Jordan Peterson; Legacy of Destruction.

 

I found the famous Canadian clinical psychologist convincing enough at first. He spoke at length about the evils of post modernism and seemed to appreciate the Western Civilization. He seemed to be well aware of who and what was behind the philosophical movements undermining our world. He railed against postmodernism; he railed against communism. He lambasted taxpayer dollars being funnelled into liberal left-wing neo-Marxist ideologues in the humanities departments of universities. He regarded the greatest achievement of the western tradition to be “the paramount importance of the individual and the divinity of speech” That's an interesting way of putting it though, and in retrospect, it was the first red flag. I would have said Classical Liberal democracy, one man one vote and the sovereignty of the people would be up there in the list of achievements.

The destructive nature of the Peterson philosophy was evident early on. “It is easily confirmable that JP is a globalist shill. And it is obvious that the false philosophy that he is pushing, the con job that he is attempting to pull is completely and 100 % deleterious to the West. It is bad for America, it is bad for Americans, it is bad for every Western European nation.” And “JP is the modern philosophical equivalent of the serpent in the garden of Eden that is the West. And like the serpent in the garden of Eden, he is attempting to destroy the inhabitants “
Voxday Darkstream 05.13.2018 Jordan Peterson is a Globalist Shill

12 Rules for Life is probably the most dangerous and depressing book ever placed in the hands of young men looking for direction, meaning and confidence. Dr Peterson is never more animated than when trashing any semblance of pride in being European; any hint of European Identity is mercilessly demonised. The 'Jewish People' on the other hand, have a unique group identity and calling in the world, held up by the good doctor as the "shining city on a hill"—something for us mere goyim to be thankful for.

A Poisonous Message

One of the tactics employed by JP is a variant of the "straw man" argument. In presenting his philosophy, he isn't up against an opposing argument; there are no public intellectuals arguing vociferously against him, indeed, he arbitrarily declares the political Right “Not part of the discussion”, instead he's up against reality itself. So without being able to exaggerate an opponent's argument, he has to construct and exaggerate the diabolical nature of Man, European Man that is and the inevitability of catastrophic world destroying evil if Europeans do not forsake themselves and embrace his 'Radical Individualism'.

To support his contention, he has “warned thousands of students over three decades that the spirit of Auschwitz concentration camp guards dwells in their hearts and that they should do everything in their power to recognize its existence and overcome it.”  This is a heavy burden for young men looking for answers to bear, but fear not, for Professor Peterson has the answer... “Strive for humility, because totalitarian pride manifests itself in intolerance, oppression, torture and death. Become aware of your own insufficiency—your cowardice, malevolence, resentment and hatred. Consider the murderousness of your own spirit before you dare accuse others, and before you attempt to repair the fabric of the world. Maybe it’s not the world that’s at fault. Maybe it’s you. You’ve failed to make the mark. You’ve missed the target. You’ve fallen short of the glory of God. You’ve sinned. And all of that is your contribution to the insufficiency and evil of the world” (12 Rules pp214)

A Man Who Should Know Better

Jordan Peterson is a man of extensive reading, thinking and study. He knows better than to be prescribing cultural self negation for European Man. He openly admits to being stuck between a rock and a hard place and absolutely understands the importance, or rather the imperative necessity of culture. From the opening paragraph of Maps of Meaning, “If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything – anything – to defend ourselves against that return.” And from 12 Rules...“A shared belief system, partly psychological, partly acted out, simplifies everyone—in their own eyes, and in the eyes of others. Shared beliefs simplify the world, as well, because people who know what to expect from one another can act together to tame the world. There is perhaps nothing more important than the maintenance of this organisation—this simplification. If it’s threatened, the great ship of state rocks.”

Jordan is even cognizant of the impossibility of what he is prescribing "How could the world be freed from the terrible dilemma of conflict, on the one hand, and psychological and social dissolution, on the other?" That psychological and social dissolution is what happens without the binding identity of shared group culture.

On what basis then does Jordan Paterson advocate a life philosophy of atomised individualism, what he calls Radical Individualism, knowing as he does the essential nature of group belonging? “We are thus eternally caught between the most diamantine rock and the hardest of place
:loss of group-centered belief renders life chaotic, miserable, intolerable
;presence of group-centered belief makes conflict with other groups inevitable.”

Justified Dissolution

To understand JP's particular brand of Psychosis one can read his books and try to come to grips with his very warped worldview; the normal living of life is horrific, filled with danger, failure and destruction, torture and death, he holds that to be true. Culture and group identity makes life bearable, but in his reading of history, literally guarantees the apocalypse. His third road solution is to deracinate everyone, starting with the Europeans who are apparently the worst of the worst. His solution is to negate the very thing that makes life on Earth bearable just so we can have any life at all. With his worldview and as a clinical psychologist, possibly feeling compelled to come up with a workable "solution" it is not hard to see why he might suffer some extreme angst, to say the least.

JP outlines in Maps of Meaning what he calls the Psychopathology of National Socialists. For JP, National Socialism is a form of insanity and its adherents, psychopaths! He despises the "Far Right" and claims to have been strongly influenced by Freud, Jung and the psychoanalysts. That admission is interesting. Freud and the pseudoscience of psychoanalysis had a specific agenda to undermine the West.

“Step by step, we are learning that Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine—one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry. ” (Crews et al., 1995, pp. 298–299) Quoted in Kevin Macdonald; Culture Of Critique.

“...Freud’s speculations clearly had an agenda. Rather than provide speculations that reaffirmed the moral and intellectual basis of the culture of his day, his speculations were an integral part of his war on gentile culture—so much so that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a victory over Rome and the Catholic Church.” Kevin Macdonald; Culture Of Critique.

JP doesn't just think in extremes, he thinks to extremes. From the foreword to 12 Rules DR Norman Doidge writes “To understand ideology, Jordan read extensively about not only the Soviet gulag, but also the Holocaust and the rise of Nazism. I had never before met a person, born Christian and of my generation, who was so utterly tormented by what happened in Europe to the Jews, and who had worked so hard to understand how it could have occurred.”

He uses his belief in the depravity and innate evil of humanity, sighting 20th century European history as exhibit A, to justify a solution that by his own admission is undesirable and unworkable. His regard for us is clear...“We require rules, standards, values—alone and together. We’re pack animals, beasts of burden. We must bear a load, to justify our miserable existence.”

Some of Jordan's critics ascribe malicious intent, and it's easy to draw that conclusion, but this is a man that utterly believes what he says, not that that fact precludes the possibility of evil intent, but I do not believe a person engaged in an act of deliberate calculated “Evil” would wind themselves into logical knots and dead ends they would merely pursue their evil objectives with glee and excitement!  Peterson seems to be very far from glee and excitement.  I could be wrong of course but it's entirely possible his mental exertions have driven him to the edge of sanity and beyond. Desperate to do good but driven over the edge by the moral conflicts.

Many great tomes have already been written on the subject of Good and Evil, but a quick muse for the sake of context wont hurt. What is Evil? Is there a global definition that holds true in all contexts? What is evil and destructive, or rather destructive and therefore Evil to one group may very well be good and sane for another. It would seem the concepts of good and evil, sanity and insanity depend to a large extent on context and perspective. Saint Augustine wrote “But living a just and holy life requires one to be capable of an objective and impartial evaluation of things: to love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally.”

Ordering our loves, or prioritising our actions in accordance with the dynamics of our lives. Like circles of influence extending out from ourselves. Perhaps not always exactly the same for everyone, but starting with ourselves and the imperative to provide for our own existence with food, clothing and shelter, we extend out to our partner and our children, then the rest of our family and friends. Beyond that, our local community eventually out to our country and people. It's noticeable that in the confrontation between the Left and the Right, the Leftists will think the Right is Evil, full of what they call just “shitty people”. For the Left, it is a matter of moral good, which therefore justifies any action, including violence, property damage, subversive action, bribery and corruption, i.e., “By Any Means Necessary”. The Right, on the other hand, merely think the left is miss-informed so will often mistakenly try to engage them in discussion, a tactic which seldom ends well. The Left have got their loves out of whack in the mistaken belief that if it is good, right and virtuous to care for your own, then it is even more virtuous to care for the other. The craving for the appearance of virtue can cause the Leftist to prioritise the welfare of the out-group over and above their own children and even above their own self interest for the sake of the appearance of Virtue, thus inverting the order of Loves. The inverting and wrong ordering of the Order of Loves will produce the most extraordinary and insane behavior the like of which we have come to expect from the extreme far Left activists and “Social Justice Warriors”.

When it comes to deciding where the moral good lies in the contemporary West, there is one litmus test we can apply. Our civilisation has become so completely saturated by Jewish ideas, thinking and control that the question of Good and Evil can now be settled by the simple test “is it good for the Jews?”

In this passage from 12 Rules, it is clear Jordan believes atonement is called for: “You may find that if you attend to these moral obligations, once you have placed “make the world better” at the top of your value hierarchy, you experience ever-deepening meaning. It’s not bliss. It’s not happiness. It is something more like atonement for the criminal fact of your fractured and damaged Being. It’s payment of the debt you owe for the insane and horrible miracle of your existence. It’s how you remember the Holocaust. It’s how you make amends for the pathology of history. It’s adoption of the responsibility for being a potential denizen of Hell. It is willingness to serve as an angel of Paradise.” (12 Rules. Pp215) Is it a deliberate, malicious intent to consciously offer a solution to what he sees as the intractable conundrum of group identity that will so weaken one group as to ensure its destruction by any invasive group that does not ascribe to his emasculating ideology?

Regarding the prescription of Radical Individualism for all...
Kevin Macdonald CofC “As discussed at several points in this volume, the radical individualism embodied in the Enlightenment ideal of individual rights is especially problematic as a source of long-term stability in a Western society because of the danger of invasion and domination by group strategies such as Judaism...” Kevin Macdonald CofC

The idea of Radical Individualism could be great in the context of a homogeneous egalitarian society. But you cannot continue to make these same claims to individual sovereignty when confronted by an aggressive out-group. That should be self-evident, yet in the Western world this is exactly what has happened. Led by Corruption from the top, the cries of the people have been ignored.

A Very Jewish Blind Spot

To this writer, it is simply not plausible that Mr Peterson is not aware of the Jewish role in shaping the narrative of the West. The overwhelming Jewish influence on American politics and culture, their singular role in opening the borders in 1965 to large-scale non-European immigration and the ability to control a narrative by virtue of ownership of the news media.

Peterson's naturally inquiring mind becomes strangely compliant and trusting when it comes to Jewish interests and the mainstream narrative of the Second World War.  Peterson's famously honest stage presence hit a brick wall when he was asked to comment on the book 200 Years Together by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He paced the stage, froze, and declared, “I can't do it”. It's a subject he will not address and a hand he will not bite.

When we are young we are fed the default narrative of the  poor Jewish victims of pathological German villainy. This seems to have been the impetus that drove a bright young J Peterson to the political Left and the death grip of socialism.

The Deviated Hero

JP, with his incisive and deep knowledge, could have been a tremendous asset to the West in a time of dire need. But this was not to be. He thinks in extremes; life is terrifying and horrific, human beings are naturally evil and monstrous. And his greatest fear, that of white Europeans standing up for themselves, in his view, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the world! But his own advice would indicate otherwise...”When the wakening occurs—when once-naïve people recognise in themselves the seeds of evil and monstrosity, and see themselves as dangerous (at least potentially) their fear decreases. They develop more self-respect. Then, perhaps, they begin to resist oppression. They see that they have the ability to withstand, because they are terrible too. They see they can and must stand up, because they begin to understand how genuinely monstrous they will become; otherwise, feeding on their resentment, transforming it into the most destructive of wishes. To say it again: There is very little difference between the capacity for mayhem and destruction, integrated, and strength of character. This is one of the most difficult lessons of life”.

JP has an almost unbelievable ability to make even the most mundane concepts appear deep, profound and endlessly complicated. Reading his material, one is prone to consider the sanity of the writer; is there really any meaning at the bottom of the well he is plunging? With such endless teasing out of fundamental questions of meaning. The oft seen teasing of fingers in front of his face physically showing us what is going on inside. There is no way JP does not realize the importance of in group identity and cultural consistency; he knows more than anyone the devastating reality of  losing one's culture, identity, place and home in this world. His outlook is constantly peppered with Terror unbearable. With this amount of knowledge and insight, why did JP not become a right-wing ethno-nationalist? The case is easy to make, with his verbal intelligence, spiritual insights, understanding of mythology, history and psychology, we could have had a powerful advocate for western civilization and the people that produced it. Dare I say it, a Canadian Jonathon Bowden, able to speak at depth extemporaneously to enraptured audiences the world over!  But No, whilst begrudgingly acknowledging that European civilization is the best we've produced, (those positive attributes always generalised out to an amorphous Humanity that had nothing to do with it) he never misses an opportunity to trash in enthusiastic terms any advocacy of European identity. Who got to him? Who filled his head with so much anti-white nonsense. Freud, Contemporary histories and the Left Wing saturated liberal universities? Any pride expressed in being White, and he seems certain the ovens of Auschwitz are only moments away from being fired up once more!

Summary

In summary, Jordan Peterson constructs a false dichotomy. A coin with two sides, on one side you have the mental health and psychological well-being of white Europeans, the security of our lands and the future of Europe and on the other, Global Nuclear annihilation. In his corrupted analysis the one will inescapably lead to the other. His solution is to advance for white Europeans who are already individualistic by nature, the suicidal philosophy of Radical Individualism. Do not resist your displacement, do not fight, do not value your people's culture and history at all, only live by the 12 rules in my book, “Clean your Room” and “Pet a Cat” while your world burns, your daughters raped and your history forgotten.

The simple and obvious solution that good borders make good neighbors doesn't seem to have occurred to Dr Peterson. And how convenient it is that his solution of suicide for the West comports so well with the globalist agenda. Indeed the agenda that ultimately puts one particular highly ethnocentric group at the top of the pyramid in the globalist world to come.

Jordan Peterson has said a lot of good things as a clinical psychologist, on a personal level, many people have benefited from his direct and honest insights. But Jordan Peterson is a politically motivated clinical psychologist, and the moment he crossed over into giving people personal advice based on international political considerations, he became a dangerous liability. And as stated above, the moral conflicts he has brought on himself have almost driven him insane and almost certainly contributed to his ongoing medical problems. And to that extent, an insane psychologist should not be trusted with anything, least of all your mind.

McCabe

Other sources:

Black Pidgeon Speaks.
https://youtu.be/0JWH-uXUbGc

Voxday Darkstream 05.13.2018 Jordan Peterson is a Globalist Shill
https://youtu.be/BiCfEcDw_Dg

 

The American Dilemma

 

I am slowly coming to the really shocking conclusion that the only way to stop the genocide in Palestine is to vote for Kamala! Why? The situation is as follows. The US is now completely subservient to the extremist Jewish/Israeli Zionist ideology of Jewish supremacy. It's like a parasitic infection that can not be removed, eventually the host will die and the parasite will move on. And Trump, he is even more captured by “The Lobby” than the democrats. If Trump is elected, he will close the border, impose tariffs, drill for oil and do everything he can to support the American people. And just like last time the country will boom. And the flow of money and weapons will only increase to the Zionist state. And the mass genocide by death and starvation will accelerate.

This is hard to believe, but even harder to believe is the idea that Trump will stand up to Netanyahu or Adelson or the full weight of The Lobby or the millions of deluded Christians at whose feet lie thousands of murdered Palestinians. Strong language perhaps but its hard to escape the conclusion that fanatical UNCONDITIONAL pro Israel support coming from the churches is what provides the cover needed by AIPAC et al. to influence US foreign policy away from National self interest and into the service of a foreign power.

Kamala on the other hand will accelerate the decline of the American empire, with the decline of international power and prestige contributing to America's isolation on the world stage. Ultimately wars are decided by economic realities, and as the world moves away from the dollar the US may find it increasingly difficult to keep printing dollars.

The bottom line is this, America's behavior on the world stage isn't going to change until it is forced to change. And the sooner that happens the sooner people people will stop dying in pointless wars.

I am a nationalist and if I were an American I would prefer to vote for Trump, fortunately I am not an American citizen and -although that fact apparently does not deter many from voting in US elections, -I will not be voting. It's an awful dilemma, Vote for Trump and a renewal of America and feed the Zionist parasite in the body politic of America. Or vote for Kamala, and see America die taking the parasitic infection with it.

Censorship; revealing the agenda

 

It is overwhelmingly clear from the list of books that are no longer available from Amazon that there is a clear agenda to sweep the the intellectual world clean and burnish it to a high sheen clear of any thoughts of White identity or any evidence of white genocide and most of all any Judaic culpability. One might say that perhaps these books have been discontinued due to lack of interests. Fist of all we know that thousands of accounts have been summarily shut down for wrong think. 

It is also naïve and plays into our propensity to give our predators the benefit of the doubt, how we so want to appear reasonable and objective.  From YouTube and Twitter, the political right, the voice of the people; had it been freely heard we would already be living in a different world.

Just a small sample of the deleted works.

• The Talmud Unmasked - The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians

• None Dare Call It Conspiracy

• The British Mad Dog: Debunking the Myth of Winston Churchill

• The Turner Diaries

• The Rise of the Sunwheel: British White Rights Dissident Tells All

• White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk

• The Resurrection of the Hero: Miguel Serrano

• Nazi Dis-Illusion: Poems for the Man to Come...

• The Day of the Rope (The Days of the Rope) (Volume 1)

• National Socialism: 30 Fundamental Truths for the Kämpfer of the 21st Century

• White Power

• My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding

Ant-White Rhetoric in Main Stream Media

On the 26th of May Stuff published another anti-white hit piece. A Reader Report section by Andrew McNaughton entitled “It’s not easy being Pākehā. Stop laughing. It isn’t”

The opening paragraph presents the psychosis so common in the contemporary White liberal, one moment talking about Whites in the third person and then suddenly he is himself again and talking in the first. If we don't know who we are, and he certainly has a point in that, then there is a very good reason for the complete lack of group identity amongst the current White population of this Earth. 

All of us, for almost the entire post-war period, have been fed a diet of Anti-White Anti-European propaganda. From school to higher education, and therefore over time the self-negating Whites so produced have come to completely dominate journalism and the academic professions.

And now we have this, an astonishingly tone-deaf piece of journalistic garbage, the point of which is stated at the end; “without te ao Māori we are culturally nothing. Join in people, just relax and join in.” Forget everything, only feel, don't think. The White populations have been the targets of a classic bait and switch. For years told our culture is nothing, our race is either nothing, does not exist or if it does is only evil. Then when we find ourselves believing we have no culture they present this thin contrivance of a made-over “culture“, resurrected to suit the globalist aims of a new world order, and we are expected to accept this as a replacement for the towering colossus of classical European achievement!

What is being foisted on European people is a thin, watered-down, heavily sanitised and spiritualised nativist culture, almost to the point of being cut from whole cloth when compared to the record of unrestrained slaughter that took place in the years leading up to 1840. In its simplest and most concise form, European culture is the pursuit of excellence. The European spirit cannot be satisfied with being subjugated to a second rate position under this cobbled together ad hoc collection of lies, omissions and selective evidence.

Because it has been published and because these attitudes are pushed so relentlessly it is worth confronting and refuting the ignorance that pieces like this display. Let's take a look at some of the points made one by one.

"Why are they threatened by a holistic view of the world, which therefore automatically includes them? "

There are two aspects to this, first, there is the attitude of the Tribal elites. Then there is the attitude of the Globalist enablers at the UN.

The Maori tribal elite are not pursuing a holistic world view, they are pursuing supremacy, and are not in the slightest interested in equality, what they want is cultural hegemony, legal authority and economic power over the existing social structure in this country. (HePuapua and Nationalism)

As for the UN. The entities promoting Tribal rule in New Zealand do not have a “holistic view of the world”. The United Nations is no more interested in the welfare of Maori Identified New Zealanders now than they were interested in the welfare of Blacks in South Africa or Blacks in America during the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. In all cases the people they claimed/claim to be fighting for are worse off now after UN intervention than they ever were under a European administration. 

Maori tribal rule does not have a history of holistic governance! John Robinson's Unrestrained Slaughter documents in detail the horrors of internecine violence in a society governed by a code of mutual destruction. 

“There is a cohort of Pākehā reluctant to embrace anything beyond Māori tokenism, because it scares them.” 
“Why are some Pākehā afraid of the rise of te ao Māori? “
“Is this the fear of Pākehā, ...”
“feel inferior about. “

McNaughton tries to belittle and trivialize his Pākehā brethren by suggesting we are scared and fearful.  He misunderstands; it isn't fear Andrew, it's outrage.

When it comes to fear, there is one thing the ruling globalist elites simply cannot allow to happen. Europeans finding their roots, discovering their identity and establishing anew a reason to go on, to defend our people and our heritage from cultural reprobates like the writer of this appalling piece of cultural vandalism. Resurgent European self-respect would completely derail the globalist agenda. There is a good reason why McNaughton and those of his ilk struggle to find anything of value in their perception of European identity and culture, like all contemporary Europeans, they have been deliberately cut off from their foundations. “Deracinated' means pulled up by the roots and the best way to destroy a people is to cut them off from their history. As Europeans, we have all faced a lifetime of anti-White anti-European propaganda, from the school system and particularly through the Marxist saturated university systems of the western democracies. 

The writer deliberately fails to understand the concept of a cultural home when it applies to whites but is more than happy to laud the importance of place, culture and language when applied to Maori. Why the double standard? The writer is anti-white. Perhaps even without knowing it they have imbibed the rhetoric and the anti-white propaganda that currently saturates all aspects of western academia and media. In this country of course this anti-White "OPINION" (sic) is mandated by the Public interest Journalism fund. Specifically, media outlets must toe the line in Multiculturalism and the Maori Partnership agenda being pursued by the government in order to partake of the 55 million dollar bribe money.

Imagine if you can someone of any other cultural group behaving in this way towards their own people. Would an African American write in such a belittling and culturally offensive way towards his own people? Or a Chinese, or an Arab. What about the Jewish people? Obviously not, yet this White Liberal seems to believe it is perfectly acceptable to behave in this way towards his own people. To talk about “A Pākehā's reaction ” as if he is not one himself is a strange and very sad malaise. He may well set himself apart but the people he is pretending to be a part of are lying to him. He is merely a useful ally; a “good White” who for the time being has proven his credentials. But appeasement will only ever take you so far and they will treat him with well-deserved contempt, because the Maori people, unlike Andrew McNaughton have enough self-awareness to realize this idiotic white man appeasing them with his groveling platitudes is a traitor to his kind. 

“I professed a dislike of telling people I am from Invercargill, Southland. There is nothing going for either of those tedious, meaningless names. How much cooler to say I am from Waihōpai, Murihiku. The land at the end of the tail (muri, the end of; hiku, the tail), now that’s a place to be proud of. “

The name of Invercargill comes from the Scottish Gaelic inbhir -river mouth, and cargill after Capt'n William Cargill, founder of the Otago settlement.

If the writer of this piece in Stuff were to take a few minutes he may also discover a connection to those early settlers. From House of Names ; 

“In ancient Scotland, the ancestors of the McNaughton family were part of a tribe called the Picts. The name McNaughton is derived from the Pictish name Nechtan. The Gaelic form of the name is Mac Neachdainn, which means son of Nechtan.” King of the Picts.

One can appreciate the desire to put aside these tribal affiliations and blend with the new homogeneous mixed tribe of New Zealanders in the fashion of Hobson's wistful muse “We are now one people” But this is not what you are doing and its not what the Maori tribal elite are doing. We have to keep returning to this and point out that the facts on the ground do not reflect your rhetoric. You are simply replacing one culture with another and they are simply using your gullible self-negation against you. 

The current Labour government is doing everything it can to denigrate the history of European New Zealanders, glorify Maori history and set up a dual system of government, it is apartheid in everything but the legal territorial separation of the people. 

This kind of liberal garbage is actually typical of Liberal Whites who hail from overwhelmingly white communities, in this case, Invercargill. They have zero experience of the joys of multiculturalism and simply take as gospel the culturally Marxist garbage they are fed at university about the glorious benefits of mass immigration and the inherent evil of white colonization. Those in more northern climes tend to have a more realistic view of what is being done to our country. 

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.