The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

What, Ms Devoy, do scientist and columnist Dr Bob Brockie, MNZM; conservationist Bud Jones, QSM (recognised for years of faithful service – and with a distinguished career as a professional musician); Neil Hayes, QSM, who was awarded a QSM in recognition of his 34 years of continuous involvement in attempting to save the rare and critically endangered NZ Brown Teal (Anas chlorotis) from extinction – have in common?  Neil is a Royal Chartered Environmentalist . Add in, among other highly regarded New Zealanders, the eminent Bruce Moon, the first person to install a computer in a New Zealand University. The answer? They all have been warning what you should be well aware of, in your position, but apparently aren’t.  Or are you just keeping your head down? Whatever; this just isn’t good enough, and your dogmatic utterances are helping to foster divisiveness and dissent.

In a recent Dominion Post column, Bob Brockie brought to public scrutiny the shockingly racist bias and tribal centre-staging which has wormed its way into what should be completely independent centres of learning in this country. What has long been imposed by neo-Marxist activists within the Ministry of Education, blatantly targeting schoolchildren with their damaging propaganda, has now taken an even stronger foothold within our higher institutes of learning.

Dr Brockie illustrated the fact that what was once Britain’s top scientific organisation, the Royal Society – morphing here into the Royal Society of New Zealand – (which is supposed to foster scientific research and provide independent advice on scientific matters, free of political commercial or cultural bias) – is now doing nothing of the sort. Transferring itself into “an academy” in 2010 it appointed representatives of the humanities to its councils – at which stage the alarm bells should have started to ring…because of course these artistic and literary ” councillors” (from  both the government-funded arts and literary circles)  have long been thoroughly partisan and biased – and very much controlled by the politically correct.

Granting themselves an obscure title in the newly invented, inauthentic and ponderous Maori-speak, these advisers called themselves  Te Whainga Aronui o Te Aparangi,  and brought with them the inevitable baggage load of cultural and political activism from the humanities – the centre of subversive activity within our universities in recent decades.  As Dr Brockie points out,  inheriting the essential madness of the French nihilist philosophers, Derrida, Foucault and their disciples,  these  have long argued that there are no such things as facts – that everybody’s opinions are of equal value – “whether those of a quantum physicist or a Stone Age nobody” . I recall, for example, Oxford’s then Marxist English Professor Terry Eagleton maintaining that the novels of Barbara Cartland equalled in value the works produced by the actor, Shakespeare (or, more likely, the 17th Earl of Oxford – cf. Joseph Sobran’s brilliant and scholarly “Alias Shakespeare” – offering a much-needed intellectual challenge to the sheer laziness of a great part of the regurgitated research offered by university humanities departments in recent decades).

It was primarily our universities, particularly the English and Education departments, abandoning their traditional description as faculties, who so thoroughly embraced the sheer fatuity of political correctness, maintaining that people’s beliefs and opinions are of equal value –   (unless of course, they are Christian, in which case they must be disparaged and ridiculed) – and that “decontextualisation” – the meaning of which defies comprehension  – should rule, in literature, rather than what a great writer actually wrote.

At any rate, the real scandal is that this year, the Te Whainga group, whoever they are and whatever this means, are now claiming that the Royal Society, via its current president, Richard Bedford, ”needs to place the Treaty of Waitangi centrally, and bring alongside that inequity and adversity issues in a holistic manner.” As Bob Brockie points out – this is outrageous. The Treaty,  whose real meaning has been so usefully distorted, reinvented and “reinterpreted” by today’s radical propagandists, assisted by lawyers with their eye to the lucrative work involved, “has no place in scientific endeavour. To make it the centrepiece of the Royal Society’s agenda beggars belief.” 

Dr Brockie is right. Moreover, he points to something equally shocking – that Otago University recently proclaimed that the aggressive neo-tribe, Ngai Tahu must be consulted “about all areas of research” before scholars begin their work. “All proposals must be submitted to the office of Maori development”. Staff and students were warned that consultation may take time, so they were advised “to start well in advance of preparing your proposal.” He points out that Otago researchers are looking into everything ” from zeta functions, quantum physics, logistics, dental technology and Roman Law to compositions by Brahms – and rightly asks what expertise Ngai Tahu have in evaluating these research proposals. He also points out that “Ngai Tahu run several commercial companies (with a surplus of many millions annually) and could turn down research that questions or challenges its business motives or motivations.”

Moreover, most of this research is simply not Ngai Tahu’s business. Not only do they have no expertise in judging the value of such research – it is quite appalling that Otago University has acquiesced, as Dr Brockie points out, to such proscriptive, inquisitorial demands”. Shame on my former university.

The time has long gone when universities were once respected as valuable, independent, scholarly institutions operating without fear of bias, even emphasising to their students that their prime value did not lie in facilitating a meal ticket to a future occupation – but in providing the opportunity to research, to explore, to weigh, to learn – in order to advance important discovery, and to aim for the truth of issues. But as Brockie points out “young researchers do not question these moves for fear of being labelled racist and putting their careers at stake.” He is quite right.  What has happened to this country when so many admit they dare not question the highly politicised requirements now dumped on them for fear of losing their jobs?

It’s not only Otago of course, that’s bowing to the pressure of big-money today wielded by the tribes, acquired by compulsion from the taxpayers of this country. The rot is white-anting all our universities. It must be two years ago that a professor friend at Canterbury told me he was warned by an HOD from another department that he had better conjure up some way of touching the forelock towards Ngai Tahu’s imagined” cultural sensitivity” in the courses his department offered – courses having nothing whatsoever to do with racial issues –  because in future any undergraduate hoping to get a degree from Canterbury was going to have to demonstrate that he/she was “culturally sensitive” – whatever this jargon means.

We know of course that this is not intended to be exercised in relation to the values of the majority of our European forebears in this country – but to kowtow towards the radical activism of powerful tribes like the moneyed Ngai Tahu. It is highly doubtful that this virtually bullying activism is even supported by the majority of those of Ngai Tahu descent, apparently largely unaware of what is going on.  On the contrary, it is being pushed by those with their own damaging and egotistical agenda.

What of the findings of these perplexed and imminent New Zealanders, Bud Jones and Neil Hayes, both prominent in their respective fields to the extent of being awarded Queen’s Service Medals? Victoria University, which years ago thoroughly blotted its copybook by refusing to allow the issue of supposed man-made global warming (now conveniently relabelled climate change) to even be debated on its campus is now requiring adherence to this pernicious Vision Matauranga radicalism – i.e. prioritising Maori preferment in utterly irrelevant scientific and academic areas – and requiring staff to explain themselves if they are not doing so! Comparisons with the former totalitarian USSR don’t need to be pointed out.

Described as “racism in the extreme,” as part of this university’s  “2018 learning, teaching, and equity priorities to Te Makuako Aronui” (whatever this, too, means) increased incorporation of Matauranga Maori in courses is required. A senior member of the music department was asked to appear before a panel and explain how he would be incorporating Matauranga Maori into his teaching course subjects –  (“We are talking music department here!…I was pressed into an advisory role… Naturally I reeled at the audacity of an entirely secular university institution making a reprehensible demand on an employee to be a parrot for someone else’s spiritual/religious and racist agenda.  However, on further enquiries it is revealed that many, if not all university departments have the same request in place. i.e.  to incorporate Matauranga Maori into their courses.  The request comes in an ultimate form of  “if not why not” directive.

“I’ve enquired with other former teachers and others: the consensus is: anything implying spiritualism/ religiosity or racism has no place in the university, and probably the University Charter says it explicitly. You cannot comply with this call for racism being incorporated into the school on personal, ethical, and academic grounds. Besides, it is outside your job description to be advocating any spiritual, religious or racial bias into your academic teaching subject. You cannot, nor can you, be a parrot for someone else’s agenda. It is morally reprehensible that the secular academic institution should call on you to do so as well. You {should} decline on academic grounds of integrity!”

What of the recent experience of Bruce Moon?  A retired Canterbury University professorial board member, Bruce has been deeply engaged in studying New Zealand history in his retirement. In his working life Bruce has been a rocket scientist in the UK and Australia. A fellow of the UK Institute of Physics,  a director of the Canterbury University Computer Centre, a national President of the NZ computer Society, an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Institute Information Technology Professionals, an officer in the Naval Reserve, Bruce is the author of “Real Treaty; False Treaty – The True Waitangi Story”.

Needless to say, the Nelson Mail, with its tendency to suppress letters with which the letters editor apparently does not agree, has consistently refused to publish Bruce’s letters  – and even articles – correcting quite wrong “facts” advanced by some of Nelson’s notable activists.  It was not until recently when I at last scratched together the time to make an official complaint to the Press Council about the Nelson Mail’s suppression of, or tampering with,  my own letters, citing Bruce’s experience also, that a recent letter of his has actually been published. The quite blatant bias now exhibited by extraordinarily uninformed or even stroppy agendists throughout our mainstream media echoes a lot of what is also happening overseas.

In relation to what has now become a quite blatant activism within the universities, and spreading throughout all other institutions, I’m reminded of the question I put to the eminent historian Paul Johnson nearly two decades in ago when I was fortunate enough to accompany him while he was visiting this country.  I asked him at the time where the attack upon the universities basically came from – specifically that of the post-modernists and the neo-Marxists (basically the same – i.e.  those working towards the imposing of Communism against the West by cultural domination, and spearheaded by the assault against reason by the same nihilist philosophers – or pseudo-philosophers.  Paul answered that this attack was not mounted against the universities – it originated from within the universities. He was of course right. And I recall an excellent lunchtime lecture he gave in Wellington – and the very hostile reception he got from his largely media and university staff audience.

This former editor of the left-wing The New Statesman abandoned the Left in favour of the free market, but his intellectual honesty is such that he would undoubtedly reject today’s corporate capture of the market – and its distortion  – when the excesses of capitalism without conscience are given rein to run riot.
Today, among those super-wealthy capitalist organisations now doing just this are some of our wealthiest tribes, virtually blackmailing universities and private institutions to prioritise their tribal interests ahead of the common good.

You’re paid by the taxpayers of this country, Susan Devoy. So we would like to know why New Zealand’s Relations Conciliator is apparently turning a blind eye to what is actually happening? Are you really so ignorant, or uninformed that you have no idea what is taking place ?  – of facts which now manage to get at least some, if woefully inadequate coverage in a mainstream media which for too long now has basically ill-served the country. And throwing around unjustified charges of racism, when fine individuals who’ve earned the right to be listened to, and respected,  point out what is really racist – and  are ignored, simply isn’t good enough.

What is basically racist – the form of virtual blackmail by now very wealthy iwi, including, in fact particularly Ngai Tahu – has reached disgraceful proportions. Ironically, on very good evidence, including historian Alan Everton’s excellent research, this largely European-derived tribe should never have got its lucrative 1998 settlement (one of the last of a number of now never-ending power and money grabs by this greedy tribe that lawyer Chris Finlayson wangled for them).  It was a settlement repudiated by highly respected members of the tribe, such as Dame Whetu Tirikatane-Sullivan, pointing out that a previous full and final settlement had been unanimously agreed to. However, the dominating, reportedly only even one-sixteenth Maori, Tipene O’Regan, apparently persuaded Finlayson to represent their new, contrived claim – already previously rejected by a Maori Affairs Select Committee.  Finlayson was viewed as largely instrumental in pushing this claim through.  However, was this instance of what many public perceive as the only too common practice of lawyers competing against each other – rather than prioritizing the justice of a claim?

Finlayson is on record as saying, in a speech in 2009:  “I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown…Ngai Tahu mastered the  art of aggressive litigation. . .  It was ‘Take no prisoners’ and it resulted in a good settlement “. For Ngai Tahu, yes, but what about the truth of their claim?

It would not be appropriate for this lawyer to gloat too much. Later, the Crown lawyers virtually admitted they were a pushover. They had no historians on board – from memory, they admitted their lawyers had background degrees in Geography and French. They not only accepted Ngai Tahu’s word in relation to quite wrong “facts” – they were not allowed to even follow the normal practice of cross-examination. Tipene O’Regan even managed to successfully make the ridiculous claim that confrontation was not the Maori way…

This Ngai Tahu settlement was later described as a swindle – a view many share. The select committee whose job it should have been to scrutinise it was told by the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations at the time, Doug Graham, that their job was to simply basically endorse it, as the original bill had been signed by him and the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger. In other words, it was never subjected to the proper, rigorous scrutiny which should have occurred.

 And unfortunately, also, in the eyes of well informed historians and researchers, the Ngai Tahu lawyer Chris Finlayson  was subsequently appointed Minister for Treaty Negotiations, and  has been viewed to be far too uncritical of highly fanciful claims submitted for his office to apparently virtually rubber-stamp.  He has apparently been very close to the wily elder Apirana Mahuika, who claimed, when a generous full and final settlement was signed, that it would not be the end of it – that his present generation had no right to hold the next generation to a proceeding agreement. When, as a then Dominion columnist,  I pointed out at the time that in this case he and his fellow claimants, according to this logic, had no right to expect today’s generation to endorse the Treaty of Waitangi, he went off the air…

How sad it is that today’s destructive tribalism is not only opposing the common good: it is sowing dissent throughout this country. Our governments have been very much culpable – both National and Labour have let the country down. And Labour is now marching further ahead downs the same well-trodden path.

That this neo-tribalism is destroying much of what has been best about New Zealand  – where racial discrimination  held so little place that intermarriage was taken for granted  – to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in our relatively short cohabitation – is no longer in doubt. But we never hear a word from you, Susan Devoy, Race Relations Conciliator, about the real reasons for what is going wrong. Your apparent focus on attempting to punish those you consider hold “racist” views is yet another nail in the coffin of the once far healthier democracy we were.

A number of factors are contributing to the growth of separatism and resentment. But basically, rapacious, so-called neo-tribes, with their unhealthy but highly lucrative concentration on grievances dating back two centuries, are responsible – together with the lawyers so obligingly assisting them, helping themselves to a large chunk of the never-ending settlements which were supposed to have reached final closure years ago. Moreover, greed and avarice being what they are, the possibility of squeezing even more millions from New Zealand taxpayers to add to the $50 billion which the Maori economy is now worth, is being milked on what has become a never-ending basis. That ridiculous claims to areas which Maori never owned, including our waterways, plants, and the radio spectrum are not immediately laughed out of court are an indictment on our venal political parties  – and a now perceivedly activist judicial system.

 The facts of the matter – that there given there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country, and  that most with some Maori ancestry do not profit one whit from what the chief executives of these neo-tribes – in fact basically corporate bodies – are contriving for themselves is completely ignored by our constantly vote-buying political parties.  What is also ignored is that none of these settlements benefit any in the past who were genuinely wronged – and that the blame for any such injustices (which certainly by no means affected only Maori) cannot possibly be laid at the feet of any New Zealanders today.

So what has been happening? The answer lies in Malcolm X’s advice to radical activists that  “The squeaky wheel gets the most grease…”  advice the controversial  Titewhai Harawira gave to her followers.  Mrs  Harawira, like so many activist part- Maori,  who have apparently been intent on passing on a sense of grievance to the next generation – without ever acknowledging the very tangible benefits that colonisation brought to Maori –   has apparently never come to terms with the simple fact that, as Bruce Moon reminds us, the Treaty of Waitangi – Te Tiriti o Waitangi  was basically a simple document which said in essence  that the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever to the Queen,  and that all Maoris (including the many slaves) received the rights of the people of England. The extraordinary and quite wrong statement by the President of the Royal Society, Richard Bedford, to the effect that researchers have special responsibilities under the treaty is quite wrong, as is his reference, to Aotearoa New Zealand – a name which does not occur in any reference to New Zealand in Te Tiriti – but which is now being heavily promoted by radical activists as a substitute for this country’s correct name.

A clue to what underpins this ongoing push for separatism and indeed for special privileges – is found in a recent interview given by the radicalised Mrs Titewhai Harawira, mother of the stroppy former MP Hone Harawira.  “They talk about how Māori have special privileges. But we don’t have any special privileges. We are tangata whenua and we have a treaty that says we have a right to these taonga. And the Pākehā have a right to look after their own people. Not to rule over us.”

She’s wrong, of course. Sovereignty was ceded to the Crown. And it’s interesting how the original meaning of the words such as taonga has been exaggerated beyond recognition. Taonga applied only to material possessions – including land, to which stable possession and legal title was never held by Maori – until the coming of British Law establishing this. Similarly, the much invoked claim to be tangata whenua is quite wrong. Mrs Harawira’s ancestors made known to our early historians that the term referred to the people they knew had been here before them – a term translated variously as the first people – or the people of the land.

An interesting observation by Andy Oakley, author of the well researched ….”Once We Were One – The Fraud of Modern Separatism” (Tross Publishing) is that “I am finding more and more in my debates with Maori separatists that they accept there is noting in Te Tiriti that gives them any special rights, and the elevation of one race over all others may not be fair. However, what they now tend to say is:  it does not matter how I (me) or Pakeha feel about the situation: the courts have made their decisions and central and local governments are enacting these decisions by giving Maori separate and  superior rights… Get used to it.”

The country is not going to get used to it. The inevitable backlash is already under way.  So is the growing questioning about the qualifications – or lack of them – that our Race Relations Conciliator brings to bear on her highly controversial role. People are asking why she was ever appointed.

Postscript. The talk scheduled to be given at the Nelson library by historian Bruce Moon, at the invitation of the Nelson Institute,  has been called off. Apparently, representatives of the Nelson City Council, library officials, and two members of the Nelson Institute met, as all three groups have been contacted by persons saying he should not be allowed to talk on this topic.

Allowed? The you-can’t-say-that bullying and intimidation now being exercised on campuses overseas, by those too apparently mentally and emotionally fragile to be able to tolerate genuine debate, is well under way in this country. More than one other historian is reporting similar incidents.

Moon’s talk, “Twisting the treaty and other fake history” was specifically designed to be non-political – the findings of a scientist turned historian – rather than, one would expect (from his extremely well-informed writing in these areas) that of those government-endorsed, PC historians who have lent too willing and too uncritical an ear to the self-serving propaganda too often advanced by some of today’s manipulative tribal corporations.

This disgraceful and successful attempt to shut down well-informed commentators has been well under way overseas…It has now come here. Copy-cat objections to the scheduled talk were represented under the guise of concern about it disturbing the peace and becoming a Health and Safety issue. Reportedly, the individuals who thought up this underhand way of preventing actual facts being presented concerning the distortion of the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi are well known to the Council and library staff.

They need to be publicly identified, rather than sheltering under the convenient umbrella of anonymity. Nelson Institute, the Council and library  have all shamefully buckled under. If a legitimate case could indeed be made for it being a Health and Safety issue then the implying of possible violence means that this whole matter should now be reported to the police. But who’s holding their breath?

The only effective opposition to this virtual bullying by those anxious to hijack our democratic institutions can be mounted by individuals.

We have forgotten the power on one….Each one of your and my individual objections to this new totalitarianism is the strongest blow against this push for tribal preferment, and power. It is intent on contriving a virtual apartheid , and the supremacy of unrepresentative, minority power seekers working to undermine this country. Our real concern must be those who, as Edmund Burke pointed out, do absolutely nothing to help save the day…

Do you?  If so, we all owe a debt to you. Thank you!

If not? Join us – and tell others – till the knowledge of what is actually happening reaches right around the country.  

*

©  Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazons Kindle.

 

For Best Practice Democracy – read The Spectator – below.

Losing our democracy….

For why we ourselves, individual New Zealanders, need to claim back our country from our now thoroughly unrepresentative politicians, read further  – below the link to my recent Spectator Australia published article, Best Practice Democracy.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/best-practice-democracy/

For example, what has happened to us in recent decades when a new South African arrival expresses shock at finding what is basically another form of apartheid now being deliberately promoted in this country? Reportedly, he not surprisingly hoped he had left all this behind… and couldn’t believe it is happening here.

What’s more, this reverse apartheid is being deliberately backed by our political parties, jostling for self advantage… And it is going to get worse – with the extremist push for separate, thoroughly undemocratic constitutional “rights” for any of part -Maori descent. But why?

Labour, under its new, activist leader,  Jacinda Ardern, shows every sign or leading us even further down this racist path, although to date, National has been even worse than Labour in this respect. During its recent period of dominance, the markedly racist Vision Matauranga was supported. A marked form of prioritising Maori-related outcomes, government-backed, it requires not only our universities, but our private institutions to provide, in research grant applications, preferential outcomes for those of part-Maori descent over all other individuals. More on this in future, as this insidious requirement has now crept into other institutions bearing no relevance whatever to any particular ethnic group.

For the moment: one outstanding example is that scientists who apply for all government grants for research purposes from the Ministry of Research and Innovation – (funded by all taxpayers) – now have to state how it will first supposedly serve Maori interests – and if not – they have to explain why. Note the comment below from one scientist – and scores of others will be thinking the same.

“Government is now requiring *all* applications for research funding from Ministry of Business & Innovation (MBIE) to consider Vision Mātauranga nonsense.  Previously, one was able to tick a box to say one’s research didn’t have such relevance – now, chillingly, one must ‘provide evidence if you think Vision Mātauranga isn’t relevant’  (the twisted logic of this requirement is so outrageous that it almost sounds as if it could be challenged, legally).

“May be a sufficiently palatable way round this kind of thing, but certainly puts me off wanting to be involved in any kind of proposal at all.  And to get a job away from research!”

Hands up those who think that Susan Devoy, if this were brought to her attention, would strenuously object on behalf of all New Zealanders at such specific racist demands?

Hmm.

Incidentally,  with a Maori economy of now $50 billion, the very wealthy iwi – thanks to the never-ending raiding of taxpayers’ pockets -could  well afford to fund their own research – prioritising specific Maori-interest outcomes…

*

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

 

 

Susan Devoy, this won’t do. High time she resigned?

Susan Devoy – this won’t do. High time she resigned?

Sociopolitical commentator Lindsay Perigo has recently made some very timely points about the attack on free speech in New Zealand. And it’s getting worse.

Many now regard Susan Devoy as contributing to this, seemingly very much out of her depth with regard to comprehending what her constant stirring of the supposed  “hate speech” pot is leading to.

Devoy’s  credentials for ever being appointed to her position as Race Relations Conciliator in the first place are a mystery,  and she is now understandably regarded by many as very much unsuitable for the position she holds.

Far from being  seen as an objective, properly neutral government employee, she is perceived by concerned New Zealanders as very much lacking judgment. Her school-marmish, disapproving attitude towards those concerned at the divisiveness now caused by the promotion of what is  increasingly seen as a radicalised, Maori supremacy movement in this country – which many, far from extreme part-Maori individuals also object to – is unreasonable.

For example, her statement below is completely unacceptable to all concerned with fair and balanced debate – and is basically quite shocking! *

She also seems  ignorant of the fact that the ongoing attempt to actually replace New Zealand as the name of our country with “Aotearoa” – never even historically justified – is  very much part of the power push by the radicalized Left.

* “Anyone  who complains about te reo Māori being used and celebrated in this country needs to get one thing straight: this is New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand – so get used to it,” Devoy said.

Susan – this sort of intemperate, even bullying statement will not do. Time indeed to step down…

As Lindsay Perigo has pointed out, Devoy, “—who dismisses anything she disapproves of as “stale, male and white” (hate speech?!)—is campaigning to make existing legislation more draconian. Not for her, “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Are we coming closer to, rather, “I disagree with what you say and will have you thrown in jail for it”? In her own words:

“I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out. I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums, comments sections on some media outlet websites as well as their social media accounts. I am keen to see our Police begin to gather hate crime statistics – at the present time this is not something they collate when responding to call outs.”

So much for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights legislation stating:

Article 19. “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

For Susan Devoy to be in essence seeking to undermine this right under the umbrella excuse of the recently invented “hate crimes” is totally unacceptable.

Is it high time to remind ourselves that our forebears fought against this sort of creeping, virtual totalitarianism that  eventuates when any government, through its representatives and officials, starts on the path of laying down what we can or cannot say…

And what about the famous reminder that “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom…”

What freedom?

Amy Brooke

The Harvey Weinstein syndrome –the MeToo movement

As with most popular movements, what starts from good intentions frequently spirals out of control – or beyond what its originator intended. Many men, for example, already experience not only sexual harassment, but also physical abuse at the hands of women. And Western men, especially white males, have already long been under attack by fanatical feminists, weathering unwarranted abuse simply because of their gender. Those of us with sons, brother, husbands, friends who are far from being predatory males have reason to be concerned about the excesses the MeToo movement is likely to lead to. One of these is the clamour for very young children to be given much more explicit sex education – although studies have shown that this is far from being in the best interests of vulnerable children. The removal of innocence, and the arousing of sexual curiosity among the young, can be emotionally not only distracting, but damaging. 

Moreover, many conservative women have also long themselves been at the mercy of the sisterhood. What is too often overlooked is that what have been called the feminazi are equally and as nastily antagonistic to their sisters…to family women, to pro-life women in particular.  Every pro-abortion rally brings out the angry faces chanting “a woman’s right to her own body” when it is demonstrably not her own body, but that of an entirely different little human being, that of her own son or daughter,  that so many desperate women are encouraged to dispose of. That the so-called sexual revolution did neither men nor women any real favours is overdue for debate. 

Arguably, it certainly assisted what we can call the Harvey Weinstein Syndrome. But has the entitlement too many much-feted or wealthy men feel they have to expect sexual favours from women persisted  – because it has been allowed to? After all, it takes two to tango…

The now conveniently indignant Hollywood female glitterati, late banding together as a sisterhood to condemn Weinstein and Hollywood powerbrokers, have long been arguably derelict in acquiescing to the casting couch syndrome. Well-known as the place where sexual favours were demanded by powerful film producers or directors, it was first reported in the 1930s. All Hollywood was aware of it:  some fine actresses opposed it, warning others. Ambitious women may well have been aware of the probable consequences of resisting – or of speaking out. The real issue is the fact that so many did not – with prominent stars such as Meryl Streep now defending themselves against accusations that they stayed silent.

 It is not so much whether we are now a sick society – but whether its illness is terminal. Who could deny it has become sex-obsessed? The now, too-late recognised long march through our institutions, advocated by the Italian communist Gramsci as the best chance of white-anting the West, has achieved much of what it aimed for. The shocking targeting, even, of school children, not only down to new entrants, but even at kindergarten level, has reached fruition in the Safe Schools programme. Advocating homosexuality, transgenderism, queerism, and all the special demands from the radicalised agenda-driven, it has adopted the now tattered cloak of liberalism to conceal its increasingly extreme onslaughts against rational thinking.

The attack on basic human biology, on nature, on DNA, can well be argued to be a delusional form of thinking , in which individuals claim they can choose what sex they want to be – and that anyone who wants this current faddism objectively debated – or who objects to children being propagandised by the rainbow coalitions – is homophobic. Using the usual tactics of bullying, of harassment, the blacklisting of businesses or of court attacks on those claiming a legitimate right to obey their conscience, its success is considerable. It takes a great deal of courage to confront bullies…especially when the attack on free debate is punitively classified as “hate speech”, and, appallingly enough, even open to prosecution.

Is all this, including the nonsense of gay  “marriage”,  symptomatic of a civilisation in decline? Who could have foreseen the rapid flowering of the obnoxious, spoilt brats of an over-privileged class of those young enough to know everything – now dubbed the snowflakes? Too intellectually or morally fragile to endure debate about the truth of issues, they have mounted an attack on those basic democratic freedoms for which so many in the generations preceding ours gave their lives. Moreover, they have flourished largely in those very institutions – our universities – which were once proud of their commitment to freedom of speech and thought. Disgracefully, university management has in places knuckled under to the radicalised demands of the bully boys and girls, repudiating these very essential values. Their complicity is  shameful, as is the silence of today’s protestors about the issues that really do need addressing.

Given our now far-reaching social media, for example, how many of us can claim ignorance of today’s totalitarian governments still oppressing, imprisoning,  torturing and executing their own people – especially those brave enough to fight for the values we have so obligingly discarded?  That the West, with too long a spoon, sups with some of these appalling régimes,  turning a blind eye  to the inhumane practices inflicted, in male-dominated traditions, within such countries – in particular the appalling bullying of women and young  girls by forced marriages  and genital mutilation –  is an issue  well overdue for addressing.  

Nevertheless, the majority of the powerful, much admired stars of the Hollywood long operating in a moral vacuum having a great deal to do with the corruption of the West, have never lent their influence to speak for the oppressed women of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. There,  girls as young as eleven years can be forced into marriage with middle-aged, or old men,  and males, encouraged by the fanatical religious, sexually obsessed Mutawas, all-powerful clerical police, can put to death their wives and daughters with no accountability…whether by officially drowning them, bound and gagged, in a family swimming pool or stoning  them to death. Such brave men, to first shackle these women, often the victims of male jealousy, such as their beauty, lest they escape…

All these appalling practices of today’s Arab world, given in the testimony of brave Arab women, such as in the Saudi Princess Sultana’s  “Princess”  first-hand account, have been highlighted in American writer Jean Sassoon’s world-wide best-seller.  And yet the constantly interviewed, glamorous Hollywood women, so conveniently now mounting their decades-late attack on the corrupt Hollywood culture, have failed to show any interest in the plight of so many women other than their own.

A survey of American students some time back revealed that the kind of films they preferred watching were those that did not embarrass them when others were present. However, with Hollywood’s influence now all-pervasive, warnings of graphic sex and violence are omnipresent. Topless actresses, and graphic depictions of sexual intercourse have progressed to shows like the Naked Attraction, where naked bodies of men in pods with sliding panels are gradually revealed from their genital areas upwards, until they are fully viewable – as, eventually, is the equally naked female choosing her preferred body – dismissing one male because of his “ginger pubes”. 

It’s legitimate to ask whether things can get much worse. Possibly yes, if Western society is determined to self-destruct through the fanaticism of a few, or the silence of so many.  

The great English columnist Bernard Levin warned us, that “the atrophy of moral judgment is the characteristic disease of our times – the inability to see evil, and the willingness to condone it “.  Whether or not we are eventually judged by our actions and inactions, how many of us would fail to respect the Australian woman who said simply that she “wanted to tell my grandchildren that I did try to help.” 

 

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

The fraudulent treaty merry-go-round. The politicians’ disgraceful copouts.

Ignorant and aggressive comments have come through to our 100 Days movement from correspondents who think they are well-informed on treaty and related issues – but in fact have simply been thoroughly brainwashed. 

From genuinely knowledgeable researchers, including the indefatigable Bruce Moon, have come relevant analyses of much of the quite blatant lies that have been told about our coexistence in this country. 

Sir William Gallagher, too, is right. (See below.) And shame on so many who know very well what has been happening, but have kept their heads down and lacked the moral courage to speak out. All credit to individuals who have, and who get too often vilified by those with their snouts in the over-flowing trough of racist government hand-outs…

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/99247542/sir-william-gallagher-claims-treaty-of-waitangi-coverup

Unfortunately, the mainstream media, largely lazy and under-informed, do little except regurgitate most of the fanciful, distortionary and quite untrue pronouncements from radical activists who profit hugely from the treaty industry. The fact that they are helped by very well-funded lawyers with their eye more to the size of their fees than the truth of these issues is highly relevant. So is the intellectual laziness of our politicians, particularly the thoroughly wet “liberal” former lawyers more concerned with the euphoric welcome they get on the highly politicised maraes – than with genuinely serving the interests of this country.

Unfortunately it is not been to the benefit of genuinely struggling Maori, deliberately sidelined from the lucrative treaty settlements. However, some at least, having had inculcated into them a sense of misplaced and ongoing grievance by the treaty industry vanguard, have become useful recruits to the growing push towards racial separatism in this country. We have reached the stage where a South African immigrant recently wrote to me that having encountered separatism and its evils in his home country, he has been taken aback and dismayed to find this happening here.

I recall my father telling of his teaching days on the East Coast of the North Island at the time, where he spearheaded a  movement to send abroad cans of pork and puha, a much loved delicacy, to the Maori troops at the time. The cordial relations between Maori and non-Maori ensured the success of this fine initiative.  It is now is a sad fact that the deliberate fomenting of interracial tensions in this country has been done very largely for financial gain, very much encouraged by well-placed and largely well-paid radical activists, often with a very minor degree of Maori genetic inheritance, who quickly learned to trade off this for financial advantage – and media centre-staging. Ego problems have been only too obvious…

A treasured CD I have, a copy of which I sent at the time of its launch to a Maori friend, contains wonderful recordings of  the Maori Battalion (28) singing songs during World War II. As the New Zealand Herald commented in 2006, “These unique recordings were taken ‘live’ on location in the sands of Egypt, during gunfire in North Africa, and between green hills in Southern Italy by the Middle East Recording Unit of New Zealand’s National Broadcasting Service. Often with little or no rehearsal and sometimes under appalling conditions, the recordings captured the raw exuberance and vigour of the performances.”

This stunning record of what was known as The Singing Battalion is the pride of so many New Zealanders, both of part-Maori and Euro-New Zealanders descended from the colonists – and respecting the men and women of all cultures who did so much to reach out across what could have been racial divides of their times. So successful were that intermarriage was taken for granted to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country.

However, from another correspondent comes the following:

WELL THIS ONE CERTAINLY FLEW IN UNDER THE RADAR

“I see that the coalition agreement negotiated by Winston First with Labour contains a commitment to establish a Museum at Waitangi honouring the men of WW2’s  28 (Maori) Battalion.

”That’s nice … but what about similar for 18 Battalion and Armoured Regiment; 19 Battalion and Armoured Regiment; 21 Battalion, 22 Battalion; 23 Battalion; 24 Battalion; 25 Battalion, 26 Battalion;  Div Arty et al.    Those soldiers too served with honour and distinction.   What’s so special about 28 (Maori) Battalion?

”But hold on … the long established and internationally recognised National Army Museum at Waiouru (Te Mata Toa) honours all those who fought regardless of race.   Why this then? … especially from a Party that campaigned on doing away with the Maori seats because they were race based and divisive (and folded on their commitment at the first opportunity).

”Humbug and double humbug.   NZF couldn’t lie straight in bed.    A good spend of taxpayer money – NOT.”

And from yet another commentator. “And regardless of the above, such a museum properly belongs in the excellent Army museum at Waiouru – where of course the Maori Battalion and all its brothers are proudly celebrated already.”

The ongoing pick-pocketing of New Zealanders’ hard earned incomes to continue prioritising costly payouts –  at the importuning of radical activists – is a political disgrace.  With the Maori economy now worth $50 billion – yes billion – any initiative set up to benefit part-Maori only should be paid by those who Maori activists who  can well afford to carry the costs themselves. To continue raiding the pockets of New Zealanders at large is simply inexcusable. This hasn’t stopped National, Labour, and now disgracefully, New Zealand First, from going further down the same path.

Noticeable on our 100 Days page have been the ignorant comments of those who have swallowed a highly sanitised version of our co-history. The contribution below from the highly respected historian, Nelson-based Bruce Moon, highlights the difference between the downright lies that are being peddled – and the truth of events in which the media shows little interest. 

Our hope is that at least some of those wedded to the reinventing of our joint history will take a reality check when reading the below – and the correcting of blatant untruths…Don’t miss the added notes! 

 As below – the downright fabrications.

“The distortion of the history of New Zealand by racists for political and financial advantage continues at a relentless pace.  This has never been more so than in the events preceding a “so-called “Land Wars Day” on 28th October 2017.  

“On 21st February 1864, in a brilliant and humane action at dawn, designed to minimise loss of life on both sides, troops under General Sir Duncan Cameron occupied Rangiaowhia, breadbasket of the Waikato rebels on which their dominant pa at Paterangi depended.  With this setback, it was not long before the rebellion was quelled. 

“Furious at being so outwitted, the rebels soon concocted the odious lie that a church full of women and children had been burned to the ground and other atrocities committed.  Nurtured as “oral history” by the Ngati Apakura tribe, this travesty of the truth remains active to this day, being related at length by one Vincent O’Malley in the “NZ Listener” for 25th February 2017.  By contrast, with access to accounts of actual observers, one a Maori lad at the time, there is my own description of the real events in the March 2017 issue of New Zealand Voice”. 

“Others, notably Dame Susan Devoy[i] and historian Jock Phillips[ii] have likewise repeated the lie of the church-burning.

“A party of students from Otorohanga College having visited the site and been fed the false tales of the locals, a petition for a “Land Wars Day” was organised by teacher Mariana Papa and presented to Parliament by students Leah Bell and Waimarama Anderson.  Parliament failed to investigate the validity of this petition which was accepted without question and so 28th October 2017 became “Land Wars Day”.

“On this occasion appeared a report, authored by Martin Johnston, senior reporter of the NZ Herald,[iii] who had evidently interviewed student Bell, now at university, teacher Papa and historian O’Malley.  While it makes no direct accusation of any church-burning it is riddled with gross falsehoods about many aspects of New Zealand’s history including the Rangiaowhia affray. 

“It is despicable that school students should have been made the vehicle for the spreading of such false tales but it is doubly despicable because the truth was known in Otorohanga College nearly two years ago.  Principal Timoti Harris had received from me an accurate account of events at Rangiaowhia[iv], enclosed with my letter to him of 3rd December 2015.  I wrote again on 11th December 2015 and having no reply, again on 3rd January and 27th March 2016.  His belated reply subsequently was received after he had retired as school principal.

“I wrote also to the Te Awamutu RSA who responded with total silence and the Library whose reply was short but informative. Tony Membery, Principal of Te Awamutu College, briefly acknowledged my second letter to him, concluding: “I believe this will put an end to our correspondence on this matter.”  Other enquiries elicited that at Tony Membery’s school, discussion of Rangiaowhia was avoided, though a tale was current there that what was an old rebel’s white blanket had metamorphosed into a white flag of surrender!

“And so the tales continue to fester as so clearly shown by journalist Johnston’s report. Thus: 

No. 1: ”College students’ shock at the burning to death of residents of a Waikato village is at the heart of the annual day to remember the New Zealand Wars.”

IA: The burning to death of seven rebels was their own fault.  They fired first.

1B: There were no “New Zealand Wars”.  There were tribal rebellions.

No. 2: “the invasion of Rangiaowhia”

2: Rangiaowhia was British sovereign territory.  Any action to recover it from rebels was entirely legitimate and it is a travesty to call it an “invasion”.

No. 3: “the largely undefended village of Rangiaowhia”.

3: As events proved, there was a substantial number of armed rebels in the village and caches of arms were discovered in whares after the occupation.

No. 4: “[It] was attacked by British forces on February 21, 1864”.

4: Shots were only returned to rebel fire.  Rebels attacked first.

No. 5: “Buildings were burned with people inside them.”

5A: Only one building was burned with people inside.  This was the whare, fashioned as a gunpit, from which old fool Hoani Papita/John the Baptist, shot and killed Sergeant McHale at point blank range when called on to surrender.  In the subsequent exchange, the hut made of dry vegetation probably caught alight from the discharge of rebels’ or troops’ firearms.  Nobody could be sure.

No. 6: ”The Great War for New Zealand, Waikato 1800-2000”

6A: This reported title of O’Malley’s book is grossly misleading.  There were inter-tribal wars before Europeans arrived.  These intensified after 1807 when the tribes acquired guns, with Maori victims killed and eaten on a colossal scale.  This was New Zealand’s “Great War”.

6B: “1800-2000” is a gross exaggeration.  Tribal rebellions started with the Kawiti/Heke rebellion in Northland, 1843-5; mostly a sequence of skirmishes until their attack on Kororareka/Russell which was suppressed largely by Maori forces loyal to the Crown.  Other rebellions spanned the period 1859-1880.  What does O’Malley date of 2000 imply? (Note: The Taranaki Museum made a similar allusion in its falsehood-filled exhibition in 2011-3.)

No. 7: “Rangiaowhia was a refuge for women, children and the elderly.”

7: The amount of firing by rebels when Cameron’s force was discovered refutes the lie that in any sense it was a “refuge”. In fact,  before any action commenced, Captain Wilson of the cavalry gave women and children an opportunity to evacuate which they took.  None were killed or wounded except two daughters of missionary murderer Kereopa, who remained in the burning whare.  The village was actively engaged in growing food supplies for the rebels and as such a legitimate objective for government forces.

No. 8: O’Malley: “I argue in my book that the evidence that people were deliberately torched to death is clear and unambiguous.”

8: There is not a skerrick of genuine evidence for this false claim which should demolish for ever O’Malley’s reputation as a credible historian.

No. 9: Bell: “the British forces broke the rules of engagement. … the grief was still very real”

9: Given the lies fed to poor Leah, this is so but in truth the troops acted with much restraint, particularly towards women and children, in an action which, but for the recklessness of one old fool rebel chief, would have been almost bloodless.  The grief might be real but responsibility for it lies squarely with those outwitted and furious rebels 150 years ago.  That is their legacy to their people.

No.10: “The wars were fought in Marlborough, … .”

10: No “wars” but rebellions; only one incident in Marlborough, the Wairau massacre of 1843 when a posse of Nelson settlers greatly underestimated the fighting strength of Ngati Toa with whom they were in dispute, with many butchered in consequence.

No. 11: “It has been estimated that more than 3000 people died, but O’Malley believes the toll, although hard to calculate accurately, was probably higher.”

11: Cowan’s careful figures for deaths are: troops, loyal Maoris and civilians:745; rebels:2154; total 2899.[v]  Some commentators consider that he over-estimated rebel deaths.  There are other compilations but none aggregating a total of more than 3000.  Enough said?

No. 12: O’Malley: “World War I, considered the country’s ‘greatest bloodbath’.”

12: Why would he ignore the elephant in the room: the intertribal “Musket Wars of 1807-37 when by a careful estimate, 35,400 Maoris were killed by other Maoris with almost unimaginable brutality in 602 battles – about one third of the total population?[vi]

No.13: O’Malley again; “generations of Maori were condemned to landlessness and poverty.”

13:  In the years before 1840, registered in the Sydney land office were 179 sales of land in the South Island alone by willing Maori sellers[vii], many of whom had travelled personally to Sydney to secure their sales, with reserves set aside for tribal occupants according to rank from 73 acres for chiefs, rather less for free men but zero for slaves, the latter indeed in the days of “tikanga” or Maori practice “condemned to landlessness and poverty”. 

Moreover, in accordance with Hobson’s proclamation immediately on his arrival, all such sales were reduced to a maximum of 2560 acres and many voided entirely. 

Of those who retained land, in 1848 some Kaiapoi Ngai Tahu were running just two sheep and their lambs on 1000 acres yet one year later a chief wrote to complain that his reserve was not big enough.  In 1896 the tribe was cultivating a mere 857.5 of their 45,000-odd acres with one stock unit per seven acres.  In 1872, missionary Stack had reported that “Though very fond of milk and butter, there is not one [Maori] household that provides itself with these things, everyone shirks the trouble.”[viii]

 Moreover, for released landless slaves, work was available in road-building, other public works and as farm labourers.  Except in times of depression which affected all, settler and Maori alike, none who were willing to work needed to be in poverty.  It was not O’Malley’s “landlessness” of some Maoris “condemned to … poverty” but their own work-shy behaviour. 

Given the foregoing litany attributable to O’Malley, should his speculations be taken seriously?   

More appropriate are the words of late military chaplain Frank Glen: “Cameron, with commendable humanitarianism, wanted to avoid a set piece military confrontation because the likely casualties … would be severe on both sides. …  Under the cover of darkness… with the minimal loss of life, he captured Rangiaohai [sic].”[ix]

Bruce Moon – Nelson 

13th November 2017

[1]    S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

[1]    J.O.C. Phillips, “Mediaworks,” 2nd April 2016

[1]    M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

[1]    B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

[1]    J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

[1]    J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

[1]    J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

[1]    A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos.26-8, August-December 1997

[1]          F. Glen, “Australians at War in New Zealand”, ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146

[i]       S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

[ii]      J.O.C. Phillips, “Mediaworks,” 2nd April 2016

[iii]     M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

[iv]    B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

[v]     J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

[vi]    J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

[vii]   J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

[viii]  A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos.26-8, August-December 1997

[ix]    F. Glen, “Australians at War in New Zealand”, ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

 

Open Letter to Winston – Jacinda is way out of line

Dear Winston –Please don’t shift your ground on a promise you made – and yes – it wasn’t an If…or a Maybe. It was an unequivocal undertaking. So many have trusted you. That’s important. So, as you know, is your integrity. So is public perception.  To now reportedly hint that it would be fair enough to back off your pledge to abolish the divisive Maori seats in Parliament,  because the Maori Party failed to win any, this recent election, is imply not good enough. You will be well aware that as long as the provision for the Maori seats exist, in law, they can be contested again, in a coming election.

This is an open letter to tell you how dismayed, even betrayed, so many thousands of New Zealanders will now feel if you shift your stance on your pledge to call for a referendum on at last removing these anachronistic seats in parliament. You know they are racist.  You gave your pledge as a bottom line. And as far as so many of us are  concerned, you were  actually promising what was long recommended, so that the country can at last say – We are one – or at least strive for equality for all, under the law.

Remember the democratic principle so very conveniently sidelined in recent years – as the white-anting of our New Zealand society has undermined our foundations?  This was the founding concept of modern democracy – pledging fundamental and equal rights to all people in law, regardless of colour, race, gender, or creed.  Any whittling away at this fundamental principle of a genuine democracy diminishes us all.

Recent vote-buying governments, persuaded by now very wealthy and powerful iwi, have backed away from keeping their word – as National did, to its shame. This breaking of a social contract, a pledge given to voters by a party leader, was not only regarded as an act of betrayal. It also lessened even further the respect in which politicians would like to think they are held. Equally damagingly, it takes away from so many the hope that New Zealanders try to hold fast to – of a country in which they once more count, a stable, undivided, peaceful society, respecting the values of those who fought to make this a better country.

 But we’re going backwards – not forwards. And retention of the outdated Maori seats, giving special advantages to those with even the very smallest part-Maori, genetic inheritance (Why?) is contributing to a growing push now towards promoting anything touching on Maori as inherently superior. Again – Why? The whitewashing of the realities of pre-European settlement country, of never-ending internecine tribal wars, of the barbarities of a ruling priestly and warrior class inflicting the cruelties of slavery, barbaric practises and the horrors of cannibalism, are no reason for regarding it as desirable that throughout the country, local government and statutory boards should be forced to kowtow to the supposedly superior insights provided by any individuals with even a sixteenth or  a thirty-second genetic inheritance from  the past.

You will be aware that the Auckland Council is seeking a legislative change to make an elected Maori councillor role compulsory. Incredible!  Even though Auckland councillors themselves have voted 10 to five against introducing a Maori ward. As one commentator has noted, the council’s attitude now equates to (with deeply Orwellian logic…)We can’t trust the majority of the public to vote for what we want – even though we’ve relied on them voting for us – so we therefore will subvert the democratic process…”

All around the country, the opposition to forcing local bodies and government liaison committees to grant special voting rights to unelected individuals on the basis of a part-Maori inheritance has been overwhelmingly rejected, as you know. Yet not for a moment has this past National government taken any notice of the wishes of the majority.

New Zealanders are not fools, and we now have a total contradiction of democratic values and freedoms by an overbearing government, pressured by the now immensely wealthy iwi (the Maori economy now is estimated at about $50 billion dollars. Most of this has been successfully withheld by the rich tribal corporations, with their tax-free status – (Why?)  – from an underclass of their own people in desperate need.

Removing the Maori seats in Parliament is a hugely important move – the very first step towards dismantling the new apartheid we have created – by which some are now more equal than others. And because of this and the vested interest these extraordinarily wealthy iwi have in promoting their own position and influence, and obtaining even more economic advantage for themselves, you will be under considerable pressure to walk away from that promise you gave the public.

You will also be under pressure because the present Labour Leader, Jacinda Ardern, is trying to manipulate you into giving in to her ill-thought determination to ignore the wishes of the country and have her own way  – with regard to preserving the seats.

Her attitude is inexcusable, given that able Members of Parliament of part- Maori descent are now to be found across the spectrum of political parties in Parliament. Labour itself has part-Maori members, National others. There are reportedly now 29 part-Maori MPs in total – strong proof that there is no discrimination against individuals of Maori descent winning  a place  in the House. 

Your own credentials as leader of New Zealand First and of part-Maori descent, long recognising the damage being inflicted on the country by the retention of Maori-only seats, are considerably superior to those of Miss Ardern. She is compromising herself intellectually by refusing to acknowledge that, given a part Maori genetic inheritance is no barrier to becoming a member of Parliament, there is no possible excuse for maintaining the Maori seats. This is doubly so, given that, to date the interests of this racist party have been to wrest even more provisions from the majority of New Zealanders.

Jacinda needs to drop her born-to-rule assumption, and acknowledge that it is not up to her to decide whether or not the Maori seats should be abolished. We’ve had to put up this sort of high-handed attitude from our MPs for too long. The decision is one for the people of New Zealand – not a handful of her Labour Party insiders. It’s time for her to take that on board, not arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that the decision does not belong to a politically-motivated group completely out of touch with most New Zealanders’ objections to this racist provision.

I sincerely hope you yourself have been misreported. Because if you renege on your commitment to put the abolishing of the Maori seats to the public at large in a binding referendum, then so many New Zealanders who have put their trust in you on this issue will loathe you. They are fed up with politicians promising one thing and doing another. Moreover, your stated intention to do this will certainly have meant a rise in the number of voters looking to your party.

The feeling of anger at the maintaining of special privileges, special scholarships, special treatment given in nearly all our institutions to those with even a claimed smidgen of Maori genetic inheritance, is now widespread  – with good reason.

What you were reported as saying in the National Business Review at the time will have given heart to so many. I quote:  “The fact is, Maori don’t need to be told they are not good enough to be equal, or that somehow they should be handicapped, that somehow they should be pigeon-holed,” Mr Peters said.

New Zealanders have taken this to mean that this referendum will be put to the whole country. To confine it to Maori alone – as you then seemed to subsequently be considering, would hardly be logical. It would be like asking the fox to vote for the abolition of hens.

Furthermore, any move to confine the referendum to those claiming to be Maori could be challenged on legal grounds.

There is no longer any definition of Maori. The former logical definition was done away with in the mid-70s by those with their eyes to the main chance – i.e. their ability to  include others  in their number who were, and are, predominantly European (or of other descent) as “Maori”  – in order to show a greater numerical strength  – aware of the political pressure they could then wield.

But it is obviously legally possible to challenge the definition of “Maori” – when those with less than half a Maori genetic inheritance claim to be basically Maori although they obviously aren’t – by any scientific assessment.

Canadian Judge Thomas R Berger travelled around Alaska in the late 1980s to interview the people, Indians, and Inuit, who lived in the villages. When the ANCSA (Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act) was reviewed, the cut-off point for declaring oneself of aboriginal (native) descent was a generous one. One could still be considered aboriginal (Inuit or Indian) if one had a quarter (25%) genetic inheritance. Below this, one was regarded as being predominantly not aboriginal, and therefore unable to claim this.  So why are we allowing this farcical situation in New Zealand?

Many of the most vociferous claimants to disadvantage – (or, contrariwise, of superior insight) because of a purported Maori genetic inheritance – are in fact not even one-quarter Maori. Yet we have allowed them to queue up for special benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer – which is basically a rort. Moreover, the Anglican Church has been silly enough – as have others -to say that one is Maori – and is entitled to be regarded as Maori, simply- if one “feels Maori”.

This is a nonsense. If I were deranged I could possibly regard myself as an Arab – or an Australian aborigine…or even an animal of some sort. But any “feeling” I might have would be at odds with the reality that I’m none of these. .

If you change your mind, and kowtow to the present Labour leader’s claim that she will not allow the discussion in relation to your undertaking to put the future of the Maori seats to the public at large to decide (and the country had no doubt that you meant a referendum binding on all) to be part of any discussion concerning a possible coalition, then she is not only being very foolish – but you would be honour bound to reject her terms. Nor should any referendum be confined confined to Maori only. Such a proposal would face formidable legal challenges, given that there is no longer any actual definition of Maori – all of whom are now part-Maori only.

Furthermore – it is also not accurate to say that such a referendum would be relevant only to part-Maori.  All other New Zealanders have been required to contribute financially  to supporting the Maori seats – and so, too,  the Maori Party…a prime example of the cost to the country at large of this ongoing movement to give one sector of the community special rights – at the expense of the majority.

I’m sure you personally are well aware that prioritising identity politics has been destructive and divisive to New Zealand. The only ones to benefit from it are those well and truly milking the system – at the expense of us all.

I’m afraid, Winston, that if you do not want your integrity to be doubted by those who have long supported you – because of your much-respected commitment to a unified country, it will not do for you for you to renege upon, or equivocate about, your original promise to mount a binding referendum – to be put to all the country.

Many New Zealanders have consistently supported your stated aims and defended you against your detractors. They will not want to continue to do so, if you break your word. And you would deservedly lose the respect in which many hold you for your long stand against the inherent corruption of race-based politics. We must trust you on this.

Kind regards

Amy

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

More pie in the sky from National and Labour. Winston’s last chance?

To many New Zealanders this election has become a farce, an American-style leaders’ standoff between a complacent, smug-looking Bill English and a young, unproven new Labour leader with the gift of the gab so necessary for a politician trading on charisma. This, eventually, as we have learned to our cost, is so often very damaging. The two major parties are vying to outdo each other with the pots of gold they are promising. But it is we New Zealanders who will have to face the consequences. And the realisation of the basic corruption of this process has increased the contempt with which many New Zealanders now regard politicians. Moreover, there’s widespread concern that the control of this country is passing out of our hands.

For example: The recent fundraising event at Auckland’s Pullman Hotel attracted hundreds of very wealthy, financially supportive Chinese, more than keen to see the National Party returned to power. We should be asking ourselves why? And  Ron Asher’s “In the Jaws of the Dragon”, produced by Tross  Publishing, is a must-read for New Zealanders concerned (and all New Zealanders should be very concerned) about how New Zealand’s  National government is bending over backwards “to accommodate the interests of Communist China at the expense of the prospects and interests of ordinary New Zealanders” .  There is little doubt that China’s ruthless and repressive government is intent on economically colonising and dominating our economy and key resources –  parallelling its build-up of armaments and  the intimidation of its neighbours.

Many worrying about voting carefully – and walking past the usual fringe candidates – will be thinking that although their civic responsibility requires them to take an interest, and indeed a real part, in the democratic process, this does not mean that they have to actually vote for any electorate candidate. Always compromising, by attempting to support the lesser of two evils, isn’t necessarily required of us – and is certainly not the best way to aim for what has now become essential. This is the reform of our institutions –  first of all of politics, including the hasty passing of inadequately thought-through laws and regulations  endlessly inflicted on the country –  with highly damaging consequences. 

Jacinda Ardern’s proposed new water tax is a very good example of just this – feel-good legislation which will hit dairy farmers, wine-growers, and those commercially growing vegetables and other foods for New Zealanders’ tables. Even more ominously, to allow the government to tax such water usage (overseas companies are another issue that urgently needs addressing)  will be, as far as our own people are concerned, wedging open the door of the vitally important understanding that water and air are not taxable  commodities for a government to pounce on, to take advantage of its people. Given the incremental creep of the State – with the knowledge that yet another tax lies within reach – the likelihood of this water tax eventually being extended to households is a very strong one.

Other aspects of Labour’s grab for power are equally dismaying.

How many are aware that its deputy leader, Kelvin Davis, has promised a most destructive piece of legislation with regard to an issue which the country has had enough of?  Winston Peter’s pledge to abolish the Maori seats has been met with relief nationwide – relief, because of the already damaging consequences of so much of the ongoing divisive and costly provisions which have too long haemorrhaged taxpayer funding away from much needed areas of real need.

Under the National Party’s ongoing neglect of this important reality in recent years, it is no surprise that OECD data has established that on a per capita basis, New Zealand’s housing issue is one of the worst in the world.  Only recently, with an election in its sights, has National faced up to what John Key acknowledged in 2007 – but then kept blatantly denying until late in his term of office – that Auckland in particular has a housing crisis. Moreover, the ongoing granting of often highly challengeable “compensation” funding to manipulative iwi has very much contributed to the squeeze on vital health and social services in all other areas of the economy. The billions of dollars accumulatively handed out to ensure preferential rights and privileges for those with even a smidgen of Maori inheritance has been more than questionable.  Markedly undemocratic in conception – it has been given with extraordinary largesse – not on the basis of need – nor of equal rights for all – but as some sort of reward or compensation for a minority of New Zealanders whose part-ancestors arrived before the colonial settlement of this country.  An accumulation of evidence also now shows that they were by no means the first to arrive.

Meanwhile, in every walk of life, in the professions, the trades and industry, in the factories, in farming and forestry, New Zealanders of part-Maori descent perform as individuals, without claiming superior rights or entitlements. Only the (part)-Maori MPs and the big players, the now wealthy and corporative iwi, continually pushing for self-advantage and employing their well-funded lawyers to squeeze every last ounce and more “entitlement” from the now corrupt treaty industry,  will  be supportive of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party’s intent to entrench the Maori seats in parliament.

If this isn’t a racist move, what is?  Part–Maori MPs have long won places for themselves in exactly the same way as other New Zealanders – and the country is fed up with the race-based politics that Labour is now endorsing further – let alone the National Party’s forcing of local bodies to take on board unrepresentative and unelected “Maori” advisers, whose apparently superior insights will guide us all.  Only Winston is challenging this corruption of the democratic process, overwhelmingly supported in this stance by the majority of New Zealanders. And that Peters has already promised to put directly to the public any new, New Zealand First’s legislative proposals, post-election, not already covered in New Zealand First’s manifesto, brings his party closest to the democratic principles so conveniently abandoned in the past by  Labour and National – to all our cost.

Many New Zealanders will be feeling caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, given Labour’s lack of any real costing of its reform proposals – and the realisation of what the present National Party leader’s much vaunted economic prowess has cost the country. Contrary to his assertions, it has not come as the result of increased productivity – but by prioritising unprecedented and highly problematic levels of immigration – replacing a much-needed emphasis on developing our own industries. It has very much contributed to the extraordinary and continual squeeze on the hospitals, mental health care, and other  essential services, including drug and alcohol rehabilitation. There has long been a shocking reduction in areas that New Zealanders were once far more able to access. But the waiting lists for much-needed hospital operations are very much still with us. Emergency services are barely coping, and New Zealanders can now find themselves in beds in corridors – with wards too full to admit them. Moreover, we are now being forced to carry the costs of foreigners who access our hospitals and health services – but abscond without paying. This shouldn’t be happening. No visa should be granted for entry into New Zealand for those who do not carry health insurance to cover such costs. Why haven’t our governments enforced this?

The level of poverty in this country today is such that the Salvation Army reports that they have never seen such a level of homelessness – while this National government, bragging about its economic achievements, has allowed housing affordability to be placed beyond the reach of so many New Zealanders. In three months of this year alone, the government spent a record $12.6 million paying for short-term, seven day hotel stays for those in desperate need. Many thousands are on a waiting list for social housing. Moreover, the new education reform package which Bill English is highlighting has almost nothing whatever to do with the real crisis of education in this country because of its dumping down these last five decades. Education has become a political tool in this country,  with recent both Labour and National Ministers of Education showing minimal comprehension of what has gone wrong and why…and performing poorly with regard to holding the ministry responsible. To call their handling of their portfolios clueless is no exaggeration. 

Given the lack of any great enthusiasm for any for either of the major two parties – apart from the media’s love affair with Jacinda Ardern, which will undoubtedly carry over to increased Labour votes, this country is in trouble. The question facing so many is why they should vote for an electorate candidate they can’t trust – or who will put his/her party before the wishes of the electorate? Or why give a party vote to any of the major parties, given these recent years of prioritising their own interests and the behind-the-scenes trade-offs, and cover ups.  What of the Todd Barclay affair?  What of the extraordinary number of texts (reportedly over 450!)  English sent to his former electorate staff in the months leading up to her resignation.

 Who was telling the truth? And what of the fact that an increasing number of government departments seem seriously dysfunctional – or are leaking like sieves?  Who leaked to National the information about Winston Peter’s superannuation repayment? We’ve been here before, when it was revealed security intelligence staff were supplying politically damaging information to political operatives in the then prime minister John Key’s office.

Given  the apparently inevitable fracturing of New Zealand First, with its also internal party squabbling, poor organisation and lacklustre List candidates with sharp elbows – (and the apparent cold-shouldering of potential  well-qualified candidates which might have posed a threat to its inertia  and complacence)  there’s a question  many will face. Should they refrain from voting for a local candidate more wedded to the party than to his/her electorate, and simply give New Zealand First their List vote – to allow Winston his last chance? Those questioning his inability to ensure New Zealand First’s largely invisible List candidates have performed well in public – raising the question of whether it is  simply that largely they have been  a lacklustre lot – or whether Peters prefers to centre-stage –  may well be wavering. However, given the fact that the political world has always attracted prima donnas, and that this does not negate a commitment to standing firm on actual principles, many will think there are stil very good reasons, at least at this particular election, for supporting him.

One is that although there is every possibility that New Zealand First will implode after this electoral term, once Winston has moved on, he has made one enormously important pledge. While Labour is promising to entrench racial preference in his country, Winston has staked his electorate commitment on the opposite. And it is Winston who represents the views of the backbone of this country – the real New Zealanders working on the land, in small factories, in the trades and industries and professions. Everywhere one turns, New Zealanders now overwhelmingly swamped by more and more unwieldy unrealistic, and even ominous, compliance issues, have had enough.

How many are aware, for example that depositing $10,000 in the bank brings you to the attention of the police? Under the guise of checking for money-laundering, this state-spying move targets New Zealanders going about their business… selling a car, or quite legitimately indulging in what should be private transactions. Even more ominously, and to the considerable disquiet now of family lawyers, anyone giving even $1000 to be invested by a family solicitor now  has to be reported. There are lawyers objecting – as they should –  and discussing refusing to abide by such a demand. But every law firm in future will have to have a virtual government spy  – that is some within the firm to see that this compliance issue is enforced   – or the inevitable consequences will follow.

What has happened to the country is that basically, we have been losing it. Many will regard National as accelerating this process – given its quite shocking record of prioritising the interests of foreign, including Communist Chinese investors and buyers, over those of New Zealanders. However,  Labour’s deputy leader shows no sign of understanding the essence of democracy – with his own intent to prioritise the interest of those wedded to divisiveness in this country, rather than social cohesion and stability.

 Many will think that Winston still represents the hope of all New Zealanders – not for the Trojan Horse of “diversity” – but for an ability to live as one in the sense of sharing the hope of a future devoid of the outpouring of racist policies and funding in which National have been even worse than Labour – and which Bill English is still indulging in.

We can actually fight to claim back our country reform, protesting the whittling away of our democratic rights and freedoms, by withholding our electorate vote – unless we have an outstanding candidate we can trust.  Yet when, in recent years, has any Labour or National candidate, with the exception of the principled Damien O’Connor,  stood up against his political colleagues to challenge polices the country does not support? O’Connor  also reminds us that National, including Bill English, have  long been determined to avoid a much- needed investigation into why the Pike River mine tragedy was so shocking handled – and to oppose the cover-up which still attempts to prevent families having answers they deserve – and access to recovering the bodies of those they loved and lost.

There has been too much of a whiff of corruption around National’s term in government for many New Zealanders to want to see it remain in power. And if enough New Zealanders were to deliberately withhold an electorate vote, it would force much–needed public debate about what has gone wrong with this country – and how it can be rectified  – in order to restore integrity to the political system. Which is where the 100 Days movement, so successful on doing just this for the most successful democracy in the world – comes into its own.

Isn’t it time we grew up as a country, to insist that it’s the people who should be in charge of the important decision-making – not an arguably venal political class? It can be done – it is a movement well under way. And looking at what these electoral bribes are going to have cost us all – by next time around – our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand initiative has a very good chance of more than making its presence felt.  We are under way – join us to support us.

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!