Co-Governance and European New Zealanders: Part 1

3780 words

• Government sponsored Co-Governance
• Wakameninga Maori government

Introduction

The Arden years are over but she leaves behind a legacy of cultural change that has literally redefined the nation, and will continue to set the legal, cultural and political direction for decades to come.

Chris Hipkins now leads Labour, for now. In October Labour’s chickens are likely to come home to roost resulting in a Labour political bloodbath as National/Act assume the throne, and the baubles of office are thrown to the other partner in the political tag team we call politics. No apologies for my cynicism I’m afraid, but it was National that started this mess. Labour just acted on the groundwork National had already prepared.

The purpose of this article is to explore the relevance of the Maori push for co governance for European New Zealanders. What is the source of this drive? Who or what is behind it and what can we expect as a social and cultural outcome for European New Zealanders. What will New Zealand be like in 5 or 10 years time?

Government Sponsored Co-Governance.

A booklet published by 1Law4All enumerates ninety five dates from 1975 to 2017 cataloguing the implementation of race based legislation in New Zealand. It’s worth reading although not necessary here to site every example of this trend, only to point out the milestones along the way and to emphasize that this trend is not partisan but speaks to much deeper cultural and ideological issues.

The genealogy of this voracious beast goes back to 1975 with the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal by the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975.

A simple reading of the Treaty Of Waitangi would not lead one to believe a full and fair implementation of said treaty would produce an apartheid system of dual Government in New Zealand, but one would be wrong! When the crown abrogates its responsibility to protect the interests of all New Zealanders and hides behind a faux commitment to detached analysis, and deliberately ignores historical documents that would put the Treaty in it’s proper context, at that point it becomes a relatively trivial matter for subversive elements to take advantage of a culture that has apparently lost the will to live. It becomes difficult to avoid the conclusion that successive governments have been on a mission to deliberately make themselves – and the New Zealand tax payer- responsible for terrible crimes against an innocent Maori population for which we must all now make reparations.

A psychological deep dive into why this is so, is beyond the scope of this present work. A good place to start looking though- for those with the tenacity and interest might be the universities of the West in the 1960’s, particularly in the US; names like Herbert Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer et al and the rise of cultural Marxism. When the gates of your culture fall into the hands of foreign interests one should not be surprised to find that things start to head south in all manner of unexpected ways.

There is a world view composed of a nexus of ideas responsible for the intellectual cowardice that has permeated our legal and political class. Contemporary Christianity, The Holocaust, collective guilt, extreme objectivity, enlightenment psychology. The desire for the redeeming glow of atonement, virtue signalling and the value of moral purity. These are some of the interconnected ideas and motives that have undercut European self worth. It is theoretically possible to let go of these all at once but the thought that one might fall into the pit of hell whilst doing so all but renders the act impossible.

As stated, this strange detachment and assumed moral superiority, this subtle negation of your own group interests has led to the general acceptance of basic propositions that are fundamentally at odds with our own national and group interests.

What steps have all governments and the administrative state taken since 1975 to prepare the way for He Puapua and the full implementation of a split racist society?

• By accepting that there are two treaties (‘Te Teriti o Waitangi’ and the Freeman document).
• By knowingly using the wrong English language document as the Treaty (Freeman instead of Littlewood).
• By accepting wrong word definitions. (Taonga)
• By allowing miss interpretations of the language of the treaty to extract a promise of preferential protection for all things Maori. I.e. they extract from the words of the treaty a literal obligation to provide an apartheid and Maori supremacist regime.
• By Accepting the doctrine of contra proferentem to allow rulings to go against the crown. Rather than a contract law ‘Mistake’ which would render the contract void ab initio (invalid, a nullity).

These are just some of the ideological positions that all governments since 1975 have taken that have enabled the development of the Co-Government legislation and narrative that supports it. Further to that is a whole stream, a continuous legislative avalanche of Acts and rulings – see the aforementioned booklet from 1Law4All– that have developed since 75 that have been embedded in our legal system and prepared the way for the Co-Governance pièce de résistance, the He Puapua document of 2019. Finally in He Puapua we have an explicit statement of intent to restructure New Zealand society on racial lines, a legal deference to Maori authority at national and local body level. (The Rangatiratanga Sphere with right of veto.)

The HePuapua programme intends to implement by 2040 a completely separate system of government to service the needs of Maori identified New Zealanders to the exclusion of all others. But it is more even than that. The promise to prioritise Tikanga Maori and te au Maori in full will mean in practical terms the construction of an entirely separate country within the body of an existing governing structure. A parasite culture that will feed off and control by right of veto the host culture. I have said it before and it bears repeating here that what Maori activists want is not separation or even ‘equality’ but rather … “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.” – He Puapua and Nationalism.

The practical realities of the full implementation of He Puapua is that the legally embedded treaty partner has veto authority on legislation from central government right down to local city councils. The legal system is dominated by a commitment to Tikanga, and to prioritising te au Maori (the Maori World). Same thing with all government departments committed to embracing Matauranga Maori (Maori world view), leading to explicit preferential treatment in all areas of civic life for New Zealanders who can claim Maori decent. Neither I nor 85% of the population can do that.

Government, people, territory and culture.

In essence we are talking about the construction of an entirely new country, because it is more than government autonomy, the plan encompasses legal, legislative, economic, territorial and cultural independence — that is the definition of a country, a self identified ethnostate. Yet one that occupies the same territory of an existing state and is funded and defended by that host state.

This Cultural Parasitism is a strange cultural anomaly that has come into being with the willing encouragement of the parent/host state. He Puapua demands a separate system to provide exclusively for Maori Healthcare, Education, Government, Welfair and a separate Maori court system based on Tikanga Māori, its not just courts of Law but an entire system of justice based on the vague notion of tribal Tikanga.

One might respond that this is all well and good if a certain section of the community chooses to identify as Maori and live under a different legal framework, but this is the creation of an entirely new country that will subsume and replace New Zealand. I even encounter may naive and well meaning New Zealanders who still fail to see any threat at all, they pepper their speech with the new Maori words and even acquire the same swirling Maori tattoos happily becoming white Maori believing they are embracing the new nation of Aotearoa.

The emerging civilisation is racist by definition, one in which whiteness is disparaged and regarded at the very least with suspicion. Many new Zealanders fought physically against an apartheid system in south Africa where they believed the majority was being oppressed by a minority. Yet in New Zealand we stand silent whilst an apartheid system is created in our own country where the majority – none-Maori New Zealander will be legally discriminated against by a minority Maori government. The consistent factor between the two examples is the removal of European Whites from government.

The new emergent culture will be based on Guilt and Grievance, with the aggrieved in charge constantly seeking and taking reparations from the guilty.

From the He Puapua document;

• “There will be greater relinquishment of Crown-assumed exclusive Kawanatanga authority over land, resources and taonga.”
• “Tikanga Maori will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa under Maori authority and also, where appropriate, under Crown/kawanatanga authority”
• “There will be an enlarged iwi/hapu/whanau estate, supported by significantly increased return of crown lands and water, including takutai moana, to Maori ownership (in addition to Treaty of Waitangi settlements).”

Point 8 in the Introduction to He Puapua points out that “He Puapua only forms the first step towards a declaration plan.“ There is obviously a lot more of this to come. The evident attitude of the report writers is clearly that the interests of other New Zealanders are of little consequence, we appear merely as those who will be socialized and it is the governments job and treaty obligation to ‘socialize’ the rest of us to accept the imposition of this new country .

The governments job and treaty obligation where other new Zealanders are concerned is merely to socialise us into the passive acceptance of the imposition of Aotearo onto the country we used to call New Zealand.

Wakameninga Maori government.

The Wakameninga Maori Government supports the interests of New Zealanders of Maori decent. It reflects a system of government that seems to be genuinely interested in the furtherance and welfare of the Maori people, and so it should, it’s the Maori government after all. Having said that, a traditional system of Maori government based on Tikanga, hereditary chiefs in consultation with iwi and hapu is unlikely to be compatible in the long run with a contemporary liberal democracy. Nepotism and internecine tribal violence seems to be hard wired into the Tikanga system and was one major reason why the chiefs sought English Law and a treaty with the crown in the first place.

“The Wakaminenga Maori Government was established in 1983 as a continuance of various entities such as the Native Government of Nu Tireni and the Kohimarama parliament that was formed in the latter part of the 19th century.”WMG Website

It claims to be the linear descendent of the various attempts at forming a unified Maori government that date as far back as Busby’s unsuccessful 1835 attempt to form a workable government with the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand. That intended government never met and within 18 months civil war broke out between the signatories to that declaration, succinctly putting the lie to the myth of Maori unity at the time. The legacy of that attempt is He Wakaputanga, the declaration of independence on which the current Wakaminenga movement bases its authority.

There were continuing efforts after 1835 to form Kotahitanga (unity) governments largely as efforts to repudiate land sales. The Kīngitanga movement starting in the 1850’s was also motivated by opposition to land sales and led directly to the land wars of the 1860’s

Maori Governemnt movements From 1870 to 1900 ;

Kihimarama parliament 1879
Waitangi Parliament 1881
Māori Parliament 1892
Kauhanganui 1890

The motivating factor was always land sales. If the land had been stolen, there would be a case to make against the crown. But these were transactions between willing sellers and buyers. The point worth making here is that the Maori as a group could not get ahead of the sales, to stand between the Crown and the Maori sellers. All these attempts at presenting a united front to government were short lived and ineffective. It seems that Busby in predicting the response of the crown was enthusiastically attempting to cobble together a unified form of Maori government that he could present to the Crown as something with which the Crown could negotiate.

It was flattery, a “polite fiction”, but it was also a necessary expedient if peace and order were ever to be brought “kicking and screaming” to the backwaters of New Zealand.

It might have been relatively easy to discredit the He Wakaputanga claim, had the Treaty of Waitangi not made explicit reference to the now defunct “Confederation of United Tribes”(final draft- Littlewood document). And had it also not made clear that the Chiefs collectively held sovereignty, and that it was this sovereignty that was being ceded to the crown in return for the “rights and privileges” of Englishmen. (a little knowledge of the actual living conditions and ostensible “rights” of the English working class in 1840 might have given the Maori chiefs pause for thought! F. Engles) But having made specific reference in the Treaty of Waitangi to ‘The Declaration’ signed five years prior, we are compelled to consider the two documents together.

The contemporary notion that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840– including the 2014 Tribunal ‘finding’ to that effect -flies in the face of the practicalities of the Treaty, the entire context of tribal wars, the imperative of peace for Maori survival and the ongoing cultural revolution that was taking place in Maoridom, brought on by contact with European ideas religion and technology. It is quite clear from the record of the events that the chiefs debated at length and understood what was being sought and what they were signing.

The path to nationhood for New Zealand in those early years was eagerly pursued by the Maori tribes themselves. If there were no other documents, if there were no record of the pleadings made or the ideological framework of those early times; in that case it would be easy to accept the argument that…

1. The ‘Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand’ was a legitimate organisation of the Maori Tribes with authority to speak for all Maori.
2. That the claim to Independence was substantive in law and fact.
3. And that the sovereignty they claimed in 1835 was not ceded to the crown in 1840.

But New Zealand is a young country and we still have a full record of those earlier times – despite the attempts of the government to overlook important documents like the Letters patent and Royal charter that created New Zealand as an independent colony with its own Westminster style government. Instead choosing to rely on the temporary expedient of the treaty of Waitangi.

Important dates.

• 1831 Ngapuhi chiefs write to the King William to beseech him to be their friend and guardian.
• 1833 The arrival of James Busby, Brittish resident.
• 1834 Busby first attempt at unifying the Maori tribes, Creation of the Confederation Flag.
• 1835 Busby composes He Wakaputanga the declaration of independence. Attempts to set up a confederation of tribes to form a government. The confederation is not supported and has no authority. He Wakaputanga does two things, it creates the Confederation of United Tribes, and declarers that the confederation holds and exercises sovereignty over the territory north of Thames.
• 1839 30^th July. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent claimed British Sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand by the “Law of Nations” and placed New Zealand under the dependency of the New South Wales Government.
• 1840 30^th January. The arrival of Hobson in the Bay of Islands, Brittish Sovereignty claimed by the Law Of Nations (jure gentium) placed New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales
• 1840 6^th Feb. Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The United Tribes and independent chiefs cede sovereignty to the crown in return for the Queens protection and equal rights of British subjects.
• 1840 16^th November. The second Royal Charter separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into a British Colony with a Governor and Constitution
• 1841 3^rd May. The Second Royal Carter comes into effect.
• 1860 the Kohimarama conference. At which many of the same chiefs that signed the Treaty returned to reaffirm their commitment to the queen.
• 1878 Waitara. Final peace settlement of the Land wars. Once again affirming the sovereignty of the crown.

The movement to resurrect the 1835 declaration and to re-interpret the Treaty is a case of Presentism; the tendency to impose contemporary norms and expectations onto historical events without regard to the context of the culture of the time.

At the time the Declaration was referred to as “a paper pellet”; Governor Bourke of New South Wales , “silly and unauthorised”; Colonial Office. And more recently by contemporary historians as a “‘polite fiction” by Keith Sinclair or the comment from historian Michael King that the declaration ‘had no reality, since there was … no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand.’

Things start to get weird when you realize that the supposedly legitimate government in Wellington either cannot, or for what ever reason will not do anything about an organization that is openly in treasonous rebellion against the government.

If the Wakaminenga Maori Government is fake, and their proclamations and trespass notices are illegal and without authority why does the government not bring charges? Perhaps it is as simple as they are doing nothing illegal. Anyone is entitled to believe what ever they like. I can believe I am the king of the world, and I can even gather around me a large cohort of believers to feed my delusion. Like a wacky religious cult, as long as I pay my taxes and obey the law, people are entitled to donate to what ever club, person or political party or church they like. I can print trespass notices and even issue passports, but they are meaningless documents, until they are recognised and respected by the organs of the state. Mere assertions of authority are meaningless without the power of enforcement.

There are at least three other Maori organizations claiming to be the legitimate government of New Zealand. Amongst these pseudo governmental structures there is a common legalistic thread. That being that they claim an authority superior to the Wellington regime not merely on the basis of the revisionist interpretation of the twin documents of Declaration and Treaty, but by virtue of what they allege is the inherent illegitimacy of the government itself.

Specifically that the New Zealand government became a corporate entity as a result of the 1986 Constitution Act. They assert that a corporate entity can have no jurisdiction over living men and women, sighting a 1795 ruling of the US supreme court to prove it …

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.“

US Supreme Court Ruling 1795

and just like that the government is illegal and irrelevant, and all we have to do is remind them of this salient point and they will happily leave us alone. Yes? Not quite.

Now this is where we get into the long grass, but hear me out – Apparently we are all ‘legally’ dead, this is so that the state -which is a dead corporation- can legally administer our affairs, tax us, make laws that we must obey and even trade us in much the same way as you might trade any other financial asset on the stock market.

This is a lot to get your head around but WMG and several other Maori sovereignty groups are leading the charge on these legalistic challenges to the authority of the state. It’s also the personal sovereignty movement that many European New Zealanders find so attractive about the WMG and for that reason sign up, overlooking it’s explicitly ‘racist’ registration process,- personally I would qualify for membership in group 2; ‘White European born in the British commonwealth”, but not group 1; Maori or married to a Maori or group 3, other people.

A European White with no Maori tribal affiliation can be adopted (whangai) into a tribe, and then helped through the process of extracting yourself from the system. Coming out from under the State which uses Admiralty Jurisdiction and maritime legalize to maintain what they call a legal fiction of your identity within the system. With the object of becoming a free certified living man/woman no longer answerable to the state and under the jurisdiction of Natural Lore only. An attractive proposition for sure if you can use your sovereignty to avoid speeding tickets and rates, doubly attractive if you can also gain access to a large amount of money held in what is called a Cestui Que Vie Trust.

Most Whites look past the glaring affronts to our identity, ignore the apparent reintroduction of Tikanga, Matauranga Maori and te au Maori culture and instead focus on the legitimate criticisms of government overreach, and the pursuit of personal sovereignty.

By these tactics and the preceding rational, Te Wakaminenga Maori Government are claiming that they alone are the only sovereign legitimate governing authority in New Zealand. A country that has already and without consent been renamed Aotearoa.

The bottom line, in the most simple and direct terms, the He Wakaputanga is fake, but for the purposes of a legal expedient the Crown entertained the charade that the Confederated Tribes existed so that they could cede sovereignty to the Crown in 1840. One hundred and seventy four years later the Tribunal announced that the chiefs didn’t cede sovereignty in 1840 after all. And based on a simple linguistic argument over the use of a different word for Sovereignty used in the Declaration (Kingitanga), to what was used in the Treaty (Kawanatanga), these Maori groups have been able to state their claim to Sovereignty.

All secession of sovereignty did for Maori was to put them under English law. So now what? Will Iwi claim the crown has no jurisdiction? That’s exactly what they claim, meaning Maori have their own Law, are exempt from paying tax, and presumably will be able to issue their own currency. If the Tribes did not cede sovereignty then the treaty is null and void.

We can never know why certain words were used in the treaty or why others were not. We do know there was an urgent and pressing need to secure the cooperation of the tribes, at their request, for their own sake of peace and survival, to ward off the French and to create the conditions to establish a legal colony. All that was done and we built an incredible country under one system of Law for all.