The hikoi protests to Wellington earlier this month were astonishing for several reasons. The foremost of these was the reaction of the political establishment, who came out in full support. Members of Parliament, media and academics all voiced support for the hikoi protests. This caused some to wonder why the Covid mandate protests of 2022 didn’t get the same treatment.
The hikoi protests had a lot in common with the Covid mandate protests of 2022 – and there were some major differences as well.
The commonalities were mostly on the surface.
Both protests attracted large numbers of people. The hikoi protests got 42,000 attendees, according to RNZ. The Covid mandate protests might not have got so many, perhaps closer to 1,000 at peak, but these attracted many of the same people on multiple days, for a cumulative total in five figures. Both protests were the biggest political event in the country at the time.
Both protests also attracted a diverse cross-section of the New Zealand public. The Covid mandate protests were decried as “white supremacist”, but in one poll 27.2% of them were found to be Maori. The hikoi protests were heavily Maori, but a high proportion of them were white. Both attracted a range of ages. Men and women were roughly equally present in both.
The differences went much deeper.
One of the primary differences was that the hikoi protests were against David Seymour in particular, who was seen as the figurehead behind the Treaty Principles Bill. The Covid mandate protests were against the Sixth Labour Government in general. Another major difference was that the hikoi protests were organised by The Maori Party, whereas the Covid mandate protests were organised in a grassroots manner.
Both of these feed into the most striking and obvious difference, which was how the Establishment reacted to the protests.
The Covid mandate protests were heavily opposed from the beginning. Even during the convoy phase, Establishment media figures decried the events, smearing the protesters as “cookers” and “white supremacists”. NPC spaces such as Reddit declared the protesters to be the enemies of the New Zealand people.
When the Covid mandate protesters got to Wellington, they were met by Trevor Mallard turning on the lawn sprinklers and blaring obnoxious music over loudspeakers. The propaganda campaign against them intensified, with news reports breathlessly accusing them of multiple property and violence crimes. A whirlwind of hate against them was whipped up by the mainstream media.
No sitting MPs met with the Covid mandate protesters (Winston Peters did, but he was not then an MP). The closest any of them came was watching from the Beehive. Eventually, the Establishment set the Police on the protesters, using violence to break up the encampment and arrest anyone remaining.
The hikoi protests, by contrast, were heavily supported. Smiling Police officers hongied with gang members on the hikoi. The mainstream media fell over itself to promote the hikoi in the most positive possible way. Hikoi organisers were given primetime slots and softball questions, and their opponents slandered.
This disparity in treatment can be readily explained by considering the agenda of the ruling class, which is principally to divide and conquer the masses.
The Covid mandate protests saw several sections of the New Zealand public come together to oppose the ruling class. Honest observers were astonished by how friendly the protesters were, and how little animosity there was between various groups. The intense feelings of solidarity at the Parliament lawn encampment was like nothing seen in New Zealand political space this century. Those present described it as being like a festival.
This is the last thing the Establishment wants.
The hikoi protests, by contrast, sought to divide New Zealand into two opposing groups: indigenous and settlers. The indigenous are the good guys, the settlers the bad guys. This narrative of division sows distrust and resentment.
This is exactly what the Establishment wants.
The New Zealand political establishment wants the New Zealand people at each other’s throats, too busy fighting each other to realise their common enemy. To that end, they will support any narrative that seeks to divide the New Zealand people into warring sub-groups, and will reject any narrative that seeks to bring the New Zealand people together.
Many Kiwis look with astonishment on the caste system of the Hindus, thinking it a barbarism that should have been abolished long ago. The caste system of Imperial Spain, with its division into Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizos, and Indigenous peoples and Africans, seems likewise bizarre to us. But few appreciate that the people of New Zealand are divided into their own caste system. This essay explains.
In the woke New Zealand of 2024, we have a tripartite caste system involving high, middle and low castes. The highest caste are the Tangata Whenua, the middle caste are the Tangata Moana and the lowest caste are the Tangata Tiriti.
The Tangata Whenua are the Maori people. As the highest caste, they are effectively the only full citizens in the Woke Regime. Tangata Whenua means ‘people of the land’, and in this context means those who are naturally here. The implication is that everyone else is here unnaturally, and thus at the pleasure of the Tangata Whenua. Only a Tangata Whenua can be a true resident of New Zealand; everyone else is a mere guest.
Because the Treaty of Waitangi is considered New Zealand’s founding document, and because the Te Reo Maori version of this is considered the true version, the power to interpret that document lies solely with those who can speak and read Te Reo Maori. This makes them the equivalent of the Brahman caste in the Vedic system.
Because everyone else in New Zealand is a mere visitor, only the Tangata Whenua may consider it a true homeland. Thus, when giving a pepeha, only Tangata Whenua are permitted to claim an association with local mountains and rivers. Tauiwi (a term that covers both Tangata Moana and Tangata Tiriti) are just passing through, even if their ancestors have lived in an area for two centuries. Thus they are categorically different to Tangata Whenua.
In Woke New Zealand, whatever Tangata Whenua says goes. They are openly acknowledged to have more rights than tauiwi, and must be consulted on all decisions.
Tangata Moana are the middle rank. This caste refers to other people of the Pacific Ocean: Samoans, Tongans, Fijians et al. (Fijian Indians count as Tangata Tiriti however, because this caste system is racial in nature). Tangata Moana are presumed to have “allyship” with Tangata Whenua, hence why Tangata Moana are a higher caste than Tangata Tiriti, who are the oppressors of Tangata Whenua.
Hence Tangata Moana can step off a plane and instantly qualify for benefits and scholarships that Tangata Tiriti don’t get, not even with eight generations of ancestry. It’s also why people can move to New Zealand from a Pacific Island and then immediately start crying about colonisers (see tweet above). Tangata Moana also have their own Super Rugby team (Moana Pasifika) in order to prevent contamination from associating with Tangata Tiriti.
There is an unspoken law in New Zealand that the protections of the Treaty of Waitangi also apply to Tangata Moana. Hence, conversations about the obligations of Tangata Tiriti to Tangata Whenua tend to drift into obligations to Tangata Moana. This is why Samoans and Tongans are considered victims of systemic racism, despite knowingly moving to a country where systemic racism existed instead of staying in one where it didn’t exist.
Working-class whites, even if their ancestors have been here since before New Zealand was fully civilised, are mere Tangata Tiriti. Tangata Moana, in other words, are people of the nearby region, unlike Tangata Tiriti, who are people of distant lands. Thus they occupy a higher caste status. This higher caste status explains why Pacific Islanders have their own dedicated government ministry, while working-class whites do not, despite similar levels of deprivation.
Tangata Tiriti are the lowest caste, roughly equivalent to shudras in the Vedic system. In this caste is everyone without any Maori or Pacific Island ancestry. It doesn’t matter if a person’s ancestors have been in New Zealand for 200 years: that person is still categorically lower than any Tangata Whenua or Tangata Moana.
The logic of the New Zealand caste system is that Tangata Tiriti are only allowed to be here thanks to the permission of Tangata Whenua. It was the Treaty of Waitangi itself which gave Tangata Tiriti the right to be in New Zealand, hence the name of the caste. Should that permission ever be revoked, Tangata Tiriti would no longer have any right to remain in New Zealand, and would presumably have to move overseas or be killed. So they better behave themselves.
The purpose of the Tangata Tiriti, in practice, is to labour for the benefit of the higher two castes. Thus, Tangata Tiriti have no right to complain that they are forced to pay heavy taxes on the income from their labour. Neither do they have the right to complain about anyone in the upper castes being on welfare. The upper castes simply have the right to be on welfare paid for by the Tangata Tiriti.
The Government is not obliged to consult with Tangata Tiriti or to take the interests of Tangata Tiriti into account when making decisions, ever. It is understood that Tangata Tiriti already have it good by being permitted to live here. Political rights over and above that are considered egregious.
Tangata Tiriti are not permitted any pride. Even saying ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ is not allowed. It is permitted, however, to identify as Tangata Tiriti, because this is considered to be an acceptance of lowest-caste status. Distinguishing oneself within that caste, however, is verboten. All Tangata Tiriti are the same, whether white, Asian, Indian or African.
Nayib Bukele is the President of El Salvador, having won re-election earlier this year with almost 85% of the popular vote. Most of his popularity is a result of his security strategy, which has transformed El Salvador from an extremely dangerous country to a safe one. On X, Bukele describes himself as a “philosopher king”. His security philosophy might be applicable to other places plagued by gangs.
Bukele’s approval rating today is some 89%, making him arguably the most popular leader of any country. Understanding why he is so popular requires understanding the difference between the El Salvador before Bukele took power, and the El Salvador now.
Bukele came to power in 2019. The homicide rate had fallen from its peak since then, but was still extremely high. In March 2022 there was a spike in homicides due to MS-13, wherein 87 people were randomly murdered by the gang over a three-day period. This was apparently an attempt by MS-13 to intimidate the people of El Salvador into submission.
The crackdown saw the arrest of around 2% of the Salvadoran population and the construction of a 40,000-person maximum security prison, known as the “Terrorism Confinement Centre”. Since these measures were taken, El Salvador’s homicide rate has plummeted. In 2023 it was a mere 2.4 per 100,000 (c.f. Canada at 2.3).
Could a similar strategy work here?
For one thing, New Zealand gangs don’t cause as much damage as the gangs in El Salvador. The homicide rate in New Zealand is lower than even the 2023 rate there. New Zealand gangs might be feral by New Zealand standards, but by Latin American standards they’re standard-bearers of civilisation.
However, the general cancer metaphor is apt. As family members of gang members can tell you, the damage caused by gang members is not limited to crime. Immeasurable quality of life damage is caused by the constant threats, intimidation and antisocial behaviour that comes with the presence of gang culture.
Moreover, existing gangs could cause extreme damage in the future. The example of El Salvador shows that the homicide rate can increase manyfold in a short period if the economic and social environment permits. Given the ongoing economic collapse of the Anglosphere, anyone could confidently predict a rise in both volume and intensity of gang activity in coming years.
Bukele’s Terrorism Confinement Centre has room for 40,000 people. New Zealand was known to have 8,300 gang members nationwide near the end of 2022. We could, therefore, build a much smaller prison – one that fit 10,000 people – and still have enough room to put every single gang member in it for life.
Other anti-gang measures could readily be adopted from El Salvador.
One of these is the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility, from 16 to 12. Having the age at 16 makes sense in a high-trust, high-social capital environment where most people want to do good. In a low-trust environment, however, tolerance and kindness just gets taken advantage of. Gangs exploit that tolerance and kindness by getting younger teenagers – too young to be charged – to commit crimes. This phenomenon also exists in the New Zealand gang scene, so we might benefit from a similar reduction in the age of criminal responsibility.
Of note is that one element of Bukele’s crackdown was banning media from expressing pro-gang sentiments. If implemented in New Zealand, this would prevent The New Zealand Herald offering a column to former Black Power pack rapist Denis O’Reilly. It would also prevent the numerous hagiographies about gang leaders doing community work.
Unfortunately, no measures will be taken to protect the New Zealand people from the gang menace as long as globalists are in power.
What New Zealand needs is a leader that cares about the New Zealand nation first and foremost.
Also of note is that the political philosophy of Bukele’s movement is explicitly anti-democratic. Bukele’s Vice-President, Felix Ulloa, has said “The democratic system that existed for years in El Salvador only benefited crooked politicians.” The system that exists in New Zealand also only benefits crooked politicians. That suggests that solving our leadership problems might require also solving the democracy problem.
All this might be too much for New Zealand for now – we are yet to see the Mongrel Mob, the Headhunters, Black Power or the Hell’s Angels murder random civilians in New Zealand to intimidate the Government. But the worse our gang problem becomes, the more we will need to consider the need for a Nayib Bukele-style crackdown.
I am writing to seek clarification on New Zealand’s current stance regarding psychedelic substances, particularly in the context where these substances are considered spiritual sacraments.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states in Section 13 that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief”. Section 15 states that “Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private”.
A fair reading of these sections suggests that New Zealanders have the right to use spiritual sacraments.
Indeed, this is already true with regards to the religious use of wine in the Christian Eucharist. New Zealand Anglicans use wine as a spiritual sacrament, the psychoactive ingredient being, of course, alcohol. But there are many other substances that serve as spiritual sacraments in the religious and spiritual traditions of the world.
The use of psychedelics like psilocybin mushrooms, ayahuasca and other entheogens has been deeply rooted in various spiritual and religious practices around the world for millennia. These practices often regard these substances not merely as drugs but as sacraments crucial for spiritual exploration, healing and connection with the divine or the deeper self.
The Eleusinian Mysteries were the most famous of the mystery schools that characterised pre-Christian European spirituality, running for 2,000 years and attracting anyone who was anyone in ancient Greece or Rome: Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Thucydides, Herodotus, Marcus Aurelius and the Emperor Julian were all known or believed to have participated.
Cicero wrote of them that “Though Athens brought forth numerous divine things, yet she never created anything nobler than those sublime Mysteries through which we became gentler and have advanced from a barbarous and rustic life to a more civilised one, so that we not only live more joyfully but also die with a better hope.”
Initiation into these mysteries involved the consumption of a drink known as kykeon. The mycologist R Gordon Wasson, the chemist Albert Hoffmann and the historian Carl Ruck have argued that the kykeon contained an entheogenic substance. Their book Road to Eleusis made a compelling argument that the use of psychedelics as spiritual sacraments played an integral role in the creation of Western Civilisation.
Robert Graves believed that linguistic evidence revealed the kykeon to include some kind of mushroom. Terence McKenna supported this assertion, pointing out that psilocybin-containing mushrooms had both the capacity to cause extreme psychospiritual change and the safety profile that would have allowed thousands to use them every year without getting a reputation for being dangerous.
The claimed benefits of the Eleusinian Mysteries included losing one’s fear of death, gaining a belief in the afterlife, learning to understand the will of the divine and improvement of moral rectitude. These benefits are very similar to those claimed by modern psychedelic users – Erowid.org lists hundreds of mystical experiences of people who have taken psilocybin.
It’s apparent from these arguments that the use of psychedelics as spiritual sacraments played a role in the moral and civil development of Western peoples during our greatest ages. But the potential of psychedelics to induce spiritual insight is not limited to the ancient age or to the West.
The Marsh Chapel Experiment conducted by Walter Pahnke in 1962 discovered that psilocybin is capable of inducing powerful spiritual experiences in modern people. A long-term follow-up questionnaire found “experimental subjects wrote that the experience helped them to recognise the arbitrariness of ego boundaries, increase their depth of faith, increase their appreciation of eternal life [etc.]”
One of the participants in the Marsh Chapel Experiment noted in the long-term follow-up, regarding death, “I’ve been there. Been there and come back. And it’s not terrifying, it doesn’t hurt.” Such an insight is profoundly spiritual. Many of the other participants made similar observations. One remembered their experience as “one of the high points of their spiritual life”.
This experiment demonstrated that the link between psilocybin and spirituality can be established within a modern, scientific paradigm. More recent research has supported this, with a 2024 paper in Current Psychology finding that “psychedelic use is linked with a variety of subjective indicators of spiritual growth, including stronger perceived connections with the divine, a greater sense of meaning, increased spiritual faith, increased engagement in religious and spiritual practices, an increase in feelings of unity and self-transcendence, positive changes in worldview, increased connectedness with others, and reduced fear of death”.
R Gordon Wasson believed that the soma referenced in the Rig Veda was the fly agaric amanita muscaria. Supporting his contention was the fact that Siberian shamans were still using this mushroom for spiritual purposes. More recently, Russian researchers have found evidence suggesting the active ingredient in soma was psilocybe cubensis. In either case, psychoactive mushrooms have a history of religious and spiritual use in India as well.
Although the record of historical psychedelic use is not as strong in Europe as it is in the Americas and Asia, there is still evidence of magic mushroom use in Spain from some 6,000 years ago.
In New Age spirituality, psychedelics are used extensively. In Nelson, where I am from, it’s common to use psychedelics as spiritual sacraments outside the purview of any institutional authority. “Mushroom Season” describes the time of the year beginning in early winter and ending around midwinter when psilocybin-containing mushrooms are foraged, dried and consumed as spiritual sacraments.
In light of all this, significant questions arise concerning the human rights implications of New Zealand’s drug laws as they pertain to psychedelic substances. Once it is understood that psychedelics are spiritual sacraments, there’s a compelling argument to be made that restrictions on their use infringe upon the freedom of religion and belief, a fundamental human right protected under various international treaties to which New Zealand is a signatory.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of religion” and “to manifest his belief in practice”. Given the widespread use of psychedelics as spiritual sacraments throughout time and space, this right must surely encompass the right to use psychedelics to manifest spiritual belief in practice.
An appropriate reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act suggests that the right to use psychedelics for spiritual purposes is guaranteed. In reality, however, a hierophant who wanted to conduct a sacramental ritual akin to the Eleusinian Mysteries could potentially face life imprisonment for the supply of Class A drugs.
This letter seeks to understand how current New Zealand drug laws reconcile with the rights of individuals to practice their spirituality freely, especially when such practices involve substances that are currently classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The laws against the use of psychedelics for spiritual purposes reflect, to a major extent, the historical Christian dogma against pharmakeia. This is the same dogma that led the Christian fanatics under Alaric to destroy the Eleusinian Mysteries in 396 by killing its priests, that led the inquisitors of medieval Europe to burn witches at the stake for using spiritual sacraments, and which inspired the Catholic invaders of the Americas to eliminate the sacramental use of teonanacatl by murdering the shamans who specialised in it.
It has also been suggested that much of the modern opposition to the use of psychedelics as spiritual sacraments comes from organised religious groups who want to position themselves as ticket-clipping intermediaries between the people and divinity. However, as can be seen from reading the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, Kiwis have the right to commune with divinity without the need of an intermediary. This necessarily means the right to use spiritual sacraments.
As other laws based on Christian prejudices – such as those regarding marital rape, homosexuality, prostitution and abortion – have been discarded in favour of greater freedom, the laws prohibiting the use of psychedelics for spiritual purposes ought to be discarded. Indeed, many countries and territories have reformed their psychedelic drug laws, based on arguments such as the ones made in this letter, plus others.
In closing, I respectfully request a detailed clarification or review of how New Zealand’s drug policies align with the principles of religious and spiritual freedom and human rights. Understanding the government’s perspective on this matter would not only inform those within New Zealand who use psychedelics as spiritual sacraments but would also contribute to broader discussions on drug policy reform that respects cultural and spiritual diversity.
Thank you for considering this important issue. I look forward to your insights and hope for a dialogue that can potentially lead to policies that honour both the law and the deeply held spiritual convictions of many New Zealanders.
