which are the very foundation of that authority – are worthless.

Many young people are redpilled by the Police. There are two major ways this happens.

The first is getting arrested for something like using medicinal cannabis. Getting put in a cage for using a medicine that improves your mental health immediately liberates a person from the illusion that the Police are there to protect and serve the citizenry.

The second way is by taking a complaint to the Police and being told to fuck off. This has forever been the case if one was a woman reporting the domestic violence of one’s husband, or a racial minority reporting being abused by one’s employer.

People are also redpilled by doctors. Telling a doctor about how cannabis is an effective medicine for your condition, only to be told to fuck off because the doctor makes more money out of pharmaceuticals than they ever could out of cannabis, will redpill anyone.

And, of course, most people have been redpilled by politicians, because one only needs to live through two electoral cycles to have seen all this shit before.

The Greatest and Silent Generations were redpilled by the Great Depression and by World War II. The Baby Boomers were redpilled by Vietnam and by the Drug War. Generation X were redpilled by the War of Terror and also by the Drug War.

Fundamentally, to get redpilled is to see beyond social conditioning. It is when one realises that the cozy patchwork of moral values in which one had wrapped oneself in was nothing more than a half-arsed convenience arrived at by one’s lack of intellectual capacity.

It is when you see beyond the comfortable little paradigm that your local authority figure knows what’s best for their people under their control.

It is when you realise that your working with the system simply and necessarily perpetuates it, and usually to your detriment.

It is when you realise that you have the freedom to choose your attitude to reality and thereby the consequences that come with that.

If a person gets redpilled from their social conditioning, this is the same as seeing beyond. And so writing “for those who have seen beyond” is also writing for those who have been redpilled.

This also means that any of the traditional shamanic methods for seeing beyond – psychoactive drugs, sensory deprivation, vision quests, sleep deprivation, rhythmic music, sexual ecstasy, fasting, meditation – are all potentially ways to redpill oneself.

Some Problems With Defining Psychosis or Mental Illness

The medical establishment likes to give the impression that they are the authority on mental illness and that they know what they’re talking about. What we used to call “being mad” is now known as psychosis, which even has a nice, neat clinical definition: it requires a “loss of contact with reality”.

The difficulty with this definition – which no clinician will admit – is that no-one knows what reality even is. Simple logic will tell you that there are as many potential interpretations of what reality is as there are perspectives upon it to take.

And these are infinite.

So the definition of psychosis has become “loss of contact with what is commonly agreed upon to be reality”.

At this point one can continue to ask if it is legitimate, but it is worth noting that this no longer matters. Once the balance of political power supports the enforcement of a medical paradigm in which a loss of contact with what is commonly agreed upon to be reality is considered psychosis, that is what psychosis will be.

Even so, one must ask the question: how does the psychiatrist know what is commonly agreed upon to be reality?

The doctor can only know about reality in so far as they have experienced it, and chances are that they have experienced it from a biased perspective for reasons that are not admitted to because of politics.

For instance, the average doctor is a decidedly middle-class person. It takes a highly unusual academic aptitude to qualify. It’s unlikely that any given doctor has seen reality from the perspective of a very poor person, or of a mentally ill one.

So it’s apparent that whatever is commonly agreed to be reality is whatever the lowest common denominator considers it to be. And mostly all we can agree on is that the physical world is real – because, after all, it looks like it – so anyone who disagrees with this is psychotic.

Mostly we can agree on the realities of the social world – don’t hit people, kick them, spit or swear at them etc. Other social realities are not so clear.

For example, is homosexuality a mental illness or not? There was a time, only a few decades ago, when psychiatrists who considered themselves “experts” in psychosis and mental illness were comfortable in diagnosing their homosexual patients as mentally ill.

If one answers that the criminalisation of homosexuality was obviously a mistake and now we know better, what about the use of medicinal cannabis? Because a majority of psychiatrists still consider medicinal cannabis use for the alleviation of mental illness to be an “abuse” that leads to psychosis, and this opinion is no less ignorant, arrogant and boneheaded than the old ones about homosexuality.

Cannabis use can lead to psychosis, but not for the reasons they think it does. Cannabis wakes you up. Psychosis is little more than being prematurely woke, and panicking thereby. Cannabis makes you aware of things that you had previously been too stupid to be aware of. And this can cause psychosis in the young and in the dull.

In so far as people are dumb, anyone becoming suddenly woke is going to have what the still-dumb would call a “loss of contact with reality”. In fact, it’s hard to see how this is avoidable, given that the opinions people hold before they become woke are inevitably those of the herd that they have absorbed out of pliability.

Anyone who, for the first time, learns a truth that the majority do not already know risks being seen as a psychotic, because the majority have be conditioned to treat anyone waking up from mass delusions as if they are sick in the head.

In cases of purely technical knowledge, this is no big deal. In cases of politics or religion, or, even more crucially, of reality itself, it is a big deal.

Anyone who has read Plato’s Republic will not only understand the analogy, but they will also realise that woke people realised all this over 2,000 years ago, and warned anyone capable of listening in texts like Republic.

The famous analogy of the cave warned those already on the path to waking up that their superior insight will not and can not be accepted as such by the plebs.

So anyone who has been awoken to a higher order of reality by the original perspectives of thought offered by certain psychoactive drug experiences ought to know, right from the beginning, that these perspectives will never be accorded credibility by a medical establishment that is absolutely stuffed full of paid-up worshippers of the cult of materialism.

Any belief in a reality beyond the material is a mental illness in the current paradigm of the Western medical establishment.

Whereas the ancient Hindus, the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks all came to a similar insight over 2,500 years ago – that the primary basis of reality is consciousness and that the material world, or Maya, is an illusion – one cannot simply expect this insight to be acknowledged by our cultural guardians of how reality ought to be interpreted.

They are materialists, and therefore anyone disagreeing with materialist dogma will be considered mentally ill. Psychosis is therefore not really a “loss of contact with reality” but “disagreeing with the materialist clinician about what reality is”.

So for the rest of us it may be a matter of bunkering down until this materialist craze blows over and those who have seen beyond can speak freely again.

Understanding New Zealand: Voting Patterns of Pacific Islanders

Many people, especially foreigners, tend to blithely assume that Maoris are more or less the same as Pacific Islanders, and could perhaps be placed in the same demographic category. Leaving aside the fact that both Maoris and Pacific Islanders would mostly object to this, there are statistical differences between the two groups that make them distinct.

The most notable thing about the Pacific Islander population is their love of the Labour Party. The correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting Labour in 2014 was a very strong 0.78. For the most part, this simply reflects the degree to which Pacific Islanders in New Zealand tend to be working class.

The correlation between being a Pacific Islander and median personal income was -0.29, which is enough to suggest that the majority of them have an interest in voting for a left of centre party. There is also the correlation of 0.50 between being a Pacific Islander and working in the transport, postal and warehousing industries.

Predictably, then, there is a negative correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting National, and this was -0.46. It’s worth noting that the Maori antipathy towards National was as strong as the Pacific Islander love of Labour, whereas the Maori love of Labour and Pacific Islander antipathy towards National were not as strong.

Perhaps reflecting the significant correlation between being a Pacific Islander and being born overseas (0.38), there is no significant correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting New Zealand First in 2014 – this was -0.08.

Some believe that the Greens, in so far as they are a leftist party, get votes from socially disadvantaged people, but Pacific Islanders don’t see much in Green Party rhetoric to attract them. The correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting Greens in 2014 was -0.27. Given that Pacific Islanders are not as socially disadvantaged as Maori, they might be the obvious next propaganda target for the Greens.

The votes for other parties reflected the dominance of Labour in the political minds of Pacific Islanders. They did not at all follow Maoris into voting for Internet MANA or the Maori Party – the correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting Internet MANA in 2014 was 0.07, and for voting Maori Party in 2014 it was 0.01.

Neither were Pacific Islanders particularly interested in the far right of the spectrum. The correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting ACT in 2014 was 0.06, which was not significant, and even this probably reflects the fact that ACT voters and Pacific Islanders both mostly live in Auckland more than it reflects any genuine ACT support among them.

Given the preponderance of religion and religious fundamentalism among Pacific Islanders in New Zealand, some might be surprised that the correlation between being a Pacific Islander and voting Conservative in 2014 was a significantly negative -0.29. However, the bulk of the Conservative Party vote was from the Anglican-Presbytarian-Baptist-Brethren axis and Pacific Islanders seldom belong to these movements.

Probably the largest difference in terms of magnitude for any one political party was with the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, voting for which in 2014 had a correlation of -0.10 with being a Pacific Islander, in contrast with 0.89 with being Maori. Possibly reflecting the Christian fundamentalist influence still, Pacific Islanders are vastly different to Maori when it comes to attitudes towards cannabis.