By C McCabe. 3300 words
The extreme Left Labour Government of Jacinda Ardern may finally get caught out with the plan to hand over the sovereignty of New Zealand to an unelected coterie of Maori Tribal elite engaged in a long term plan to subvert our system of government to permanent Tribal rule.
The question of the response of the Nationalist community to the Maori separatist movement is an interesting one. Nuanced with a number of contemporary political realities that affect the political calculation. The NZCPR has published some incredible articles in the last few weeks on the foreshore and seabed issue as well as the plan for a parallel government for Maori called He Puapua.
The idea of a co-governance sphere or overlapping area of interest is a simplistic contrivance. The implication is that the co-governmental structure envisaged in He Puapua can be visualized as a sort of ven diagram with one circle of governmental authority covering all non-Maori New Zealanders, and next to and overlapping by some indeterminate amount another circle representing the parallel Maori governmental Authority. Where these two circles of authority overlap is the supposed area of mutual concern. Unfortunately, the facts on the logistics, costs and practicalities of supplying healthcare to all New Zealanders make a mockery of the convenient little spheres of interests.
What will happen is that all of us will end up providing a world-class standard of free healthcare for the 15% of New Zealanders who can claim a percentage of Maori heritage, while the rest of us, Indians, Chinese, everybody else, oh and let’s not forget the Whites, will struggle with an overloaded system, fatal waiting lists and shortages of beds and supplies. All of this so that part Maori people can feel better about going to the doctor!
For all practical purposes, Jacinda Ardern has made NZ a test case for the implementation of UN goals and objectives. These objectives disregard the existing culture, the settlement history and the national character of states, nations and peoples. It is globalism or internationalism and is explicitly anti-national in it’s support of aggravating minority groups on the basis of their “rights” and grievances, that ultimately weaken countries and breakdown national identity and solidarity.
We can hardly expect there to be any resistance from our government to Maori separatists when the relationship between activists and Government is like a love affair between a Masochist and a Sadist, the government desperately wants to undermine European culture and the Maori activists are more than happy to oblige. One wants to undermine, and the other wants to be undermined. Where is the argument?
In this article, I want to have a look at the underlying arguments and the ways in which conservative European Nationalists could respond to this threat to our country.
Funnily enough, as I read through the material it occurs to me that the Maori radicals could perhaps have a salient point…
From the 2019 Waitangi Tribunal report
“Article 3 of the Treaty confirms that Maori have all the rights and privileges of British subjects. The Tribunal has found that this article not only guarantees Maori freedom from discrimination but also obliges the Crown to positively promote equity.”
This conclusion of the Tribunal can only be true and therefore the obligation incumbent on the crown IF the only possible explanation of non-equal outcomes is the non-provision of Rights and Privileges.
And “Article Three has an implicit assurance that rights would be enjoyed equally by Maori with all New Zealanders” to attain “equitable outcomes”.
What this is alleging is that the treaty gives an implied assurance of equal outcome. Perhaps, but only based on the assumption that the Rights and Privileges so conferred on Maori would produce the same results as those rights would produce conferred on Europeans. The crown may well have overstepped its earthly authority here in assuming they had the power and authority to turn the Maori of 1840 into Englishmen! From this Implied assurance the Treatyists have extracted a promise. A promise from the English crown to the Maori chiefs that they and their descendants would have the same outcomes as the English settlers, and if they don’t then the crown and only the crown can be held responsible for the failure of the Maori community to perform in the new European environment.
Also, you can not create laws based on an “implied” obligation, particularly if that implication was not recognised in 1840. If the crown had intended for the Rights and Privileges so conferred to produce specific effects, and for the crown to be held liable for such things then the rights and privileges would have been enumerated specifically.
Did the Maori of 1840 expect to become like Englishmen, or simply as written, to have the rights and privileges of Englishmen? I suggest here that the imputation of the principle of equal outcome onto a 150 year old treaty is a nefarious case of presentism, the practice of imputing contemporary norms and value judgements onto historical contexts.
So, they have a point only if you accept some basic Marxist principles – (principles that Jacinda is already firmly committed to)- of Radical egalitarianism. These are modern-day interpretations that have only gained currency with the spread of Marxism. According to the new liberal dispensation, we are all the same and any systemic differences in outcome for Maori as an aggregate group can only be explained by oppression. In the Marxist proposition, there can be no alternative explanation. Regardless of how reasonable, moral and humanitarian it may have seemed in 1840 to talk of Rights, Privileges and “we are one people”, the fact is the contemporary left has imposed Equality of Outcome as an expectation of those Rights and Privileges. And when the equal outcome does not materialise the only possible explanation is the crown reneging on its obligations under the Treaty.
The imputation of “equality of outcome” to the enlightenment principles of equal rights did not come about until a hundred years later when Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt school developed critical theory. The groundwork of disarming the west having already been done by Franz Boas undermining a sensible notion of Race.
The Achilles heel for the Nationalist argument against the Maori claim to a guarantee of equal outcome is in the language of the document itself. And the assertion repeatedly stated by Hobson that “we are one people”. A naive piece of ingratiating fluff.
What approach should we take to Maori separatism?
- We could deny the validity of their claim to equal outcome and sovereignty and assert that the only reason the ‘Maori’ people (actually only part Maori) as a group fail to perform (their claim not ours) is due to group behaviour and internal group characteristics. This argument is true enough but it leaves unaddressed the Marxist reasoning that facilitated their claims and sense of grievance in the first place. It also leaves White New Zealand open to the usual accusations of racism etc. when we advocate for a European cultural balance. This approach relies on the common sense position that the contemporary Maori of 1840 did not expect the “Rights and Privileges of British Subjects” imparted to them by the Treaty to mean equality of outcome. That idea only being applied retrospectively as an aspect of Critical Theory over a hundred years later. We assert that the treaty was properly understood by all parties, was signed in good faith, upheld and honoured by the crown and most of the Maori community. A position affirmed by the Kohimarama Conference in 1860.
- We could support Maori separatism on the basis that if the government is going to completely trash New Zealand’s system of government, create separate sovereign territory based on racial identity, then fine; those identifying as Maori can have theirs, and Whites can equally advocate for massive tracts of land to be exclusively occupied by our people as well! Other racial groups can state their case for whatever is left. This may sound like the plot line for a novel, but if it is it would be large, bloody and protracted. A fractured New Zeeland would be week, destitute and without an ally in the world. The perfect opportunity for China, our largest trading partner to provide “humanitarian assistance and foreign aid”. A convenient euphemism for military occupation. A nightmare scenario that would see us supporting Maori separatism on the basis that we want to do the same. But they are fighting us on Marxist principles; designed to divide, fracture, tear down and destroy a majority existing social structure. Non-Maori New Zealand as a majority can not attempt to win by validating those principles.
- Or we oppose Maori separatism by exposing and nullifying the basic assumptions their grievances and claims are based on. This approach is academic, difficult, frustrating and risky. But it is imperative in the current global political environment that we preserve the Nation as a coherent national body. He Puapua would not exist without Critical Theory behind it. The document is the product of Cultural Marxism and the slew of pseudo-academic disciplines it spawned. Critical Race theory posits that race is a social construct and equality of outcome is to be expected in the absence of discrimination and oppression. Our job is to show that even if they are able to tease out of the plain words of the Treaty a tenuous implication of equal outcome, that was wishful thinking, was not intended or understood at the time and was/is impossible to achieve in any case.
At its root is an argument on sameness and equality versus difference and inequality, and the work of the Marxists to make unclear what was previously well understood.
We are not all equal, we are not all the same. There are differences between individuals and there are differences between groups of individuals. And these differences extend out to larger agglomerated groups of racially defined individuals to create the racial differences we see all around us. Forced ‘Diversity’ in a previously homogeneous society is a weakness, not a strength, and the people enforcing it know that to be the case and that is why they do it.
It is also unfortunate that the Treaty uses the word “Privileges”, the vast majority of working-class Englishmen at the time would have laughed at the notion that they were “Privileged” to live in 1800’s England!
It seems that ‘Rights and Obligations’ would have been a more useful construction. But in the context of the treaty, the crown’s intent was to place on the table an attractive offer to the assembled Chiefs. “Here’s the deal, you cede sovereignty to us and we give you all these shiny rights and privileges”. In that context it might have seemed impolite to emphasise that what they were getting in return for secession of sovereignty were some onerous obligations into the bargain; to obey the law, stop eating each other, free your slaves and generally behave in a civilised manner. So to make the deal as attractive as possible they avoided the possibility of offending the chiefs with such a demand and used Privileges instead of Obligations. This then is the error of the treaty. No Obligation was explicitly stated. No one would have imagined at the time that people 180 yeas latter would be so dim as to need it explicitly spelled out to them. But here we are.
The English colonisation of NZ was a late enlightenment project and was subject to all the same banana brained lunacy that erupted all over Europe after the French revolution. Hobson’s apparent declaration the “He iwi tahi tatou – We are one people” was a most unfortunate untruth that the liberal left and the Maori separatists have latched onto to bolster their claim to equality of outcome, – once again in spite of behaviour.
The French revolution occurred 50 years before the signing of the Treaty, the cries of Liberty Equality Fraternity occurred against the backdrop of desperate poverty, hunger and oppression. They had a point in seeking redress for their concerns. But I doubt that even Robespierre expected equality of outcome to be the demand of his ideological descendants! All the people wanted was a fair shake, the notion that we would, should or could all have the same lives and the same standard of living was ridiculous on its face.
That equality of outcome did not happen does NOT oblige the crown to force equality of outcome on one party to the treaty. The fact that it did not happen simply proves that the premise is false and therefore nullifies the treaty. So you either accept the treaty on face value OR it is null and void. Like a Treaty that promises the tide will no longer rise, it is worthless because it denies the laws of nature and is totally without effect.
In reality, the only way you can force equality of outcome is to hold back, disadvantage or explicitly handicap the higher-performing group or individual. This actually is what happens in universities in the States where White and Asian students are denied places so that race-based quotas can be achieved.
In a recent ruling on Harvard; the U.S. Department of Justice backed SFFA, saying Harvard “actively engages in racial balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids.”
This has to be the case because as a judge in the case said, the school has no “workable and available race-neutral alternatives” if they want to continue to provide “a student body that enriches the education of every student”. Apparently the education of every student can only he enriched if they disallow the highest performing applicants in favor of lower-performing applicants from other races. Source.
Conservative Nationalists could be seen as fighting against their own cause in fighting against Maori sovereignty. But that is based only on a narrow view of the Treatyist position, limited autonomy on Maori Territory. However for the Right the road to a Nationalist state in New Zealand is via a complete debunking of Marxist communist principles. Debunk Marxism and you undermine not only multiculturalism but the entire deconstructionist hermeneutics of Treaty revisionism as well.
So to the Treatyists we say, you have completely re-interpreted the Treaty for your own gain, however, we recognise the opportunity for doing so was in the Treaty itself. The Treaty has never had any standing as a legal document. It was a temporary expedient created at the request of the warring Maori tribes to facilitate an orderly and peaceful settlement of these islands. It served its purpose and a hundred and eighty years later is no longer relevant. The final result of the true intent of the Treaty 180 years after the fact is that those Kiwi’s with Maori ancestry are New Zealanders before the Law, the same as anyone else.
To the issue of Maori separatism and independent sovereignty, if that is what the New Zealanders who identify as Maori want then a referendum should be taken to establish that fact. Provision could be made recognising the principles of natural Race and group identity for exclusive Maori controlled areas. However as Maori are only 15 % of the population these areas would not be all the seabed and foreshore, they would also not be large areas that include major seaports and airports.
The Maori people would be free to migrate to these semi-autonomous areas, no one would be forcibly removed and no one would be forced to go there. As these would be exclusive Maori autonomous zones all race-based policies in the rest of New Zealand would cease. Affirmative action, iwi scholarships, diversity hiring, bilingualism in government departments. Separate Maori seats in government, separate Maori wards in local government and a dedicated department of Maori affairs. All of these attempts to placate an aggressive Tribal elite will cease. The Maori people will have complete autonomy in their own areas to conduct their business and establish their culture with no influence or interference from the European part of New Zealand.
This, after all is ostensibly what they want, but I suspect they will call an idea like this Racist, revealing for all the world to see what the true motivations are, behind their bullying intimidation on racist grounds of a week but well-meaning European establishment. Money and graft; they want all the power and all the money, and all the resources, and they want the European population to pay endlessly for their imagined grievances. They should be careful what they wish for in this regard, because the reality of a sovereign nation for however many Maori people are prepared to go it alone in their own country without the pandering support of the rest of New Zealand may be a whole lot more pain than they bargained for. Other countries and other peoples feel no need or obligation to pander to their bleating aggrieved finger-pointing, they will suddenly find themselves trading in the real world where you compete with everything you have and may the best man win.
Most Maori of course do not want actual physical apartheid, but if the Trytyists get what they want a large degree of physical apartheid will be the unavoidable result as people decide for themselves under whose authority they wish to live, and move their homes and businesses accordingly. What they want is Cultural hegemony, Legal authority and Economic power over the existing social structure. In essence; to reverse the Treaty so that they become sovereign while the Pakeha carries the obligation. A motivation born out of a sense of vengeance for misplaced grievance. Unfortunately the only way they can achieve their objective is to have legal sovereignty not just over some Maori lands but over the entire country. In other words; they need to make it impossible for people to choose not to live under their authority,- short of leaving the country.
One further thing the conservative nationalist right must consider is our ideal goal not just for us and for our people but for the Maori people as well. There are certain realities we cannot ignore. Many strange cultures have been deliberately imported into our country with the express purpose of watering down our collective national identity. In a certain dispensation, these processes could be reversed. But the NZ Maori has been here since the beginning of our settlement of these islands. And although the contemporary ‘Maori’ is a very different kind of human being to the natives Cook found here in 1769 we still have to make allowances for the fact that 15 % of the population has an ethno-cultural make-up that seems to put them at a disadvantage in a modern western liberal democracy.
But perhaps it only seems that way because it is clearly in the interests of the tribal elite to magnify and exaggerate Maori group disadvantage. They are not as downtrodden or disadvantaged as the Tribal elite like to make out, and neither are they as incompatible as some on the extreme right would have us believe. We have all worked with decent intelligent men and women from a Maori background who achieve in all walks of life no less than anyone else.
However it is not up to us to respect their culture, as is decreed we must by the authors of He Puapua, it is their duty to respect their own as much as it is ours to respect and value ours. Recriminations and animus result when neither partner in this national relationship has a true understanding of our own identity and place in this world. Only when a true examination of history has taken place and an honest coming to terms with the facts of our shared history has occurred will there be decent mutual respect between our cultures.
One thing is for sure. This phase will pass, there are greater problems we need to confront but it is to be hoped that the solution to the domestic problem of Maori separatism will also provide a framework for solving the larger issues around China, immigration, international relations and the decline of the west.
“There is one law for Maori and for Pakeha, the Treaty of Waitangi ordained it so.”Sir Apirana Ngata
3 thoughts on “He Puapua and Nationalism”
Does the Right even want to uphold ‘liberal democracy’, and the social contract theory of the modern ‘nation-state’, as critics of He PuaPua such as David Seymour have been espousing? He has even referred to the ‘universal human’ – an amorphous globule defined by its existence within global commerce.
It is ironic that those on the Left who make demands for the the so-called inclusivity of Maori et al do so within the context of late Western capitalism and hence their own view is Eurocentric, albeit in a degenerate sense.
Similarly, the Neo-Whigs (bogus right) define a ‘New Zealander’ as based on the ability to ‘consume and pay taxes’ (recall that ACT is an acronym for Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) or what Thomas Carlyle (an actual conservative), critiqued in 1843 as the ‘cash nexus’; the same system of economics that drove poor whites from Britain to New Zealand as a supposed ‘promised land’.
Does the Right (as distinct from neoliberalism) want to uphold such a system, or condemn it as the self- destructive epoch of a civilization?
Since different races are obliged to live in the same defined territory or eco-system, the aim should be to establish SYMBIOSIS, rather than either parasitism or aggression.
The byline of the Right on such issues should be from John A Lee: The Pakeha did not win the Land Wars – we only won the debt’). Until the pervasive factor of the debt system is overthrown no solution to any problem can be firmly resolved.