K R Bolton
I was recently asked to write as book on the Kohimarama Conference, whereby in 1860 Māori chiefs from throughout New Zealand gathered at the invitation of Governor Gore Browne to debate the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Kingi revolt, and other issues, and to fully air any grievances. It is evident that, smears by Establishment and “activist historians” to the contrary, Browne’s intentions were sincere. The chiefs were free to debate the issues, and quite forcefully, as indeed the maintenance of their mana demanded, and they did so with the rhetorical skill that has for generations been cultivated on Marae. Given that the proceedings were fully published in a bi-lingual journal, The Māori Messenger, and the issues were bound into a single volume and given to all participants, there can be little justification for claiming that the proceedings were at times poorly translated, again, despite the sneers of Establishment and “activist historians.”
I had completed the research for the book and largely completed a draft MS. Some of that research is published on The European New Zealander in the article “Waitangi, Sovereignty & Mana”. However, there was a snag and I could not compete the MS. By the time I had gone through the material and placed it in historical context I had (1) developed a sympathy for the most part in favour of Wiremu Kingi, and the separatist Māori King movement (2) I had become quite appalled by the frequent references of the chiefs at Kohimarama to their desiring to “be” “Pakeha,” and indeed their outright, vociferous cultural self-abnegation. The latter seems analogous to the current lamentable state of Europeans in their obsessive self-abnegation; and the yearning to immerse oneself in what is foreign is, as Carl Jung for example pointed out, harmful to the psyche.
Hence, I felt obliged to write of my predicament to the publisher, and decline to proceed with the book, referring to the “one New Zealand” concept as
… 18th and 19th c. liberal social contract theory posing as `conservatism’, and stating that there are no races or ethnicities, just ‘humanity’ or its localized variant- ‘Kiwis’. The same types of pseudo-conservative liberal pontificate about the evils of apartheid and the folly of the Afrikaners and quote the likes of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela (lackeys of global plutocracy). They are deracinated and want Māori to become the same, unified by some banal notion of being a ‘New Zealander’, whatever that is.
In such a situation as that of Kohimarama where the chiefs wanted to become ‘British’ (sic) I cannot help but find myself more in sympathy with William Kingi, and it is a pity that the land was not reserved as a separate state – anathema to the current crop of misnamed ‘conservatives’, – or whatever they are supposed to be; Don Brash et al.
I suggest that the material I sent be given over to a writer who will be able to adapt the Kohimarama conference to what is required for NZ readers with their infatuation in all being ‘one’.
The Treaty of Waitangi was based on 18th and 19th century social contract theory, derived from Liberal philosophers, in particular Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote a book of that name, and the Englishman John Locke. It is the basis of Liberal ideology, which claims that the nation-state is constructed on contractual agreement among individuals for the maintenance of peaceful commerce. Indeed, Rousseau stated that once the “contract” has been established, and a “general will” achieved, any dissent should be punishable, with the ultimate penalty being death. It is this doctrine that saw the guillotines in zealous operation in France. Now, behind the facade of “human rights” and what is seen as a global “social contract” under U.N. auspices, any state that resists the “new world order” is targeted for destruction. Actual conservative philosophers such as Joseph de Maistre and Edmund Burke were scathing in their critiques of the “social contract” doctrine.
Whether it is Left-Liberalism of the UNDRIP and He Puapua variety or Right-Liberalism of the “one nation” variety, the doctrinal origins are the same. We are told by the Right-Liberals  that we are “one nation, one people,” on the basis of handshakes and signatures at Waitangi, and Governor Hobson declaring “we are now one people.” This is typical social contract doctrine. A nation-state is supposedly formed on the basis of contractual agreements, as a real estate deal. This is what Thomas Carlyle, another actual conservative philosopher, critiqued with disdain as the “cash nexus” that had come to dominate relations in 19th century Britain, that had reduced many Britons to dispossessed, alienated, poverty stricken, disease ridden, urbanized proletarians.  This was the origin of many pioneers who took the chance of settling in New Zealand under the reign of what was intended to be a transplanted oligarchy. Of “white privilege,” about which we hear much, there was none, and it is typical of the Left that they are in the forefront of those who denigrate the white proletariat, preferring to blissfully ignore Friedrich Engels’ masterful Condition of the Working Class in England. 
“One New Zealand”
“One New Zealand” remained a fringe phenomenon for decades, represented by the One New Zealand Foundation, and the One New Zealand Party. 
Now parties and lobbies based on or adopting the concept seem to proliferate (One NZ Foundation, One NZ Party [Mark II, or III], OneLaw4All, Hobson’s Pledge, Act Party, New Zealand First Party, National Party). They attract New Zealand Europeans who are alarmed at Europhobia, regarding the “one New Zealand” policy as a “respectable” form of opposition, whereby they can claim to be the real, ultimate “anti-racists,” while paradoxically lauding New Zealand as a “multicultural society.” It is a bourgeois concept of nationhood, where citizenship is earned by working hard, paying taxes and obeying the law.
Genuine leaders like Wiremu Kingi were not a good fit. Marcus Garvey and Lena Gordon offered analogous leadership among Blacks in the USA. A Black initiative petitioning for repatriation to Liberia or Ethiopia, gained millions of signatures, and the zealous friendship of White separatist Senator Theodore Bilbo. The opposition came equally from Liberals and the Southern oligarchy, represented by Senator Strom Thurmond, who refused to forego Black labour. So much for the “white supremacy” that leftarded academics and journalists, and their Māori Uncle Toms, insist motivates the “far Right.” 
The problem from a Rightist perspective is not with “separatism.” To the contrary, the problem is with amalgamation based on the “cash nexus,” in the maintenance of a globalized growth economy, while the Liberal-Left attempts to incorporate a Maori pseudo-culture, adjusted according to the demands of globalization, to the point where Māori is being utilized as a sales gimmick by both private and state trade initiatives. The bottom line, as described in a Parliamentary question to John A. Lee is that, as he replied: “The Māori members think the Pakeha won the land wars but he only won the debt.” Cultures the world over become commodified. The problem is not that He Puapua for example is separatist, but that it does not recognize the common predicament of Europeans and Māori in this globalization process, while both Right-Liberals and Left-Liberals, heirs to a common doctrine, detract from the deracinating processes of global capitalism, while the Left as always remains totally useless as a means of resistance.
 “Right-Liberalism” – a term used here for the sake of convenience, as there is nothing of a genuinely Rightist nature about Liberalism of any type, including Whiggery.
 Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present (1843).
 Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845).
 An academic whom the news media occasionally trots out as an “expert” on the “far Right,” his background in Trotskyite factionalism remaining unmentioned, claimed a few years ago on a Māori television programme that I was part of a secret cabal that ran the One NZ Foundation, and that ONZF was the NZ equivalent of the British National Party. He is, as one might expect, very delusional.
 K. R. Bolton, Ethiopia Pacific Movement: Black Separatists, Seditionists, and How “White Supremacists” Stymied Back-to-Africa,” Counter-Currents. https://counter-currents.com/2020/09/ethiopia-pacific-movement-part-one/