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.
