This is a fairly long document, please use the links below to jump to the section headings.
Hello Liberal
You, dear Liberal see the world through rose-tinted and blinkered glasses. Some of you are true believers and some merely useful idiots. Let’s have a look at some of the presuppositions you hold so dear.
On the question of New Zeeland having been stolen from the Maori people.
You take it as a given that “We took this country” from the Maori people. This is an important questing for New Zealander’s that bears a closer look.
The notion that New Zealand was stolen from the Maori people is untrue in the sense that it simplifies and misrepresents the historical facts of the settlement of these islands. No doubt wrongs and injustices were committed. And it is very easy from our standpoint to make moralistic judgments on events that occurred over a hundred and fifty years ago.
Things could have been done better, but they could also have been done a whole lot worse. The Maori people were not massacred or enslaved; they were not corralled into reservations or shipped off to foreign lands. A fate that could well have occurred had New Zealand been initially colonized by other powers. Fortunately, that did not happen, from first contact to the Treaty the relationship had been one of mutually beneficial trade. Extremely profitable trade in fact to the extent that some northern Maori had become wealthy international traders with their own ships. (Source) And it was for the purpose of safeguarding that trade that the northern Maori chiefs wrote to King William IV explicitly seeking his intervention and protection (from a perceived threat from the French).
It could have been a whole lot worse, they benefitted and they sought out and instigated closer ties with the British government themselves.
Prior to European settlement Maori economic life consisted of subsistence farming and gathering, they had no written language and no technology and life expectancy was only 30 years. Intertribal relationships were characterized by slaughter slavery and ritual cannibalism, the Musket Wars would rage into the 1830's killing over twenty thousand Maori. By comparison, the land wars of the 1860’s killed about 2000 (Source). So the chief benefit that colonization finally brought to the Maori people was peace.
The idea that we Whites “took” or stole New Zealand from the Maoris first implies that there was a country to take and that there was a monolithic Maori nation to take it from. At the time of the signing of the Treaty the total Maori population is estimated at 90,000 persons, most densely populated in the Northland region, in a country of 264000 Km2. The White population at the time was only about 2000 persons.
The treaty was signed by about 530 Maori chiefs representing most of the Maori population at the time. The only move towards Nationhood on the part of the Maori people was the 13 confederated tribes of the north that first approached the King and worked with Busby to create the 1835 declaration of independence.
There are other issues around the concept of land ownership and sovereignty that really need to be looked at more closely to get around the problem of applying contemporary norms to a situation that existed 178 years ago.
In terms of the ownership of bare land or untouched pristine forest, the English conception of ownership can be found in Adam Smiths; The Wealth of Nations (pp80) “The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable”
In that sense, it would be difficult for the English mind to respect a prior claim to ownership of vast tracts of untouched forest. Whereas if I stake a claim, clear the land, fence it off, till the soil and tend my crops it is understood that by virtue of the labour and effort I have put into it, the land owes me a return and to that extent I claim ownership of the land. Indeed, the Maori people may have understood this principle a little more than they let on.
In 1880 Te Whiti o Rongomai realized the principle that Payment for land Justified claims of prior ownership, even though from the government point of view they were just payments to keep the peace. He told his followers that all they needed to do to stake their claim was to possess the land and till the soil.
The Maori people had no equivalent to the European concept of sovereignty. Instead, they had 540 chiefs representing 90,000 people. Other than the United Tribes of NZ representing the 35 northern chiefs there was no united body representing Maori interests as a whole.
This is backed up by Governor George Grey’s advice to the Colonial Office in 1863 that there were only 3355 Māori living on 200,000 hectares of fertile land in the Waikato, and of this they had cultivated just 6000 hectares.
The Crown prior to the Treaty settlement did not appear to be much interested in New Zealand at all. And far from wanting to come out here and steel the country, the Crown seems to have been more motivated by a desire to protect the interests of the Maori people against unscrupulous land speculators. The Crown’s hand was somewhat forced into greater involvement by the continuing demands of settlers and the actions of the New Zealand Company.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that a military operation was not necessary; the locals were smart, peaceful and willing to trade with the newcomers for western products. The Crown response was pragmatic, far cheaper to sign a treaty than send an invading force of thousands of infantry.
Claims of Maori land theft rest on the deliberate intentions of The Maori Land Court 1865, and the New Zealand Settlements act 1863 to free up Maori land for settlement. Maori holdings were deliberately broken up and confiscations of huge areas were made from Tribes in rebellion and apparently even some who were not.
It’s very easy from 153 years down the track to pass moralistic judgment on the deeds of the past. Things could have been handled better and in a more equitable way. A very small number of Maori claiming exclusive rights to huge tracts of unused land was never going to gibe with the arrival of a highly advanced and vigorous European culture that needed somewhere to go. And that had an entirely different understanding of the ownership and use of land. The cultural clash between an advanced, technical and industrializing European civilization and what was a relatively primitive hunter-gatherer civilization was never going to be easy. The country we enjoy today would never have come into being without the acquisition of that land. Certainly, you can argue that the purpose of the Maori Land court in seeking the rapid individualization of ancestral Maori land ownership was “immoral” or “wrong”. But this is a case of your damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. The government believed the land was needed; the Maori tribes could not and would not move into closer proximity to one another, - they would slaughter each other if they did, - and they claimed vast holdings of land – as required by their subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As it turned out many of the towns and settlements that were planned never eventuated, and eventually some land was sold back to the Maori.
There may not be an equivalent in Maori for “sovereignty” but they certainly knew who owned what and they were more than willing to sell off huge swathes of territory to the English settlers. Are we to assume now that they did not know they were selling their land? What did they believe they were exchanging for the money and goods they received? Was the money or goods they received just rent or a lease? I believe the Maori chiefs new exactly what they were doing and they were more than happy to take advantage of the British offer of money for land, which conveniently confirmed their status as prior owners.
In Balance
- Maori initiated and sought British intervention for protection and trade.
- Initially, the Maori benefited in lifestyle and wealth, and militarily over other tribes.
- The British acceptance of Maori ownership and sovereignty over New Zealand seemed to suit both sides, even though there is no equivalent word for sovereignty in Maori. They could sell the land for highly valued European products and the British could acquire the land in peace.
- The crown saw the acquisition for settlement of virtually all of New Zealand as essential to the development of the country.
- The recognition of initial Maori sovereignty, the treaty and confiscations and dubious land sales under the Maori Land Court have enabled years of litigation right up to the present day.
The fact that the British at the time were willing to pay the Maoris anything at all for the land is quite remarkable. The British Empire held sovereignty in Africa from Cairo to Cape Town, all of it by conquest. The British respected the intelligence of the Maori and presumably felt they were a people they could negotiate with. It’s clear that there was a strong impetus to look out for Maori interests in the settlement of the islands whilst at the same time facilitate the colonization of the country.
I believe the obligation to see that things were done in an equitable fashion rests with the colonizing power. However, to a certain extent, they were in a no-win situation. Round them all up and put them on a reservation and there would have been a bloodbath, they hated each other far more than any of them hated the British. The equitable setting aside of lands for the respective tribes may have worked, but there were hundreds of them! Each claiming ownership to vast tracts of untouched primordial forest.
So now with the question of reparations and the putting right of past injustices. I had mentioned to you in your interview “how far do you go” because this is a slippery slope. These reparations are only sought from the crown, not from other tribes who inflicted far more brutal and homicidal crimes against their own people. Surely this is an object lesson in how not to colonize a new territory; generations later we are now left to pick up the tab for the altruistic generosity of our imperial forebears.
And how does one calculate the value of a wrong, a hundred and fifty years after the fact? You could ask “what could they have done with the land they lost?” Or more likely “what would they have done with the land they had already possessed for 500 years”. I think this is a valid point for the anti-white liberal’s to consider. You may talk about opportunity cost, fair enough; what is it? It is likely that had the treaty been signed in 1940 instead of 1840. Those same Maori chiefs would have been confronted by a George Grey supported by Battleships, planes, cars, tanks, Radio communications and the whole thing would have been filmed and recorded for posterity.
The Maori were regarded as an intelligent people, but culturally, they were a culture experiencing stasis. I do not believe there is any reason to assume that Maori tribes who may have lost lands through wrongful confiscation or dubious land deals would have created for themselves the level of wealth that is being handed to them today as settlements. To apply European expectations of development to the Maori people is to misunderstand the Maori intent. The subsistence farming, hunter-gatherer type of existence of the traditional way of life required considerable lands. A type of existence that is incompatible with intensive European farming techniques. So how much should the crown compensate the Maori tribes for the loss of land with which they were going to do nothing?
The settlements in this context are not a compensation but rather a self-inflicted fine. But OK, fair enough, if the crown determines that it has broken its own contractual obligations, then what is a fair remedy. Current market value? The return of the land if possible or other lands?
The various tribes are now being financially compensated for land that was both legally and illegally confiscated, and being paid out multiple times for the same so-called settlement.
Total settlements are now 2.24 billion dollars and counting with Ngāi Tahu and Tainui-Waikato recently receiving an additional 370 million dollar “top-up”! (source). There is no end in sight to this process. ($466 for every man woman and child in the country)
The modern Maori population (or those that identify as Maori) today is about 800,000. A truly spectacular population recovery from the low point of 42000 in 1896.
The Maori people are grownups, we don’t need to beat around the bush and they don’t need affirmative action appointments to help them up the economic ladder.
Reparations are one thing; attempting to put right prior wrongs and showing good faith for the benefit of the community is fair enough. But we know that achieving simple equity is not always the goal. And the longer the government continues to play along with Maori activists who seek to exploit the otherwise good intentions of the government, the more they will continue to feed into the on-going industry of grievance and claims. This is not good for Maori and it certainly isn’t good for the country as a whole. I believe the Maori ruling elites have trapped themselves into what is fast becoming an outdated paradigm. They talk about “partnership” but that is a ruse, they are out to get what they can from a government that is also trapped in a liberal ideological straight jacket that it cannot break free from. Both sides need to man up, stop looking backwards and start moving forward together.
Moving on.
You may ask “How have we been disenfranchised”?
Rather than fully document and flesh out every example, I’m just going to state the case and provide a link to a YouTube video or other documentation.
You insist that whites are not under threat anywhere or in any way, that Whites control everything and have all the best jobs and make the most money, and that demographic displacement of Whites is only something to be celebrated. Let’s See…
Information presented under the following five headings; Population, Race mixing agenda, Mass Immigration, Anti White Bias in Media, Affirmative action.
- Population
White population; 760 million
Women of childbearing age; 2.5% or 190 million women.
The White population figure is contentious. Many Demographers over count, including many people in their calculations who would not normally be considered White. I have used a number developed by Chris Woodberry
In 1950 Whites represented 28% of the world’s population. Now, depending on the source you use whites are 10 to 17% . YouTube GooglePost
- Race mixing agenda.
- Mass Immigration.
The Great Replacement. Fantastic overview of the whole programme of White Replacement by Lauren Southern. YouTube
Using the Refugee Migration Crisis to Build the New World Order. The John Birch Society. YouTube.
The UN seriously considers the massive immigration of none European people as a solution to the demographic decline of the European people. UN document on Replacement Migration (Source). One scenario seriously suggests the importation of 235 million third worlders as a “solution” to Europe’s demographic problem. No suggestion is ever made to encourage stable families and the birth of more children. Only the importation of Non-whites. See the Kalergi Plan here and also this YouTube
- Anti White Bias in Media, Entertainment, Academia and education.
Event Canceled: New Zealand Is Hostile To Free Speech. Stefan Molyneux. Both of these commentators deal with issues that directly affect the prospects for White cultural and indeed physical survival, yet they are shut down for “Hate Speach”. YouTube
No Free Speech at Auckland University. Response to the Banning of the Auckland University European Students Association. The vitriol and outright lies spewed by the mainstream media against the slightest hint of White identity betrays a coordinated and organized attack. YouTube.
Hollywood's Anti White Agenda - Beauty & the Beast. Mark Collett. YouTube.
- Affirmative action
Stefan Molyneux on Race and IQ YouTube
Race & IQ - Demographic Effects on National High IQ. Very in-depth theoretical study of race and IQ. YouTube.
Morality and Ethnicity
I have been told “There are far more modern examples of how White people have disenfranchised other cultures”. It's difficult to respond to this without knowing what you are talking about, perhaps Blacks in America, or South Africa, or maybe Colonial India or perhaps British colonial Africa. There are also numerous examples of how other people disenfranchised other people, Arabs enslaving many millions of blacks over a thousand years. Or Blacks enslaving Blacks, or Arabs enslaving Whites for hundreds of years right up to the early eighteen hundreds. Yet all we ever hear about is the incessant whining from the liberal left about “slavery” as if this were a uniquely White European institution.
Understand that we are done with apologies. We do not apologize for the deeds or misdeeds of our forefathers. We accept the natural world as given, and whilst not wanting to speak for everyone on the political right I believe in a spiritual sense that Nature has become sentient in US; that the crux of the problem facing western man is a spiritual one. We do not entertain the vain imaginings of the Marxist liberal left which we consider to be anti-human and anti-nature. All natural groups, Races and species have interests, and we stand against the contrived morality that is used as a weapon by the political Left to corrupt the natural instincts of the European peoples to defend their own.
You will complain that white people have the “best jobs and the best opportunities”, but you are quite unable to consider the possibility that just maybe that is because they are the pest people for the job or that they worked hard with intelligence, energy and creativity to create the best opportunities for themselves, and that they are fully entitled to the rewards they earn for their efforts.
I have been told by Liberals that “We created the society in which we thrive under, of course that is a form of discrimination”. This is a particularly revealing statement. Why wouldn’t White people create societies in which we thrive? It's quite ridiculous to suggest that whites or indeed any homogenous group would not create the best conditions they can for their people, anything else is simply unhinged! And you call this discrimination? When you are developing a society for your own people, to suit your own social standards and cultural mores, it is I suppose discriminating by default, obviously and why not? This is completely normal yet your Liberal Anti-White mind has a problem with it!
European peoples wherever they have settled around the globe have produced peaceful highly successful societies. Rhodesia under white rule was the breadbasket of Africa, feeding millions and providing peace and prosperity for their own citizens both Black and White. Similar situation in South Africa, where Blacks under apartheid lived under better conditions and had better health care than they do today (Source)
Your Liberal attitude seems to deny that White people have a right to live in their own sovereign countries unmolested in peace.
To expand on the idea of Race and Nation.
There are many aspects or factors of a social Culture. Culture is everything you see around you and take for granted; your Language, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, Architecture, Art, Poetry, Philosophy and Music. It is the knowledge of your history and the heroes of your past. We maintain that Race is foundational to that culture. As we know that average intelligence, character and creativity vary between the Races, so the texture of culture the different Racial groups produce will differ to reflect the racial character of the people from whom the culture came.
We affirm the primacy of territory to the expression of cultural identity. Both in terms of how cultural norms and practices initially develop and latter to provide an exclusive environment where cultural identity can be fully expressed. The more highly developed a culture is, the more insistent the requirement for exclusive territory will be.
This has to be so, to allow space for art, architecture community events and activities etc. and room for the population to expand.
Despite the modern attempt to separate Ethnic identity from Race (source), the fact remains that Ethnicity and Nation has always been associated with Race. So that as a White Ethnic European I may also consider myself a member of the ethnic White Nation. This is a relatively new idea that is developing as European Whites find they have more in common with their disenfranchised kin in other previously European countries, and less in common with the millions of third world immigrants invading their homelands.
Living Webster.
nation; (Latin nation, born) An aggregation of persons speaking the same or a cognate language and usu. sharing a common ethnic origin.
Collins.
nation. a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent language history etc.
So when we allow large numbers of a foreign ethnic group to settle in NZ it is perfectly natural for them to want to stick together and create their own ethnic enclave. These groups will do this, and in a so-called Multicultural society, you will inevitably get the fracturing and balkanization of once homogenous lands into what are by definition, multiple small nations. The prior homogenous cultural landscape will by default cede territory and sovereignty to the new ethnic enclaves.
Now when the liberal mind, so completely deracinated and unable to recognize his own racial, ethnic and cultural identity is confronted by a multiplicity of Racial groups in society, he sees no threat to his own identity at all because he doesn’t have one. He sees only an amusing array of restaurants and churches and temples. You have surrendered your inheritance, and are left as a pedestrian in your own country observing disinterestedly the rise of fiercely ethnocentric groups with whom you have nothing to share.
So the regular average Liberal is suffering from a psycho-spiritual malaise that the rest of the world finds curious and tragic. When other peoples who have a healthy attitude to their own people and cultural identity, see that white countries have negated our own identity in favour of the “other”, they are more than happy to take advantage of our suicidal naiveté. And you, like most other deracinated liberals like to assume you occupy some kind of moral high ground (re Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and in your delusion completely fail to notice what is going on around you while your own country is being steadily dismembered.
This kind of Liberalism is considered by many on the right to be an actual mental disorder. One of the most powerful Videos I have seen on this subject is this one by “Way of The World”. It is an interview with Yuri Besmenov, former KGB agent. He outline’s what he calls Ideological subversion, also called Cultural Marxism, and how it is used to completely destroy the west.
I have met Liberals who admit to being familiar with Cultural Marxism. That being the case, you can no longer hide behind the facade of liberalism or feign some kind of moral superiority. If you are aware of Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Gramsci etc. and the other members of the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt, then you must also be aware of “critical theory” and the long march through the institutions of the West, and their long-term goal to destroy the West from the inside.
There are I’m sure many on the left who are too young, arrogant and naïve to know any better, they are the useful idiots. There are also many who know exactly what they are doing but will hide their intentions behind whatever social justice cause is fashionable, they are the ones who are one step away from the insanity that is Antifa. Wrecking and brawling on the street knowingly tearing down what remains of the best of our society to make room for the eventual creation of their naïve Communist dream (you know this is true if you know about Cultural Marxism). They can engage in the cultural War to destroy everything we hold deer if they will, but what is unforgivable is the deliberate deception and manipulation of so many well-meaning but uninformed fools who believe they are just “helping the refugees” or “fighting racism” or “women’s rights”. Facing the Left on the ramparts, we on the conservative Right are doing our best to inform, alert and encourage our people to stand up against the creeping nullification of traditional New Zealand values.
I have been asked by you liberals “so what is a traditional New Zealander?” in a deliberately derisive tone, and you seemed genuinely not to know. A traditional New Zealander is a White European, and it is not “racist” to say that. The Maori people are obviously New Zealanders by default. But this country was built by white Europeans and it is that cultural balance that we are fighting to preserve. Multiculturalism and Diversity are frauds, part of the power of the left rests in the simplicity of the lie. To right-thinking people, the phrase “diversity is our strength” is such an obvious barefaced lie that we are astonished that anyone would give it a second thought. Yet here we are with thousands of people apparently believing something that could never be true – ever! Many I’m sure allow themselves to believe these incongruences because to speak against it would make them feel bad; feel guilty or uncomfortable. But feelings are no argument and your feelings are no defense.
In closing, here is a new video I have found that fairly comprehensively covers the Right wing view of the Left and provides some kind of explanation for why we fight. The Left’s beef with White people Explained.
This very short Video Presentation succinctly summarises the position of the general Alt-Right. I personally, and I believe most right-wing groups as a whole can fully back the 12 points made in this presentation. The 12-Point Manifesto of the Alt-Right YouTube
Finally, the world is changing fast and the culture War is brutal. Hopefully my people – the ones you deny the very existence of – will be able to preserve for our children a New Zealand worth keeping.
============================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment