Star Trek and The Wellington Stand.

The agglomeration of groups and ideologies gathered in wellington on 9-11 2021 would normally have very little in common. In broad strokes, largely Maori and White liberals. The event was organized by the Freedom and Rights Coalition, a group started by members of Brian Tamaki's Destiny Church. Easily identified as the dark sunglass and suit-wearing Maori who seem to fancy themselves as special agents, CIA spooks or the like; regardless they put on a well planned and disciplined event and from their experience at the pulpit many demonstrate real oratory talent. 

A large number of the 1835 Treaty of independence flags were also in evidence. These groups claim sovereignty to ALL of New Zealand and at this point represent an interesting wrinkle in the image of unity promoted for the event. Jacinda has given the Activist Maori everything they asked for and more and they have become extremely powerful as a result; becoming quite possibly the Frankenstein monster she will not be able to control. Jacinda's Maori were all very useful while their own private goals happened to coincide with her globalist agenda, but they were never supposed to start calling the shots themselves.

The only group that was not in evidence was the old school political right, members of the now-defunct National Front or any other group of that ilk. The racially and politically aware White European conservatives. The ones who would recognise the incongruity in a crowd flying two flags ostensibly representing the same bit of dirt. Fortunately, most of the blue rinse liberals flying their NZ flags have no idea what that other flag is, and certainly don't recognise any ideological threat to their happy view of New Zealand as the cutesy Telly Tubby Land we are all forced to love. That was the view Jacinda presented to the country and was voted for at the last election. In fact, I would be very surprised if the vast majority of those present, Maori and Pakeha were not committed Labour supporters last time around. The Mothers Group were also present and put on an impressive 'Mothers Cry'. Also, many self-negating beta whites and left-wing useful idiots; whites pretending to be 'Maori' because they have no culture of their own etc.

There was a perceptible contradiction right there in the crowd for those willing to see. And the sense of unity they worked so hard to present on the day could very quickly evaporate as Group aims come to the fore in the months ahead.

To the central issue of vaccine mandates.

What is happening to us as a people. And what is the point of forcing an entire population to follow utterly unreasonable and unnecessary directives?

It is the rise of the obedient society, it is evident everywhere. It can be seen on our roads in motorists who obediently follow all signs to the letter and for extra virtue points, extend the rules to themselves just a little further so they can feel that little bit more special. Travelling well below the posted speed limit and continuing to crawl along on road works sections where the guys have clearly finished for the day.

I am reminded of a star trek episode in which Jean-Luc Picard is captured and put to torture by the evil Cardassian Gul Madred. (Youtube). The method is simple enough, the interrogator needs to know the Federation's defensive strategy for an upcoming war with the Cardassians. But how to break the will of Jean-Luc Picard and thus secure his obedience and subservience? This will become very important later.

Madred asks only that Picard agree that there are FIVE lights instead of FOUR hanging on the wall behind his desk.

Picard refuses to say what is not true and is tortured as a result... Day after day the same routine is played out, the Cardassian is pleasant enough at first, but always he returns to the central question of the lights. And Picard continues to insist on the objective truth and continues to pay the painful consequences.

The theme is obvious. Picard regards adherence to truth and objective fact as a central part of his identity; it is who he IS. The Cardassian knows this, he knows that if he can break the soul of the man by making him compromise on the objective reality of his senses then Picard will be his, and the rest will be easy. To get Picard to admit to himself and the Cardassian standing in front of him something that both of them know to be false will mean the humiliation and complete subjugation of the will of the captain of the Enterprise to the will of the Cardassian. The more simplistic and obvious the task the better; there can be no misunderstanding or reasoning away your failure after the fact, in the case of the lights it is a simple count, do you see Four or Five lights?

Picard is subjected to repeated sessions of pain deprivation and torture, all apparently because he refuses to say there are five lights instead of four. Picard wants the pain to stop to such an extent that in the final scene his own mind told him there were in indeed FIVE lights just as The Cardassian had said all along.

The Cardassian had succeeded in changing Picard's perception of reality, and from that point on, the interrogation would be merely a formality. Picard would be an open book, following instructions and revealing information as required,- a broken and defeated man. In the Star Trek scene, he is rescued in the nick of time just before he blurts out what his broken mind is telling him is there.

In the real world unfortunately we do not get rescued in the nick of time. But hey it's not that bad, you could lose your job for sure, and you can't go shopping and you can't fly or go on public transport. There's no torture silly! You just have to say the words, there are FIVE lights, not four!

• There IS a lethal and highly contagious global pandemic

• The vaccine IS the ONLY cure!

• You ARE morally obliged to have the vaccine

• you MUST wear a mask

In light of the foregoing, the obedience training that we are all being subjected to seems ever more insidious. And therefore the obligation of free men to speak the truth is ever more pressing.

What comes next? Once the population has been trained to follow any government instruction, no matter what it is or how unreasonable or ridiculous. At that point, democracy has been rendered redundant, and without so much as a whimper, we have become slaves in our land.

Resist.

Aotearoa

 The logical conclusion to the previous two articles on Maori separatism is to consider the practical outworking of the breakup of New Zealand into two politically distinct national entities; New Zealand and Aotearoa.

At some point in this hypothetical analysis it is necessary to pivot from an outright rejection of He Puapua to a more nuanced Nationalist position that says; yes, people who want to identify as Maori can have their own territory. If that's what you want, very well. Take it. You have made your grievances clear, there is no way we can placate your demands, so go. It is in both our interests that we have a reasonable separation, we can have equal but separate development.

New Zealand will return to the European dispensation that was and remains the foundation of OUR country. And Aotearoa – if that is what you want to call your country- can have an exclusive Maori oriented society, within your own national boundaries. You will no longer be accused of fostering an apartheid state or deliberately subverting the stability of our country since you will be able to create your own ethnically defined Nation State within your own national borders. You can teach your children your own outrageous lies about the founding of our country and impose your Maoritanga religion on your population as you wish.

Politically we can deal with each other as allies and friends, we can build a relationship based on trade and mutual self interest. Aotearoa can have a treaty agreement for defence. And any number of arrangements can be made to facilitate trade and free border movement. Financial arrangements could be modelled on the English-Scottish arrangement whereby you issue your own banknotes but retain parity exchange with the New Zealand dollar. There is an almost infinite range of possibilities for negotiations on trade, telecommunications, power delivery, transport and infrastructure. But these negotiations will cease to be done on the bases if moral blackmail and lies.

In terms of actual territory, Northland seems like an obvious choice for historical reasons, Waitangi, The bay of Islands and New Zealand's first capital. A population of 180000 at present. But is this big enough and does it have the capacity to absorb Maori from around the country? Does it have the industrial and commercial base to support a viable Nation State? Realistically a viable and independent State will need more, and the Maori people would not accept being confined to Northland in the manner of an Indian reservation in any case. Alternatively the border negotiations could draw a line more or less from Mahia to Tauranga for a territory including basically all of Gisborne and the Bay of Plenty, including Rotorua and making Tauranga or Rotorua your capital city and seat of government.

This is not a small piece of territory and includes the port of Tauranga, and has more than enough resources to constitute a viable country. A land area of over 20,000 square kilometres that includes major fisheries, forestry, horticulture, farming and industry. (BoP; 12,231 Km². Gisborne; 8,355 km².) Figures from Wikipedia give a combined GDP of 19.4 Billion for the 2019 year and a current population of 356000.

This separation is difficult to contemplate but may well be the only way to accommodate incompatible people and cultures on the same land mass. Once this arrangement is settled we can both look forward to a fruitful prosperous and permanent future living side by side as good neighbours should. And looking back we will say it really wasn't that hard. All it took was a little courage and honesty to confront an egregious complex of lies and fabrications and the courage to say Enough and mean it.

The Could, The Should and The Likely

This series of articles has taken a theoretical look at possibilities and outcomes of the Maori separatist movement. With a bias in favour of preserving something of traditional New Zealand. This final part looks at a final outcome of political national separation. It may be the only way to preserve a part of New Zealand where White New Zealanders can have some control over their culture and destiny. One particularly galling aspect of Treatyist activism has been the apparent assumption that New Zealand is occupied ONLY by Maori and Whites. European New Zealanders have already reduced rapidly to 66% [stats.govt.nz] and the treatyists completely ignore the 14% Asian population, the 8% pacific population and the people that make up the other 160 different ethnic groups in new Zealand. The Maori supremacist attitude simply lumps all the None Maori New Zealanders into the same group and then expects national deference to Their cultural hegemony.

I have said for many years that the best interests of the Maori people lie with preserving the European cultural balance that Maori people have- for better or worse- adapted to over the last 200 years. This advice of course has fallen on deaf ears. And it could have been a lot worse for Maoridom, in fact one could argue the best thing that ever have happened to the Maori people was Colonisation by the Brittish Empire of the nineteenth century.

In another time line they could perhaps have remained un-colonised in perpetuity, with the wars, slavery and cannibalism that characterised pre European Maori, continuing forever. Or perhaps New Zealand could have been settled by the Portuguese or the Spanish a couple of hundred years earlier, also with less than humanitarian outcomes.

No, it is clear from a factual tour of our history in New Zealand that European settlement provides a sound basis for the confidence and self respect of the European population. And regarding the contemporary Maori identified population; they too should realise that the people from whom they are descended made a conscious decision to abandon the old ways of Tikanga with it's recurring and continuous cycles of Utu. They called for English Law, and abandoned the old ways, freed the slaves and began the process of rebuilding their people, society and culture under the protection of the Law. That was the revolutionary decision they made for the survival of their people and the object for which they signed a Treaty at Waitangi in February 1840. It is something for which contemporary Maori should be intensely thankful for and proud of having achieved. Rather than remaining as children, consumed by malevolent envy and bitter resentment.

With Nationalist and nativist sympathies the European Right has far more in common than we have to argue about with the Maori people, Racial awareness, the importance of family, ancestry, culture and our relationship to the natural world and sense of place and belonging. But with UN encouragement these laudable cultural values have been weaponised against the very existence of our country, the one of which Maori descended people represent about 16%.

An honest appraisal of History Should serve as the basis for a symbiotic relationship between the cultural identities in New Zealand. Preserving racial and cultural identity for both peoples. But this simply can not happen while Maori activists are peddling a false narrative of grievance and venom against the government. Setting themselves apart from the country – their own country-, as a whole so as to attack it from within and ultimately destroy it.

What would a symbiotic NZ look like? The other cultural denominations do not attempt to dominate or subsume the European dispensation but they still manage to pursue their culture, through traditional dress, beliefs, food and language art and history. We now have in NZ a petition by the Maori party to officially change the name of New Zealand to Aotearoa plus change the names of all towns, cities and place names to Maori. Most New Zealanders do not speak Maori, the government, without consultation, at least not with the people most affected by these dramatic changes – has just arbitrarily started using Maori names everywhere. The compliant news media just starts talking Maori as if everyone knows what they are talking about, but they don't.

They can call them what they like but the names are the names that mean something to the 85 % none Maori population. In some jurisdictions signs are found in two languages. But they do not completely overwrite and change the underlying name.

In terms of television broadcasting. We already have in New Zealand a dedicated Maori language television channel that offers a full compliment of programming, news and current affairs. Maori News Maori Television. Having a language arbitrarily forced on the none Maori population, is rude, presumptuous and deliberately antagonising to the people that built modern New Zealand. The fact is we already had a Maori culture that operated parallel to the White New Zealand Culture, We already had Full immersion Maori schools, the Marai, special fishing rights for Maori etc etc. The fact is that the Maori people have not been at a material disadvantage in New Zealand for decades; now please excuse the colloquialism but this whole He Puapua approach to take over the country is just taking the piss! It has to be wound back to a level where each culture can actually breath; that is express itself within the framework of a contemporary world.

If it's symbiotic that means there are benefits that flow both ways. Now we have a problem because if there is one thing that white New Zealand does not need it is excessive taxation to fund a group of malevolent finger pointing wankers. If the benefits don't flow both ways then it is parasitism, not symbiosis.

Confluence of interests

It has been in the interests of the United Nations as a globalist organisation to undermine the hegemony of homogeneous populations. To breakdown the multi-polar world that in their view was dangerous to world peace. New Zealand, as a white English country had to be mongrelised in the same way as all the other countries of the prior anglosphere. To that end, Maori activism has proven to be an excellent tool to subvert, degenerate and ultimately destroy the English character of our country.

Global corporate interests also see only upside in the annihilation of racial and cultural difference. Imagine not having to tailor products and marketing to different peoples and markets, corporate elites who already have wealth beyond imagining, salivate at the prospect of a global singular market, without borders or barriers, with a unified currency and a common culture of consumerism! The corporate wet dream is well on the way to becoming reality. And if on the way to accomplishing their aim they have to wipe out populations, destroy culture and civilisation then whatever; that is of no concern to them.

The Maori activists have proved themselves useful and gullible stooges to the globalist agenda, believing that they will come out on top when they have destroyed our country culturally and economically. Sitting atop the ashes of our country, puffing their chests out like Mussolini the new chiefs of Aotearoa will preside over a multiracial basket case obligated to sell off the assets, farms and fishing rights to China for one off cash payments that will leave the country like the installed raj of India taking their orders not from the British but from global corporate interests, if your lucky. And if were not lucky, we simply become a vassal state of China, forced to accept Chinese trawlers helping themselves to the seabed and foreshore the Treatyists fought so hard to take away from crown ownership. The forestry owned entirely by off shore interests for the benefit of foreign shareholders or the CCP.

Sounds rather gloomy but it really is time we consider the possible outcome a few years down the track of continuing on our present course. Because I suggest a realistic view of the world of 2040 New Zealand is not as rosy as some of these naive treatyists have led themselves to believe.

This piece I have presented what could happen; national divorce and the creation of the state of Aotearoa. What should happen; Honest reconciliation, acceptance of race realism and a symbiotic nationhood, and what is most likely to happen; a continuation of the fracturing and disintegration of our country. As things stand today this writer sees nothing on the horizon to indicate that that last unfortunate outcome can be averted. Most people still refuse to recognise the overwhelming plenary victory the left has achieved. Left wing ideas are deeply rooted in the moral framework and even religious ideals of White Europeans. Our propensity for out-group preference, the ease with which we can be guilt tripped into acting against our own interests. Our childish naive view of the intentions of others. These are the subject for another time, but suffice to say that the psychological state of contemporary White society is self destructive and profoundly sick. No other people behave this way, other groups are aware of the collapse of our civilisation but are more than happy to take advantage of our demise for their own gain.

After the collapse of classical civilisation, the murder of Hypatia in 415 or the closing of the Academy in 532. The curtain fell on liberty and free thinking in Europe and the dark ages endured for a thousand years before the European spirit finally broke through again in the European renaissance. The iconoclasm of the totalitarian left is much like the early Christian destruction of the classical world. Only now it's global. The communists are winning, and a big part of their victory will be the elimination of the people who created the civilisation in the first place.

The age that we are all slowly witnessing the dawn of will be long and dark. There will be no one left to rebuild; once the people are gone, that's it. It seems at this stage impossible to over state the magnitude of the current disaster. Yet still all around is casual apathy and disinterest.

To conclude the present discourse, it seems that if a symbiotic accord can not be reached with the Tribes and Treatyists then political separation may well be the last potential chance for preserving a recognisable New Zealand.

Race, Religion or Nation.

The imposition of Māoritanga on New Zealand.

In my previous article I looked at the ways non Maori-specifically the White New Zealand community could respond to Maori separatism. In this piece I want to look at the way the tribal activists deal with the fact that there are very few if any actual full blood Maori in existence in New Zealand or anywhere else. And how this admitted fact impacts their claims to compensation and special legal treatment in New Zealand.

In all the rhetoric about the Treaty claims settlements, reparations, sovereignty and culture one could be forgiven for thinking that the Maori people are a clearly defined Racial and Ethnic group. A group that has been defined, targeted and separated for oppression abuse and discrimination by a brutal and racist foreign conquering power. This writer had a professional journalist tell me once that “we came over here and stole New Zealand from the Maori”. This attitude seems to be the generally accepted view across all sections of society.

The crime of the century in New Zealand is the appalling ignorance of the average New Zealander regarding the truth about the early settlement of these isles. This lack of education has left a knowledge vacuum that the Radicals and Marxists have been only too happy to fill.

Responses online to the question on the existence of full blooded Maori are almost unbelievably naive. A mix of covert white self hatred and condescending supremacy from any and all non whites. The universities are much to blame for this situation. A Maori and a White going through the university system in New Zealand will come out; one with an unjustified feeling of nobility and grievance and the other with feelings of personal shame and responsibility. The thing they will both have in common is an absolute confidence in the correctness of their beliefs.

They have both been maliciously lied to and misled, to the detriment of themselves and the country through the perpetuation of unjustified grievance and misplaced guilt.

What happened to the Maori?

To understand the predicament contemporary Maori find themselves in requires a brief review of the history of the Maori people at the time of settlement. And an understanding of how and why the Maori population declined so rapidly and the motivation for the rapid race mixing that occurred. First of all, almost everything we are taught by the establishment about early New Zealand history either omits whole sections, distorts the truth or creates from whole cloth a completely false narrative.

Full blood Maori started to disappear rapidly after the arrival of White settlers. There are good records of the state of the Maori people at the time of first contact, right through to 1840 and beyond. We do not need to rely on Contemporary Maori activists to re write history in order to have an accurate account of what happened.

The decline of the Maori population was due primarily to war, infanticide, and a high mortality rate due to malnutrition,- itself the consequence of continual war. The out breeding started early with Maori mothers giving their children to white settlers to save them from the inevitable slaughter of inter tribal warfare. Maori society had, by the 1820's become completely homicidal. Locked in the death grip of competing Utu and reprisal, many Maori wanted European settlers close at hand as a safeguard against tribal attacks. Maori women would go with White men as a means of survival and give their daughters to whites to avoid femicide, and so many Maori men were being slaughtered in war that White men looking for a mate would have little competition for young Maori women.

The demographic effects of the musket wars would be felt for a hundred years with the Maori population falling to a low of 42000 by 1896 from which point it began a slow recovery. The deliberate obscuring of these aspects of Maori history creates a strange incongruence surrounding the lack of Full Blood Maori. Without a knowledge of what they did to themselves people will naturally look for an explanation for the population collapse and see the white man and colonisation as a convenient scape goat.

From Unrestrained Slaughter by John Robinson

“It is hard to grasp the full extent of the widespread fighting that raged for many years across the entire North Island, and then to the south. The deadly inter-tribal wars, with the complex web of migrations, enmities and alliances, was to create a complex situation for the new colonial government, and in many ways the later wars represented a continuation of the musket wars.” pp96

“It was obvious that Maori society was destroying itself” pp73

“These chiefs were starting to doubt the wisdom of their traditions, starting to turn away from the requirements of Tikanga.” pp75

How Maori is Maori enough?

It is quite common in these times of imposed “Tikanga” (Maori customs and beliefs) for the question of full blood Maori to be raised in opposition to claims for compensation.

The argument being that because the Treaty was signed between the Crown and about 540 Maori chiefs rather than a single monolithic homogeneous Maori 'people' and because those distinct peoples, for all intents and purposes no longer exist then the claims are spurious. The current cohort of New Zealanders identifying as 'Maori' are largely cross bred with Europeans, the Maori component of their heritage also being highly mixed with affiliations to many of the previously distinct tribes. This gives rise to the absurd situation of people who are only partly Maori in any case claiming affiliation -and therefore compensation – to multiple tribal groups.

The response from Maori academics is to downplay the importance of Genetics or Blood to the essence of Maori identity.

Along with the supercilious flim flam about being full of blood “All Maori are full blooded. In common with all of humanity,...” Ross Himona of Maaori.com writes. "'Maori-ness' is a cultural and familial state of being, regardless of the total genetic inheritance of a particular person, and regardless of the degree of brownness of the skin. For instance many tribal peoples in Aotearoa / New Zealand today are quite fair-skinned after long contact with the Pakeha (non-Maori). But they may be nevertheless fiercely staunch members of a "Maori" family / tribe.”

“contact” in this case means out breeding over many generations. Also “What I'm saying, I suppose, is that being 'Maori' is being a member of a family of 'Maori' descent that operates within 'Maori' cultural values, norms and beliefs, regardless of the degree of genetic infusion from outside that 'Maori' line of descent.”

Despite downplaying the importance of actual Maori ancestry, it suddenly became very important when in 2017 Native Affairs newsreader Oriini Kaipara was found to be 100 percent Maori. All of a sudden it was a big deal to be able to prove wrong the oft stated assertion that there are no longer any full blood Maori and have not been for a long time. The fan fair about the discovery of a Real Maori proves the disingenuous nature of the claim that Heritage doesn't matter. The fact is it only doesn't matter when they can't find any actual Maori. When one finally turns up the fanfare created throws into doubt the prior claim that being genetically Maori is of little significance.

"I thought as long as I don't get a result that's less than 80 percent I'll be happy" said Ms Kaipara. One can only imagine the outcry if any media personality said that about being White! At the very least they would lose their job, and would never work in Media again!

Ms Kaipara continued “Being Māori is so much more than blood quantum. “ but also “As Māori, we rely on passing down our ancestry or whakapapa from one generation to the next. This is how we identify ourselves. ” So which is it? Does Race matter or not? Or is it simply an identity of convenience? Conclusively Kaipara says “You’re as Maori as you feel.”

Pita Sharples Maori Party Co-leader 2006 has said “This concept of dividing our blood into parts – how Maori are you – flies in the face of one of our strongest values, the concept of whakapapa, our genealogy.”

“By this standard, indigenous nations vanish when a certain blood threshold is reached and white becomes the default identifier.”

Sharples is simply stating a fact here, one he apparently doesn't like. That with continual out-breeding the original racial stock will for all intents and purposes disappear. But we can not make legislation in contravention of scientific fact simply because we don't like the laws of nature! If the Maori people find it 'disturbing' that they are out breeding themselves the solution is to stop doing it! Rather than complain about the results of the practice of intermarriage, if you want to have Maori kids them it would be a good idea to have a Maori partner. It's a kind of childish naivety and petulance that the government encourages by simply never calling them to account. Quotes from IC.org.

In an article from E-Tangata, commenting on the apparent natural inclination of Maori to play guitar, or be good at sports Morgan Godfery writes;

“We shouldn’t listen to these ridiculous stereotypes. There’s no innate way to be Maori and, as new research out of Otago University is confirming, these stereotypes actually act as “justifications for colonialism”. “

He continues,“Settler colonialism needed to manufacture the myth of a “heathen savage” who must be subdued or destroyed. Without the myth, what’s the moral justification for dispossession and genocide?”

Or Waitai West Rakete, an analyst with the Ministry of social development

“The issue is, Māori as a race have been targeted to have what was theirs taken away from them.” “When Europeans arrived, Māori uncontestably owned all of Aotearoa New Zealand.” Quora 2021

Uncontestably? The Pre European Maori contested with each other every square inch of the small patch of ground that each tribe could claim until he was summarily slaughtered and eaten by a neighboring tribe. There was no monolithic Maori to own anything much less the entirety of New Zealand.

In looking into blood, ancestry and genetics there seems to be a complete absence of the confusion we find in discussions of Whakapapa. Ancestry and blood are terms used interchangeably. The main DNA testing labs, AncestryDND, Family Tree DNA and 23andME make clear that when we talk of blood we are talking about DNA and ancestry and ethnicity. From MyFamilyHistory.com “How to find your genetic ancestry or blood relatives? “ or “...to uncover your ethnic mix and get a generalized picture of your ancestry from a genetic perspective.”

This double speak from Maori activists is a direct result of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 which redefined a Maori as "a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a Maori". No longer did the Maori themselves have to make any attempt to preserve their racial integrity, and any largely none Maori could on the basis of one distant ancestor claim membership in the Tribe. The meaning of Whakapapa now had to mean more than identifying Maori ancestry because Maori ancestry was no longer Maori-specifically.

UN Contribution

The United Nations has also done its part to encourage activists by supplying both the blueprint and the justification for Maori radicalization. Its fair to say that without the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, we might still have the grievance and claims industry but would not also be facing plans to completely split the country on racial lines.

The UNDRIP feeds into the Maori position with its definition of indigenous; rather than provide a clear definition the approach of the UN is to attempt to identify Indigenous peoples based on the following criteria.

• Self identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level

• historical continuity with pre-colonial and /or pre settler societies

• strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources

• distinct social, economic or political systems

• Distinct language

• Form non-dominant groups of society

• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.

Indigenous peoples retain social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live

“According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples. This is based on the fundamental criterion of self-identification as underlined in a number of human rights documents.” - UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Incidentally, while not the theme of this article it's interesting to note which populations are excluded from the definition. From the United Nations definition it seems impossible now to defend a majority population on the basis of indigenous rights! The UN definition precludes majority rights regardless of how many generations or thousands of years your identifiable racial ethnic group has occupies a particular region. To be regarded as indigenous by the UN definition one has to be a minority group in a country with a singular dominant racial majority. What then are European people in European countries?

Imposition

Prior to 1974 to qualify as Maori you had to be able to prove at least 50 percent Maori ancestry. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 redefined a Maori as "a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a Maori".

Due to what has already been said on the demise of the wholly Maori race the Tribalists have needed to find another basis on which to justify the imposition of Māoritanga on the rest of us.

Māoritanga 1. (noun) Māori culture, Māori practices and beliefs, Māoriness, Māori way of life. Source

Māoritanga includes religious beliefs that are wedded to a particular place, what they call Aotearoa. It is also a world view and way of life. Without using the word what they are describing is religion. But it is even more than that, an ideologically defined people wedded to place is a Nation. A Maori nation without a state.

Now where have we heard that before? Referring to Syria in 1853 Lord Shaftesbury wrote “a country without a nation in need of a nation without a country”. The Jews were regarded as a Nation long before the creation of the Jewish State of Israel in may 1948. Are Jews a race or a Religion? The same slippery argumentation found amongst Jewish radicals is evident in the current debate. If there is something to be gained by presenting oneself as merely another harmless religion then so be it. If expediency requires a Race then so be that too. These are arguments of convenience that are used to step over and around and in all cases to escape accountability.

The drive to define Maoriness on the basis of feelings of belonging is all very well, and it seems reasonable to respect ones desire to feel a sense of belonging to a group of kith and kin and shared history. But when we are talking about massive financial benefits, political power and national cultural hegemony exclusively for members of this group based only on feelings of belonging to a pseudo racial religion, this is a recipe for corruption graft and discrimination.

It will continue to be impossible to come to a firm agreed conclusion with Maori activists if we can never agree on objective standards of truth and fact. It is of course in the interests of the activists to keep the claims and arguments going as long as there is money, power and resources to be gained.

But in the absence of a firm acknowledgement of racial identity being a key delineating factor in Maori identity, we have to ask on what basis can the many claims of Maoridom be made? We suggest that the only reasonable approach is to treat Maori activism is as a religion, or worse, as a nation defined by religious ideology within a host nation and engaged in subversive activity to wrest political power from the host.

When seen in this context all of a sudden many things become clear, as do our options and responses.

Separation of Church and State.

New Zealand has an uncodified constitution composed of acts of parliament, conventions and historical precedent. The separation of church and state is not explicitly stated, but is respected as a convention in our system of government. Indeed, the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 provided for the funding of catholic schools which was seen at the time as a breach of said separation. But was likely pushed through as a last ditch effort by Bill Rowling to capture the Catholic vote and stave off impending defeat at the hands of the looming personage of Robert Muldoon. It didn't work, and was not worth the aggravation of appearing to break the convention of church – state separation.

So the state in that instance specifically provided funds for the promotion of one religious theology. The act may have been predicated on a desire to help one particular religious voting block but was framed in secular terms.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0129/latest/whole.html

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2013/11/finding-separation-of-church-and-state-for-new-zealand

https://www.hsnsw.asn.au/MaxWallace.html

Theocratic Nation State.

A Maori Nation rising within New Zealand to displace the existing state, and replace it with a religious/cultural/racial/ideological regime.

If we consider their arguments merely on religious grounds. Having established the claims to reparations are without merit. But claiming cultural concessions within New Zealand society on the basis of religious freedom and tolerance. Then they like everyone else can pursue their religious practices without state interference. But still the limits to state support based on separation of church and state prevent the state from acquiescing to what can now only be viewed as the most outrageous demands for money and privilege, the demands being based on a religious narrative. Their claims and beliefs are held with religious fervor as one might hold the sacraments as an article of faith. NZ must decide weather to fund Maori separatism on the religious basis or not.

We can believe what ever we want, and we can believe fervently to be true things that are not. This is faith. When you construct an entire system of beliefs that support a world view, this is religion. Some of the beliefs may be true some may be demonstrably false. This is why you must have a separation of church and state, because you cannot be making laws and legislation to govern the people based on things that are objectively false.

But what Maori separatists want is something that goes way beyond religious freedom and tolerance. Theirs are the demands of a nation state with independent territory, institutions, schools, healthcare, and an independent government of their own- but crucially with veto rights over the existing Government!

If the same objectives were being pursued by a foreign power it would be clear that New Zealand was under attack and all measures of political and military defense would be taken to defend our people and our country from a clearly hostile foreign power. Yet this threat appears to be home grown. Appearances can be deceiving however, He Puapua is the New Zealand implementation of a United Nations doctrine to which the National government of John Key signed up to in 2010.

Up until the appearance of He Puapua, Maori activism had been mostly confined to achieving financial 'settlements', massive cash payouts repeatedly made to multiple tribes. The appearance of He Puapua as an implementation of UNDRIP dramatically changes the whole nature of the Maori question. With He Puapua the focus is now political power.

After considering the position of the Maori Activists as a religious one it is clear that what they are doing is so much more than mere religion. Their position, clear from their actions claims and demands are more like the actions of an aggressive subversive nation state acting against the interests on New Zealand and its people.

When seen in this context all of a sudden many things become clear, as do our options and responses.

We can now put aside race and tribe and claims, demands and allegations. These are aspects of the Maori Religion and as such are not pertinent to the search for a solution to the Maori question in New Zealand. You now present only as a religion. You can present as a religion, but a religion that is encompassed in a collective of the prior existing tribes and peoples and everything that attends therein. These ideas advanced in the minds of men for the furtherance of the Maori religion define the basis for the political idea of the Nation State. A pseudo theocratic Maori Nation State.

We are therefore dealing in New Zealand with the attempted imposition of one nation onto another. The usurpation of political power over the pre existing Eurocentric western liberal democracy by the newly formed Maori Nation of Aotearoa.

In Summary

The Maori activists have attempted to construct a pseudo religious theocratic Maori Nation on the basis of a racial identity that no longer exists built on stories and myths from long ago with the aim of establishing sovereign authority over all of New Zealand.

This lethal combination of the short sighted greed of Maori Tribal Activists supplemented by the long term globalist plan of the UN has created a powerful anti New Zealand nationalist identity. The only option for the New Zealand government is to identify this threat for what it is and treat it accordingly.

The Maori Nation must be regarded as we would any other aggressive nation state that seeks to undermine the government and take over the country.

But either way pretending that we are dealing with anything other than a Nation State will lead to further degradation of the integrity and autonomy of New Zealand. Assuming this position allows the New Zealand government freedom of action and agency to move against the Maori Nation with complete autonomy, unhindered by the years of moral blackmail and litigation that has handicapped our progress so far.

If the government were to take this stance they could bring forward a range of proposals to deal with the threat; at one end of the spectrum they could negotiate territorial autonomy for the new nation, with some area of the country set aside for the creation of the Maori Nation of Aotearoa, with any degree of autonomy that seems workable.

At the other end of the spectrum the government could proscribe Maori activist groups and organizations, shutting down the organizations and arresting the activists. Between the two extremes is an almost endless range of possibilities for autonomy and concession. But what we cannot have is this continual litigation and degradation of the culture at massive and crippling expense to the country.

These are radical proposals, but we cannot pretend it is business as usual in New Zealand. We face self identified radicals for whom a radical proposal is the only appropriate defense. If a forthright and serious solution is not found soon the country will be destroyed as we know it. And there will be people behind the UN who will be quite happy with that outcome.

Maori Pakiha relations

What is the long term solution to Maori activism and separatism?

Who are the protagonists in this argument? From our perspective as the white European parent stock of this England of the South Pacific, it is in our interests to preserve the racial balance of this country. The Maori people – and we have already discussed at length the fact that there are no full blood Maori in existence -are led by activists that seek by any means necessary to completely overturn the prevailing government and culture of New Zealand.

From a traditionalist European perspective, what is not OK. We can perhaps arrive at a workable solution by deciding beforehand what we are not prepared to accept.

The white majority, or indeed any none Maori community in New Zealand should not be forced to have Maori culture forced upon us in every aspect of civic and social life, that for starters is not acceptable. Neither should the non-Maori community be forced to pay for Maori privilege in our society. If they want to separate themselves from the rest of New Zealand society and have an independent health system, and their own schools where they can teach their children all kinds of false narratives about evil white oppression then they are more than welcome to do so, but we can not be expected to pay for it, period. 

Perhaps they might like to consider the proposals of Malcolm X in America in the 1950s. He spoke out against the integrationist policies of Martin Luther King and advocated separate but equal development. It would require segregation to provide for separate schools and health services, once again largely paid for by everyone else. 

But imagine that coming to fruition in New Zealand. It would be traumatic to say the least. And the people who speak of themselves as Maori, how many of them are even 50 percent of that race?

No, in the words of Sir Apirana Ngata “There is one law for Maori and for Pakeha, the Treaty of Waitangi ordained it so.”

Nationalist Response To He Puapua

The extreme Left Labour Government of Jacinda Ardern may finally get caught out with the plan to hand over sovereignty of New Zealand to an undemocratic unelected coterie of Maori Tribal elite engaged in a long term plan to subvert our system of government to permanent Tribal rule. 

The question of the response of the White Nationalist community - composed of those Europeans blessed with a desire to preserve what is left or even to rekindle a sense of purpose in the hearts of the European people- to the Maori separatist movement is an interesting one. Nuanced as it is with a number of contemporary realities that affect the political calculation. The NZCPR has published some incredible articles in the last few weeks on the foreshore and seabed issue as well as the plan for a parallel government for Maori called He Puapua.

The idea of a co-governance sphere or overlapping area of interest is a contrivance. The implication is that the co-governmental structure can be visualized as a sort of Ven Diagram with one circle of governmental authority covering all non-Maori New Zealanders, and next to and overlapping by some indeterminate amount another circle representing the parallel Maori governmental Authority. Where these two circles of authority overlap is the supposed area of mutual concern. Unfortunately, the facts on the logistics, costs and practicalities of supplying healthcare to all New Zealanders make a mockery of the convenient little spheres of interests.

What will happen is that all of us will end up providing a world-class standard of free healthcare for the 15% of New Zealanders who can claim a percentage of Maori heritage, while the rest of us, Indians, Chinese, everybody else, oh and let's not forget the Whites, will struggle with an overloaded system, fatal waiting lists and shortages of beds and supplies. All of this so that Maori people can feel better about going to the doctor! 

For all practical purposes, Jacinda Ardern has made NZ a test case for the implementation of UN goals and objectives. These objectives disregard the existing culture, the settlement history and the national character of states nations and peoples. 

We can hardly expect there to be any resistance from our government to Maori separatists when the relationship between activists and Government is like a love affair between a Masochist and a Sadist, the government desperately wants to undermine European culture and the Maori activists are more than happy to oblige. One wants to undermine, and the other wants to be undermined. Where is the argument?

In this article, I want to have a look at the underlying arguments and the ways in which conservative European Nationalists could respond to this threat to our country.

Funnily enough, as I read through the material it occurs to me that the Maori could perhaps have a salient point... 

From the 2019 Waitangi Tribunal report 

“Article 3 of the Treaty confirms that Maori have all the rights and privileges of British subjects. The Tribunal has found that this article not only guarantees Maori freedom from discrimination but also obliges the Crown to positively promote equity.” This conclusion of the Tribunal can only be true and therefore the obligation incumbent on the crown IF the only possible explanation of non-equal outcomes is the non-provision of Rights and Privileges. 

And “Article Three has an implicit assurance that rights would be enjoyed equally by Maori with all New Zealanders” to attain “equitable outcomes”. 

What this is alleging is that the treaty gives an implied assurance of equal outcome. Perhaps, but only based on the assumption that the Rights and Privileges so conferred on Maori would produce the same results as those rights would produce conferred on Europeans. The crown may well have overstepped its earthly authority here in assuming they had the power and authority to turn the Maori of 1840 into Englishmen! From this Implied assurance the Treatyists have extracted a promise. A promise from the English crown to the Maori chiefs that they and their descendants would have the same outcomes as the English settlers, and if they don't then the crown and only the crown can be held responsible for the failure of the Maori community to perform in the new European environment.

Also, you can not create laws based on an “implied” obligation, particularly if that implication was not recognised in 1840. If the crown had intended for the Rights and Privileges so conferred to produce specific effects, and for the crown to be held liable for such things then the rights and privileges would have been enumerated specifically. 

Did the Maori of 1840 expect to become like Englishmen, or simply as written, to have the rights and privileges of Englishmen? I suggest here that the imputation of the principle of equal outcome onto a 150 year old treaty is a nefarious case of presentism, the practice of imputing contemporary norms and value judgements onto historical contexts.

So, they have a point only if you accept some basic Marxist principles – (principles that Jacinda is already firmly committed to)- of Radical egalitarianism. These are modern-day interpretations that have only gained currency with the spread of Marxism. According to the new liberal dispensation, we are all the same and any systemic differences in outcome for Maori as an aggregate group can only be explained by oppression. In the Marxist proposition, there can be no alternative explanation. Regardless of how reasonable, moral and humanitarian it may have seemed in 1840 to talk of Rights, Privileges and “we are one people”, the fact is the contemporary left has imposed Equality of Outcome as an expectation of those Rights and Privileges. And when the equal outcome does not materialise the only possible explanation is the crown reneging on its obligations under the Treaty. 

The imputation of “equality of outcome” to the enlightenment principles of equal rights did not come about until a hundred years later when Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt school developed critical theory. The groundwork of disarming the west having already been done by Franz Boas undermining a sensible notion of Race.

So the Achilles heel for the White Nationalist argument against the Maori claim to equal outcome is in the language of the document itself. And the assertion repeatedly stated by Hobson that “we are one people”. A stupid piece of ingratiating fluf.

What approach should we take to Maori separatism?

1.  We could deny the validity of their claim to equal outcome and sovereignty and assert that the only reason the 'Maori' people (actually only part Maori) as a group fail to perform (their claim not ours) is due to group behaviour and internal group characteristics. This argument is true enough but it leaves unaddressed the Marxist reasoning that facilitated their claims and sense of grievance in the first place. It also leaves White New Zealand open to the usual accusations of racism etc. when we advocate for a European cultural balance. This argument relies on the common sense position that the contemporary Maori of 1840 did not expect the “Rights and Privileges of British Subjects” imparted to them by the Treaty to mean equality of outcome. That idea only being applied retrospectively as an aspect of Critical Theory over a hundred years later. We assert that the treaty was properly understood by all parties, was signed in good faith, upheld and honoured by the crown and most of the Maori community. A position affirmed by the Kohimarama Conference in 1860. Even though this argument makes the valid point that the Maori condition is due to Maori group behaviour it does not address the error inherent in the Treaty.
2. We could support Maori separatism on the basis that if the government is going to completely trash New Zealand's system of government, create separate sovereign territory based on racial identity, then fine; those identifying as Maori can have theirs, and Whites can equally advocate for massive tracts of land to be exclusively occupied by our people as well! Other racial groups can state their case for whatever is left. This may sound like the plot line for a novel, but if it is it would be large, bloody and protracted. A fractured New Zeeland would be week, destitute and without an ally in the world. The perfect opportunity for China, our largest trading partner to provide “humanitarian assistance and foreign aid”. A convenient euphemism for military occupation. A nightmare scenario that would see us supporting Maori separatism on the basis that we want to do the same. But they are fighting us on Marxist principles. We as a majority can not attempt to win by validating those principles.
3. lllOr we oppose Maori separatism by exposing and nullifying the basic assumptions their grievances and claims are based on. This approach is academic, difficult, frustrating and risky. But it is imperative in the current global political environment that we preserve the Nation as a coherent national body. He Puapua would not exist without Critical Theory behind it. The document is the product of Cultural Marxism and the slew of pseudo-academic disciplines it spawned. Critical Race theory posits that race is a social construct and equality of outcome is to be expected in the absence of discrimination and oppression. Our job is to show that even if they are able to tease out of the plain words of the Treaty a tenuous implication of equal outcome, that was wishful thinking, was not intended or understood at the time and was/is impossible to achieve in any case.

At its root is an argument on sameness and equality versus difference and inequality, and the work of the Marxists to make unclear what was previously well understood.

We are not all equal, we are not all the same. There are differences between individuals and there are differences between groups of individuals. And these differences extend out to larger agglomerated groups of racially defined individuals to create the racial differences we see all around us. Diversity is a weakness, not a strength, and the people enforcing it know that to be true.

It is also unfortunate that the Treaty uses the word “Privileges”, the vast majority of working-class Englishmen at the time would have laughed at the notion that they were “Privileged” to live in 1800's England! 

The English colonisation of NZ was a late enlightenment project and was subject to all the same banana brained lunacy that erupted all over Europe after the French revolution. Hobson's apparent declaration the “He iwi tahi tatou – We are one people” was a most unfortunate untruth that the liberal left and the Maori separatists have latched onto to bolster their claim to equality of outcome, - once again in spite of behaviour.

The French revolution occurred 50 years before the signing of the Treaty, the cries of Liberty Equality Fraternity occurred against the backdrop of desperate poverty, hunger and oppression. They had a point in seeking redress for their concerns. But I doubt that even Robespierre expected equality of outcome to be the demand of his ideological descendants! All the people wanted was a fair shake, the notion that we would, should or could all have the same lives and the same standard of living was ridiculous on its face.

So we come to sameness and equality versus difference and inequality, and the work of the Marxists to make unclear what was previously well understood.

That equality of outcome did not happen does NOT oblige the crown to force equality of outcome on one party to the treaty. The fact that it did not happen simply proves that the premise is false and therefore nullifies the treaty. So you either accept the treaty on face value OR it is null and void. 

In reality, the only way you can force equality of outcome is to hold back, disadvantage or explicitly handicap the higher-performing group or individual. This actually is what happens in universities in the States where White and Asian students are denied places so that race-based quotas can be achieved. 

In a recent ruling on Harvard; the U.S. Department of Justice backed SFFA, saying Harvard “actively engages in racial balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids.” 

This has to be the case because as a judge in the case said, the school has no 

“workable and available race-neutral alternatives.” if they want to continue to provide  “a student body that enriches the education of every student” apparently the education of every student can only he enriched if they disallow the highest performing applicants in favour of lower-performing applicants from other races. Whatever. Source.

Conservative Nationalists could be seen as fighting against our own cause in fighting against Maori sovereignty. The road to an ethno-nationalist state in New Zealand is via a complete debunking of Marxist communist principles.

So to the Maori treatyists we say, you have completely re-interpreted the Treaty for your own gain, however, we recognise the opportunity for doing so was in the treaty itself. The treaty has never had any standing as a legal document. It was a temporary expedient created at the request of the warring Maori tribes to facilitate an orderly and peaceful settlement of these islands. It served its purpose and a hundred and eighty years later is no longer relevant.

To the issue of Maori separatism and independent sovereignty, if that is what the New Zealanders who identify as Maori want then a referendum should be taken to establish that fact. Provision could be made recognising the principles of natural Race and group identity for exclusive Maori controlled areas. However as Maori are only 15 % of the population these areas would not be all the seabed and foreshore, they would also not be large areas that include major seaports and airports. 

The Maori people would be free to migrate to these semi-autonomous areas, no one would be forcibly removed and no one would be forced to go there. As these would be exclusive Maori autonomous zones all race-based policies in the rest of New Zealand would cease. Affirmative action, iwi scholarships, diversity hiring, bilingualism in government departments. Separate Maori seats in government, separate Maori wards in local government and a dedicated department of Maori affairs. All of these attempts to placate an aggressive Tribal elite will cease. The Maori people will have complete autonomy in their own areas to conduct their business and establish their culture with no influence or interference from the European part of New Zealand. 

This after all is ostensibly what they want, but I suspect they will call an idea like this Racist, revealing for all the world to see what the true motivations are, behind their bullying intimidation on racist grounds of a week but well-meaning European establishment. Money and graft; they want all the power and all the money, and all the resources, and they want the European population to pay endlessly for their imagined grievances. They should be careful what they wish for in this regard, because the reality of a sovereign nation for however many Maori people are prepared to go it alone in their own country without the pandering support of the rest of New Zealand may be a whole lot more pain than they bargained for. Other countries and other peoples feel no need or obligation to pander to their bleating aggrieved finger-pointing, they will suddenly find themselves trading in the real world where you compete with everything you have and may the best man win.

One further thing the conservative nationalist right must consider is our ideal goal not just for us and for our people but for the Maori people as well. There are certain realities we cannot ignore. Many strange cultures have been deliberately imported into our country with the express purpose of watering down our collective national identity. In a certain dispensation, these processes could be reversed. But the NZ Maori has been here since the beginning of our settlement of these islands. And although the contemporary 'Maori' is a very different kind of human being to the natives Cook found here in 1769 we still have to make allowances for the fact that 15 % of the population has an ethnocultural make-up that seems to put them at a disadvantage in a modern western liberal democracy.

It is also clearly in the interests of the tribal elite to magnify and exaggerate Maori group disadvantage. They are not as downtrodden or disadvantaged as the Tribal elite like to make out, and neither are they as incompatible as some on the extreme right would have us believe. 

It is not up to us to respect their culture, as is decreed we must by the authors of He Puapua, it is their duty to respect their own as much as it is ours to respect and value ours. Recriminations and animus result when neither partner in this national relationship has a true understanding of our own identity and place in this world. Only when a true examination of history has taken place and an honest coming to terms with the facts of our shared history has occurred will there be decent mutual respect between our cultures. 

One thing is for sure. This phase will pass, there are greater problems we need to confront but it is to be hoped that the solution to the domestic problem of Maori separatism will also provide a framework for solving the larger issues around China, immigration, international relations and the decline of the west.