Kiwis, wake up. The world is a rigged casino, and you’re not the house. The same entities peddling “deliverance” from evil are the ones pulling the strings – globalists, politicians, and their corporate mates. They dangle hope like a carrot, keeping you hooked on promises of truth while you abandon your own logic. Don’t fall for it. This is the shell game, and the pea’s never under the cup. Look at history.
The official stories of 9/11, the UK’s 7/7 bombings, Israel’s October 7th, Tasmania’s Port Arthur massacre, and our own Christchurch mosque attacks? They crumble under scrutiny. Yet inquiries and investigations are scripted before they start. Why? Because the outcomes were decided long ago.
These aren’t random tragedies – they’re moves on a chessboard, planned to control you. The psychopathic elite don’t care about your pain. They bank on it.
You’ve been conditioned to obey since birth. From the moment you’re born, you’re legally a slave – registered, numbered, and owned without your consent. No one told you.
Schools drill compliance into kids, teaching them to follow orders, not question them. Today’s children are targeted harder than ever – indoctrinated through screens, curricula, and fear. Control the kids, and you control the future. Rewrite history, erase inconvenient truths, and you’ve got a world of unquestioning minions ready to defend their chains.
The system thrives on confusion, distrust, and division. It pits mate against mate, ensuring you’re too busy fighting each other to notice the real enemy.
Those who dare stand up – whistleblowers, truth-tellers – are crushed as warnings. Step out of line, and you’re next.
But here’s the kicker: authority isn’t real. It’s a lie. Someone claims power over you, and most nod along, indoctrinated to comply.
Politicians, the enablers of this scam, pass laws to tighten the globalists’ grip. They control every lever – courts, media, police – ensuring your subjugation. Politics isn’t the answer, but it’s the battlefield. Ignoring it, hands victory to the enslavers.
You’re not helpless. There are at least three ways to fight back:
The Ballot Box: Overwhelm the rigged system. Vote for those who reject the globalist agenda, but don’t just vote – organize, demand transparency, and hold politicians’ feet to the fire. Apathy is surrender.
The Ammo Box: If push comes to shove, you may have to fight for your right to exist as a free man or woman. History shows freedom isn’t given – it’s taken. Be ready.
The Land Grab: Pool resources, aquire a large chunk of land, and declare your own nation-state, for example, under the 1933 Montevideo Convention. It’s legal, bold, and a middle finger to the system.
This isn’t about hippie vibes or manifesting nonsense. It’s about seeing the world for what it is and acting. You’re not just a cog in their machine – you’re a New Zealander with a backbone. All of you have a stake in this. The system wants you docile, distracted, or dead. Prove them wrong.
Our voice refuses to bow. The truth will keep flowing, no matter how hard they try to silence it.
Join the fight. Question everything. Act now. Your future, your kids’ future, depends on it.
The controversy surrounding New Zealand Green MP Benjamin Doyle has sparked a heated debate about child safety, parental rights, and the role of activism in shaping societal norms. Doyle, who has faced backlash for his private social media posts, has been accused of promoting harmful and inappropriate content, particularly regarding his child.
Key Concerns:
Child Safety: Doyle’s posts have raised concerns about his child’s well-being and potential risks associated with his parenting decisions.
Parental Rights vs. Children’s Rights: The debate highlights the tension between parents’ rights to make decisions for their children and the need to protect children from potential harm.
Activism and Mainstream Acceptance: Critics argue that the push for mainstream acceptance of trans activism may be compromising child safety and ignoring potential long-term consequences.
The Controversy Unfolds
Doyle’s private Instagram account, “BibleBeltBussy,” featured posts that included a photo of him with a child captioned “bussy galore.” The term “bussy” has been interpreted as a slang word combining “boy” and a vulgar anatomical reference. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have questioned the appropriateness of Doyle’s posts, with Luxon stating that they were “really inappropriate”.
Reactions from the Green Party
Green Party co-leaders Chlöe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson have defended Doyle, arguing that his posts were taken out of context and that the controversy stems from misinterpretation of language used within the queer community. However, some critics argue that the party’s response has been inadequate and that they are prioritizing protecting Doyle over addressing concerns about child safety.
Balancing Personal Choice and Child Safety
The debate raises complex questions about balancing individual freedoms with the need to protect children. While adults should be free to make their own choices, children’s safety and well-being must be prioritized. The conversation must consider the potential long-term consequences of parenting decisions and the role of activism in shaping societal norms.
Ultimately, the focus should be on ensuring that children are provided with a safe environment, free from life-changing decisions made by parents or activists. By prioritizing child safety and promoting nuanced discussions, a more balanced and compassionate society may result.
The personal choices and identities of consenting adults are their own business, and individuals should be free to identify as they see fit – whether that’s as a man, woman, bi, trans, non-binary, or even something entirely unconventional – like a toaster.
However, when it comes to children, a different standard applies. Kids should be allowed to grow and develop without being influenced by adult ideologies or agendas, and they should be given the autonomy to make their own decisions when they reach adulthood. It’s essential to prioritize children’s well-being and agency, ensuring they’re not pressured or coerced into making life-altering choices before they’re capable of informed consent. By doing so, we create a society that values individual freedom while also protecting the vulnerable.
The notion that viruses are the primary cause of many diseases has been a cornerstone of modern medicine for over a century. However, a growing body of research suggests that this paradigm may be fundamentally flawed. Dr. Mark Bailey’s seminal paper, “A Farewell to Virology,” (2022) and the work of Dr. Sam Bailey, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Dr. Tom Cowan, have collectively challenged the conventional wisdom on viruses and vaccines.
Their research posits that viruses do not exist as disease-causing entities, but rather as misidentified cellular components and other biological phenomena. This idea is not new and builds on the pioneering work of former virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka and The Perth Group. However, it has gained significant traction in recent years, largely because of the COVID-19 scamdemic. The implications of this theory are profound, and they raise a crucial question: if viruses do not exist as claimed, what are we vaccinating against?
The vaccine schedules that govern our lives are based on the assumption that viruses are real and pose a significant threat to public health. However, if this assumption is incorrect, then the justification for vaccines crumbles. Are we simply creating a future dependent clientele for pharmaceutical companies?
Proponents of the conventional virology paradigm often dismiss these ideas as “pseudoscience” or “conspiracy theories.” However, a closer examination of the evidence reveals that the criticisms leveled against the Baileys, Kaufman, and Cowan are largely unfounded. These doctors have pointed out that an experiment should adhere to the scientific method and show the “virus” as an independent variable. As it stands, the virology literature has fallen short on this basic requirement.
One common criticism is that these researchers are not “experts” in the field of virology. However, this argument is easily countered by pointing out that the very notion of virology is being challenged. Who better to challenge the status quo than those who have dedicated themselves to understanding the underlying biology? Furthermore, Dr. Lanka was a virologist in the 1990s but abandoned the profession when he realised the methods were pseudoscientific.
Another criticism is that the idea that viruses don’t exist is “unproven.” However, this argument ignores the fact that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that viruses do exist. The onus is on the scientific community to provide empirical evidence for the existence of viruses, rather than relying on assumptions and establishment dogma.
The fact that no credible expert has challenged or refuted the findings of the Baileys, Kaufman, and Cowan speaks volumes. It suggests that the conventional virology paradigm is built on shaky ground and that the idea that viruses do not exist is not only plausible but also worthy of serious consideration.
So, what are we vaccinating against? Is it a real, tangible threat, or is it a phantom menace created to justify a lucrative industry? The answer to this question has far-reaching implications for public health, the pharmaceutical industry, and our understanding of the human body. Ask yourself: “who benefits the most from upholding the virus model?”
We invite you to explore this topic further, to question the assumptions that underlie our vaccine schedules, and to seek out the evidence for yourself. The truth is out there, waiting to be uncovered.
The time for complacency is over. The Covid-19 vaccine debacle has exposed the callous disregard for human life by those in power. Not a single individual has been held accountable for the harm inflicted. The courts have colluded with the government, and the police have aided and abetted crimes against humanity.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry’s revelations about decades-long child abuse in state and faith-based care have yielded nothing but empty promises. The inquiries themselves are a sham – money-laundering rackets for retired judges, lawyers, consultants, and other parasites. The victims remain ignored, forgotten, and marginalized.
This is not a matter of incompetence; it’s a deliberate, systematic assault on our rights and freedoms. The system is designed to maintain the status quo, to keep the powerful in power, and to silence dissent.
We are at a crossroads. We can continue to succumb to the distractions, the race-baiting, and the divisiveness fabricated by the system. Or we can stand up, united, and demand justice.
The enemy is not the person next to you; it’s the system that exploits and oppresses us all. It’s the politicians who lie, the bureaucrats who cover up, and the corporate elites who profit from our suffering.
In 2026, we have a choice. We can continue to participate in this charade, or we can rise up and demand a new era of accountability. We can elect leaders who will genuinely represent us, or we can perpetuate the cycle of oppression.
The time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. We will either stand together and fight for our freedom, or we will surely fall, one by one, to the forces of oppression.
In the wake of the New Zealand government’s zealous enforcement of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation, banks have been on a crusade to cancel accounts and freeze assets of individuals and organizations they deem “high-risk.” But beneath the veneer of righteousness lies a sinister reality. Banks are not the paragons of virtue they claim to be. In fact, they are the very embodiment of the predatory and exploitative practices they purport to combat.
The AML legislation, touted as a necessary measure to combat terrorism and organized crime, has become a convenient pretext for banks to indulge in a frenzy of account closures and asset seizures. But what about the banks’ own complicity in money laundering and other illicit activities? The hypocrisy is staggering.
Banks have long been accused of facilitating money laundering, tax evasion, and other financial crimes. In 2016, the Panama Papers scandal revealed widespread money laundering and tax evasion involving some of the world’s largest banks. More recently, the FinCEN Files scandal exposed how banks had knowingly facilitated transactions with suspected criminals and terrorists.
But the banks’ culpability goes far beyond mere complicity. They are, in fact, the architects of a system designed to enslave individuals and nations in a cycle of debt. The practice of usury, which involves lending money at exorbitant interest rates, has been condemned throughout history as a morally reprehensible practice. Yet, it remains a cornerstone of the banking system.
The consequences of this system are devastating. Individuals are saddled with debt, forced to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. Nations are coerced into adopting austerity measures, slashing social programs, and privatizing essential services. The resulting inequality, poverty, and social unrest are all symptoms of a system designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
And here lies the laughable irony: the New Zealand government, ultimately controlled by the very same money masters, has given the banks the power to wreak this economic havoc. The same government that claims to be protecting its citizens from financial crimes has, in fact, enabled the banks to commit these crimes with impunity.
But what’s even more galling is the banks’ audacity in demanding to know what we plan to do with our own money. When making a withdrawal, banks often ask intrusive questions about the purpose of the transaction. Meanwhile, they themselves should be the ones being interrogated. What about their own shady dealings? What about their role in perpetuating economic inequality and social injustice?
Furthermore, the banks are furthering their grip on control by phasing out cash and pushing for a completely digital economy. This would ensure that every single transaction is monitored and controlled, giving them unprecedented power over our financial lives. The abolition of cash would also eliminate any remaining anonymity in our financial transactions, making it easier for banks to track and manipulate our behavior.
The banks’ stranglehold on the global economy has also been a major contributor to wars and conflicts throughout history. The ability to create money out of thin air, combined with the power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit, gives banks an unparalleled level of influence over governments and economies.
So, when banks lecture us about the importance of complying with AML regulations, we should not be fooled. They are not motivated by a desire to combat crime or protect the integrity of the financial system. They are motivated by a desire to maintain their grip on power, to continue exploiting individuals and nations for their own profit.
The canceling of accounts and freezing of assets is merely a symptom of a larger disease. It is a manifestation of the banks’ insatiable hunger for power and control. Unless we recognize the true nature of this beast, unless we confront the predatory practices of the banking cartel, we will never be able to solve the majority of society’s problems.
The battle against the banks is a battle for our very freedom. It is a battle against a system designed to enslave us to reduce us to debt-slaves. It is a battle for the future of our planet, for the ability to create a world that is just, equitable, and free.
So, let us not be fooled by the banks’ hypocrisy. Let us not be intimidated by their power. Let us rise up, reclaim control of our lives, and let us create a world where the banks no longer hold us hostage.
The time for action is now. The future of humanity depends on it.
As I examine the New Zealand government’s consideration of extending the parliamentary term from three to four years, I am compelled to speak out against this move. The 1986 Constitution Act, which established the current parliamentary system, was passed without proper consultation or input from the people, effectively disenfranchising them from the decision-making process.
I firmly believe that this move was a clear overstepping of convention, as the government failed to follow the established precedent of holding a referendum to alter the constitution. Instead, they relied on the obscure and rarely used Section 268 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, which allowed for the amendment of the Constitution Act without a referendum.
In my research, I have found that the 1986 Constitution Act is, in fact, illegal. The Act was enacted by a process that was not authorized by any prior enactment, and therefore, the whole of the Act is invalid. This renders the government’s consideration of extending the parliamentary term as a further attempt to consolidate power and undermine the democratic process.
Furthermore, I believe that the Governor-General’s role in signing the Act into law was merely ceremonial, serving only as a rubber stamp for parliamentary decisions, rather than providing any meaningful checks and balances on power. This undermines the principles of representative democracy and reinforces the illegitimate nature of the government.
In light of this evidence, I firmly believe that the New Zealand government has been operating without legitimacy since the enactment of the 1986 Constitution Act. Their consideration of extending the parliamentary term is a further attempt to consolidate power and undermine the democratic process. I urge the government to address the underlying issues of illegitimacy and work towards establishing a more genuine and representative democracy, along the lines of a constitutional republic.
The trans-train has been chugging along, leaving a trail of confusion, harm, and devastation in its wake. It’s time to pull this train into the station and offload its toxic ideology once and for all.
Exposure to gender ideology has severe consequences, particularly for children. It can lead to depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and a host of other mental health issues. Children who are encouraged to question their biological sex and explore alternative gender identities are more likely to experience gender dysphoria, social isolation, and emotional distress.
The normalization of gender ideology in our schools and institutions is creating a culture of confusion and misinformation. Children are being taught that their biological sex is not fixed, but rather a fluid concept that can be changed at will. This is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also damaging to a child’s sense of identity and self-worth.
It’s essential to note that this isn’t about restricting the rights of consenting adults. No one cares what two or more adults wish to do in their private lives, as long as it doesn’t harm others. However, this freedom should not come at the expense of children’s well-being and development.
Children lack the discernment and maturity to comprehend complex gender ideologies, and exposing them to these concepts can be detrimental to their emotional and psychological health. It’s our responsibility as a society to protect children from harm and ensure they grow up in a safe and nurturing environment.
Moreover, organizations that seek to indoctrinate children with this toxic ideology must be held accountable. Severe punishment, including loss of funding and legal repercussions, must be imposed on any organization that attempts to promote gender ideology to children.
It’s time to take a stand against the trans-train and its toxic ideology. We must protect our children from the harm caused by gender ideology and ensure they grow up in a safe and nurturing environment, free from the destructive influences of this ideology.
The trans-train must be stopped, and its toxic cargo offloaded once and for all. Our children’s futures depend on it.
The myth of the “wasted vote” is a pervasive narrative in New Zealand’s general elections, discouraging people from voting for minor parties. However, this mindset is a self-fulfilling prophecy, ensuring that minor parties never gain traction. If everyone voted for a minor party, it would become the next government.
The “wasted vote” argument is often pushed by those who want to maintain the status quo and prevent substantive change. By funneling voters back into the two-party system, they ensure that the same issues persist, and no real progress is made. History has proven this time and again, with the same problems arising at every election.
To break this cycle, it’s essential to change the mindset around voting. By ignoring those who perpetuate the “wasted vote” narrative, voters can reclaim control of their country and their lives. It’s time to recognize that all current political parties in New Zealand are beholden to globalist influences and hold no real power over the country’s direction.
In reality, it’s the bureaucratic machine that maintains the levers of power, and it’s this machine that should be the first to fall. By supporting minor parties and alternative candidates, voters can begin to dismantle this machine.
Only a minor party will break the cycle and target the real cause of the problems instead of creating more symptoms while never addressing the cause. Although we are captured by globalist entities, it’s parliament and politicians who ensure the globalist agenda takes root and flourishes. Change the government, and you end the control.
To those who say voting is a waste of time, I ask: how’s that working out for you? As the system continues to tighten its grip, it’s clear that change won’t come from within the existing power structure. We need a radical shift, one that only a minor party can provide.
However, there’s a more sinister aspect to this narrative. As people become more aware of the problems and desire change, they’re often captured by multi-level structures designed to divert their attention and energy. These structures, masquerading as grassroots movements or alternative parties, promise change but ultimately lead to the same old outcomes.
The ingenious ways used to capture disillusioned people include:
Creating false hope: Promising change and reform, but delivering nothing but empty rhetoric.
Diverting attention: Focusing on symptom-based solutions rather than addressing the root causes of the problems.
•Manufacturing dissent: Creating controlled opposition to give the illusion of choice and debate
Neutralizing dissent: Co-opting or discrediting genuine alternative voices and movements.
These tactics are designed to keep people trapped in a cycle of antagonism, preventing them from working towards meaningful change. Meanwhile, the transhumanist agenda moves forward, incrementally eroding our freedoms and autonomy.
It’s time to wake up and see the bigger picture. The “wasted vote” narrative is just a small part of a larger machine designed to maintain control and prevent real change. By recognizing these tactics and supporting genuine alternative voices and movements, we can begin to reclaim our power and create a brighter future for New Zealand.
The New Zealand Medical Council’s (NZMC) relentless pursuit of Dr. Samantha Bailey is a stark reminder of the militant tactics employed by those who seek to maintain the crumbling narrative surrounding COVID-19. The NZMC, in tandem with the pharmaceutical industry and the New Zealand government, have peddled and profited from this fraud, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and devastation in their wake.
The charges brought against Dr. Bailey, including “Covid-19 (Established)” and “Public safety compromised (Established),” are nothing short of farcical. With no evidence of harm caused by her actions, the NZMC has relied on the tainted opinions of government-aligned experts like Helen Petoussis-Harris and Dr. Michelle Balm. Both “experts” simply asserted that public safety could be compromised without providing a single case.
The NZMC’s actions are a clear case of selective enforcement, designed to silence dissenting voices and maintain the illusion of a pandemic. Dr. Bailey’s views on COVID-19 have been portrayed as a risk to public safety, while her books, such as “The Final Pandemic,” which meticulously dismantle the COVID narrative, have been conveniently ignored.
The mainstream media’s (MSM) complicity in this charade is equally appalling. Their silence on Dr. Bailey’s wider publications and the NZMC’s actions raise serious questions about their independence and commitment to truth. Why haven’t government experts refuted the Bailey’s work, particularly Dr. Mark Bailey’s treatise “A Farewell to Virology”? The MSM’s failure to report on this matter is a stark reminder of their role in perpetuating the SARS-CoV-2 myth.
The imposition of unprecedented costs, exceeding $148,000, on Dr. Bailey, for a show trial she did not participate in, is a blatant example of the NZMC’s corruption and collusion with the pharmaceutical industry. This money has lined the pockets of beneficiaries in the legal system, further highlighting the entrenched interests at play.
The New Zealand government’s role in this debacle can not be overstated. Their militant application of the SARS-CoV-2 narrative has led to untold suffering, financial ruin, and loss of life. It is imperative that the government, NZMC, and pharmaceutical industry be held accountable for their actions.
The people of New Zealand deserve answers. They deserve to know the truth about the SARS-CoV-2 myth and the motivations behind NZMC’s actions. It is time for transparency, accountability, and justice.
Furthermore, it is essential to acknowledge that the Wuhan Lab Leak narrative, [the back up story] is merely another means to perpetuate the already discredited virus myth. This narrative shift aims to maintain the illusion of a deadly virus while deflecting attention from the actual culprits behind the pandemic: those who pushed unnecessary lockdowns, mask mandates, and experimental injections. With the MSM peddling this new narrative, the powers that be seek to salvage their credibility and maintain control over the narrative while continuing to line their pockets with profits from this and future ‘pandemics.’
The 2023 New Zealand General Election, held on October 14, marked a significant shift in the country’s political landscape, with the centre-right National Party, led by Christopher Luxon, forming a coalition government alongside ACT and New Zealand First, displacing the incumbent Labour Party. Amidst this contest of major parties, smaller parties like NZ Loyal emerged, seeking to carve out a niche in an increasingly fragmented electorate. NZ Loyal positioned itself as an anti-establishment, populist party with a focus on sovereignty, individual freedoms, and skepticism toward mainstream institutions. This essay examines NZ Loyal’s role in the 2023 election, analyzing its voter base through voting correlations with other parties and situating its performance within the broader political and social context of New Zealand at the time.
Background and Ideology of NZ Loyal
NZ Loyal was founded in June 2023. The party’s platform was rooted in a rejection of overreach by the globalist elite and a call for New Zealand to reclaim its independence from international organizations like the United Nations. Key policy positions included opposition to water fluoridation, the use of 1080 poison, tax increases, and “gender programming,” alongside advocacy for reduced government spending and greater individual autonomy. The messaging resonated with a segment of the population disillusioned with traditional politics, particularly in the wake of pandemic-related disruptions.
In the 2023 election, NZ Loyal secured 1.2% of the party vote, translating to approximately 34,000 votes. While this fell well short of the 5% threshold required under New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system to gain parliamentary representation without an electorate seat, it nonetheless reflected a notable presence among minor parties. To understand NZ Loyal’s voter base and ideological alignment, this essay analyzes its voting correlations with ten other parties: ALCP (Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party), Labour, National, Greens, ACT, New Zealand First, Māori Party, TOP (The Opportunities Party), NewZeal, and Freedoms NZ.
Voting Correlations: Insights into NZ Loyal’s Electorate
The provided correlation coefficients offer a statistical lens through which to examine the overlap or divergence between NZ Loyal voters and those of other parties in the 2023 election. These coefficients range from -1 (perfect negative correlation) to 1 (perfect positive correlation), with 0 indicating no relationship. Below, we explore the implications of these correlations.
Strong Positive Correlations
New Zealand First (0.82) The strongest correlation exists between NZ Loyal and New Zealand First, a nationalist and socially conservative party led by Winston Peters. This high positive correlation suggests significant overlap in voter priorities, likely driven by shared skepticism of government overreach, emphasis on national sovereignty, and appeal to voters disillusioned with the major parties. New Zealand First’s return to Parliament with 6.08% of the vote after being ousted in 2020 indicates a resurgence of populist sentiment, which NZ Loyal also tapped into, albeit on a smaller scale. Both parties’ messaging around “putting New Zealanders first” likely resonated with similar demographics, such as older, rural, or working-class voters.
ACT (0.60) A moderately strong positive correlation with ACT, a libertarian-leaning party that secured 8.64% of the vote, highlights a shared emphasis on individual freedoms and reduced government intervention. While ACT’s policy focus—free markets, law and order, and welfare reform—differs from NZ Loyal’s broader anti-establishment stance, their mutual appeal to voters frustrated with bureaucratic overreach likely explains this overlap. ACT’s urban, affluent voter base contrasts with NZ Loyal’s likely rural and grassroots support, suggesting the correlation reflects ideological alignment rather than identical demographics.
Moderate Positive Correlations
ALCP (0.36) The moderate positive correlation with the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party points to a shared anti-authoritarian streak. ALCP’s single-issue focus on cannabis legalisation aligns with NZ Loyal’s broader advocacy for personal choice, including medical freedom. This overlap may reflect a protest vote against mainstream parties perceived as overly controlling, particularly among younger or fringe voters.
NewZeal (0.34) Led by former National MP Alfred Ngaro, NewZeal’s socially conservative platform, rooted in Christian values, shows a moderate correlation with NZ Loyal. While NewZeal’s focus on family values and opposition to progressive social policies differs from NZ Loyal’s sovereignty-driven agenda, both parties likely attracted voters seeking alternatives to the secular, centrist establishment. NewZeal’s modest 0.29% vote share suggests a smaller but ideologically adjacent constituency.
National (0.31) The correlation with National, the election’s winner with 38.1% of the vote, is intriguing. National’s centre-right, pro-business stance contrasts with NZ Loyal’s anti-elite rhetoric, yet the positive correlation may indicate some crossover among conservative voters dissatisfied with National’s perceived moderation under Luxon. Rural voters, a traditional National stronghold, may have split their support with NZ Loyal over issues like farming taxes or environmental regulations.
Weak Positive Correlation
Freedoms NZ (0.06) The near-zero correlation with Freedoms NZ, an umbrella coalition including parties like Vision NZ and NZ Outdoors & Freedom, is surprising given their shared anti-mandate and freedom-focused platforms. This weak relationship suggests NZ Loyal carved out a distinct niche. Freedoms NZ’s fragmented structure may have diluted its appeal compared to NZ Loyal’s unified messaging.
Negative Correlations
Greens (-0.27) The negative correlation with the Green Party, which achieved a record 11.6% vote share, reflects stark ideological opposition. The Greens’ progressive, environmentalist agenda—emphasizing sustainability, indigenous rights, and social justice—clashes with NZ Loyal’s rejection of “woke” policies and international climate commitments. This divergence underscores NZ Loyal’s appeal to voters hostile to left-wing priorities.
Labour (-0.26) Labour, the incumbent party that saw its vote share plummet from 50% in 2020 to 26.91% in 2023, shows a negative correlation with NZ Loyal. Labour’s pandemic-era policies, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates, were lightning rods for NZ Loyal’s critique, driving its voters toward anti-establishment alternatives. This antipathy likely intensified amid economic challenges like inflation, which eroded Labour’s support.
TOP (-0.24) The Opportunities Party, with its evidence-based, centrist policies, exhibits a negative correlation with NZ Loyal. TOP’s focus on pragmatic solutions—like tax reform and housing—contrasts with NZ Loyal’s emotive, populist approach, highlighting a divide between technocratic and anti-system voters.
Maori Party (-0.17) The weaker negative correlation with The Maori Party, which won six electorate seats, reflects differing priorities. The Maori Party’s indigenous rights focus and left-leaning social policies diverge from NZ Loyal’s universalist, sovereignty-driven platform, though the weaker correlation suggests less direct antagonism than with Labour or the Greens.
Contextualizing NZ Loyal’s Performance
NZ Loyal’s 1.2% vote share placed it among the more successful minor parties in 2023, outperforming NewZeal (0.29%) and Freedoms NZ (0.46%) but trailing TOP (2.1%) and several parliamentary parties. Its emergence late in the campaign—registered just months before the election—limited its organisational capacity, yet its grassroots momentum enabled it to outpace other fringe contenders. The party’s billboards became a visible symbol of its presence.
The 2023 election occurred against a backdrop of economic strain, with high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis dominating voter concerns. Labour’s sharp decline reflected fatigue with its six-year tenure, while National capitalized on a desire for change. NZ Loyal, like New Zealand First and ACT, benefited from this discontent, offering an outlet for voters frustrated with both Labour’s progressive governance and National’s perceived establishment status. Its strongest correlations with New Zealand First and ACT suggest it drew from a pool of right-leaning, populist, and libertarian-leaning voters, a bloc that collectively bolstered the centre-right coalition’s victory.
Broader Implications
NZ Loyal’s correlations reveal a polarised electorate, with its voter base aligning more closely with right-wing and populist parties while rejecting left-wing and progressive ones. The high correlation with New Zealand First (0.82) underscores the potency of nationalist, anti-elite sentiment in 2023, a trend mirrored globally in movements like Brexit or Trumpism. However, its failure to reach the 5% threshold highlights the challenges minor parties face under MMP without an electorate seat or broader coalition support.
The party’s appeal was likely amplified by lingering pandemic-era grievances, as evidenced by its overlap with ALCP and ACT—parties championing personal freedoms. Yet its weak link with Freedoms NZ (0.06) rejects the concept of a unified “freedom movement.”
Conclusion
In the 2023 New Zealand General Election, NZ Loyal emerged as a minor but notable player, channeling anti-establishment sentiment into a 1.2% vote share. Its voting correlations—strongest with New Zealand First (0.82) and ACT (0.60), moderate with ALCP (0.36), NewZeal (0.34), and National (0.31), and negative with Greens (-0.27), Labour (-0.26), TOP (-0.24), and Māori Party (-0.17)—paint a picture of a party appealing to right-leaning, sovereignty-focused voters disillusioned with the mainstream. While it fell short of parliamentary representation, NZ Loyal’s performance reflects a broader undercurrent of populist discontent, offering insights into the evolving dynamics of New Zealand’s political landscape as of March 17, 2025.
