2900 words
What is an Ideal Government structure for European New Zealanders?
The damage that has been done to our country over the Ardern years is permanent and irreversible- absent an unlikely counter revolution that is. From a cultural perspective they were always going to win against a society that was ill equipped to recognize the attack, believing in free and open inquiry, freedom of expression and a common humanity. Against the Marxist weapons of psychological wordplay and moral bribery, we, like the rest of European civilization unfortunately had no defense.
What is an ideal governmental structure for Europeans? This is a highly emotive question that touches on race and the long history of struggle and war that led to the Europe of today. Many will say that the question itself is ‘Racist‘, to ask about a government for Europeans as if a system of government for them would not also work equally well for any other ethnic group.
But here’s the rub, it’s quite obvious that all European countries have been facing a unique set of circumstances. It is well known that Demographics is Destiny, it is also the case that from 1965 the leadership of most European countries took the arbitrary decision to make their countries Multicultural and what started out as a trickle after the second world war (British nationality act 1948) became a river and now since 2010 an avalanche. In this country we used to have an annual net immigration in the vicinity of 15,000. Even that was too many for some, but after John Key opened the borders in 2013 that figure ballooned to 70,000 PA on average. Raw numbers aside it was also clear that despite the insistence that our points based system was fair to all there was a clear shift to Chinese and Indian immigration and away from British and European immigration. The decision to become multicultural in New Zealand was never even discussed, they just did it and announced that this is who we are now, even behaving as if this had always been the case.
Although Maori activists continue to talk about pakeha society as if we are the only other group here, the none-Maori none-European section of the country is likely to be larger than the Maori identified population by the time the 2023 census results come out. This question of multiculturalism is central to the the issue of global government. To achieve by governance a fait accompli, the mixing up off all the populations of the world, to establish the liberal dream of perfect equality. Then when no significant difference can be detected between the population of one country and the next they can happily declare borders unnecessary, and if there are no borders then a central global government will appear as the obvious and common sense solution to all our problems, voilá, One World Government and the New World Order will be here to stay.
It seems that no system is perfect and any system of government can be corrupted. How does that happen? By what agency does a government system end up destroying the people it is elected to protect? Systems of government are made by people, to govern people. And they are all fallible with ego’s and weaknesses. The American experiment in Constitutional Republicanism showed great promise for the first hundred years. “A Republic… if you can keep it” the quote attributed to Franklin shows the misgivings the founders had right from the start. That country now is so utterly riddled with corruption that it doesn’t by any reasonable metric qualify as a country at all. Like all the countries of the former First World the US government has become truly toxic to the interests of it’s own people.
It is also by no means certain that liberal democracy is any more in the interests of European people than a dictatorship or communism or fascism or monarchy or any combination of the above. The record of the democracies in the post war period has proved progressively more deleterious to our people as time has gone by. Zio-shills like Jordan B Peterson can wax on about how the global level of poverty has been dramatically reduced over the last 50 years, yet remain completely silent on the ill effects of globalism on European people world wide. We now have published almost daily, video’s of young white people, men women and children being beaten up for being white, a state of affairs that is totally ignored “for the sake of diversity”. We remember wistfully the years of the 50’s in New Zealand when a working man could support on a 40 hour working week and support a stay at home wife and four kids, and still have time and money for trips away and holidays with the kids.
Does it even make sense to talk about a system of government for white Europeans in the context of multicultural society? NZEuro is still the overall majority, 64% (2018 census) we can expect to see that number decline in the new census results from 2023. Liberal democracy has certainly done nothing to protect the interest’s of native Europeans, in fact the enthusiasm with which it is lauded as the sacred cow of political development á la Francis Fukuyama certainly leads me to suspect that they may have an ulterior motive in securing a global system that is so easily manipulated. At the opposite extreme, National Socialism is presented as the epitome of evil, much worse than Communism, ignoring the 100 million dead at the hands of the socialist social engineers.
We have to realise that these are not pigeon-holed invariant pre-packaged systems that one can select like a pair of shoes. It’s more like a spectrum of ideas, the many variants of Fascism, from Mosely to Franco to Mussolini or Hitler, one size does not necessarily fit all. But you will have noticed i’m sure how vehement and rabid the opposition is when anyone suggests even the most modest limitations on universal franchise. Liberal democracy provides a facilitative environment for minority group interests to agitate for advantage over the interests of the majority. We are coerced into believing that tolerance is a virtue. So to tolerate our freedoms being taken away provides us with a virtuous ‘halo ‘ while others benefit. Reminiscent of psychological co-dependency, we have to get something out of this trade, a feeling of virtue and worthiness while the oppressor wins a physical victory for themselves at our expense. Any system can be corrupted and turned against the interests of the people but only secular pluralism in the guise of Liberal Democracy comes with a built in smoke screen. When the others turn against you, you know who to blame. With this, apparently it’s our own fault, because we voted for them, right?
What do we want and expect from a national government? National defence would probably be top of the list, negotiating with foreign powers,- terms of trade, access to foreign markets etc. the generation and management of Economic policy including fiscal and monetary policy, the regulation of the Banks. Immigration policy should be set with regard to the national interest. National infrastructure projects like hydro electric dams, national railways and highways require major commitments beyond the reach of local government that can only be satisfied by a national effort. Hospitals schools and education could also be funded from the national purse.
Perhaps any system can be perverted because man can be perverted. National identity and cultural identity breed a willingness and ability of the people to defend themselves – through their representatives in government. By fracturing the national identity through Multiculturalism and Maori activism liberal democracy handicaps the ability of the people to even recognize a national identity much less defend it.
So with that said, how do things get so out of hand? Overseas influence, bribery and ideological subversion has given us a State that works against the interests of the people. Perhaps any system can be perverted because man can be perverted. National identity and cultural identity breed a willingness and ability of the people to defend themselves – through their representatives in government. By fracturing the national identity through Multiculturalism and Maori activism liberal democracy handicaps the ability of the people to even recognize a national identity much less defend it.
Elisabeth Rata has inadvertently stated the problem…”What it (liberalism) cannot tolerate is the removal of its very foundations – those principles of universalism and secularism that anchor democratic institutions into modern pluralist society.” Correct, it’s the pluralist society that’s the problem. And the ‘democratic state’ will not tolerate any criticism or attack on universalism or secularism. Hence the state sanctioned attack on Posey Parker just yesterday.
We are never told by the promoters of universalism and pluralism why these systems are so much better than the homogeneous societies we once lived in. We are supposed to not notice, or regard as a mere coincidence that those times also coincided with peace and prosperity and a cohesive national identity. There is a malaise abroad in the west, a susceptibility to arguments that appeal to virtue and a higher morality. The all encompassing humanitarianism of Christianity, the radical egalitarianism of communism, and the ‘equality’ of liberal democracy. Recognising that ANY system can be corrupted, we can still study the source and mechanism of the current collapse and construct a system that mitigates as far as possible the same problems reoccurring.
Small accountable government, confederated communities and a cohesive national identity. But about what can one build a national identity? Race, religion, values? We hear in the West much about our vaunted “Values”, much talk without ever enumerating what these are or any explanation of why they are so good! Elisabeth Rata from Auckland University again explaining the values of an academic education in science, mathematics, and the humanities. “It is to be hoped, though this cannot be assumed, that they will have the critical disposition required for democratic citizenship, one that is subversive of local culture and disdainful of ideology.” So it seems that the ideal secular citizen has no culture no ideology no religion and no identity. We are left with open borders, human rights, equality, equity and diversity. Funny how all of these values when you see them written down all negatively impinge on the interests of the parent or host culture. Our culture. Is it any wonder nobody is willing to fight to defend such insipid lies! Secular pluralism is so fundamentally anathema to the idea of a confident prosperous independent country that one might reasonably invert every one of it’s precepts in order to create the sort of country we actually want!
Neither do we want a religious theocratic state. We tried that and had a thousand years of the European Dark ages.
The title of this section ask’s for the ideal form of government for Europeans. To state the obvious first of all the government must recognize the existence of Europeans as an ethnic identity. This simple act alone is a huge cultural change, to have some idea of who we are referring to when we say We Us and Our. The answer obviously is one that recognizes the existence of Race and ethnicity and works to preserve the best interests of that particular racial demographic. With good will and the right people almost any system will do as long as the basic ideological proposition is held sacrosanct. The various system options are merely attempts to mitigate the likelihood of corruption of those core fundamentals.
Practically if at all possible at this late stage. A repeal the treaty of Waitangi act 1975 and its amendment 1985 is absolutely essential, combined with the introduction of a genuine system of accountable democracy. We have a workable example in the Swiss model of direct democracy. One hurdle for the introduction of any system of accountable democracy in New Zealand is the imperative of civic involvement. Most New Zealanders (or is that Aotearoan’s) are simply not interested enough to take part. We have to rise up from the emotional level of depression and demoralization to interest and then action. We are too used to the cycle of being shafted and then complaining about it and being shafted again. It will only be by that strength of will. What Nietzsche called the Will To Power that we as a country and a people will be able to save ourselves..
Conclusion.
It is the contention of this publication that concern for the welfare of the European people of New Zealand and round the world is legitimate. Born of a common sense observation of massive demographic changes in only a few short years, many organizations have sprung up with the intent to inform the public and gather support for there views. All these groups have faced the same hysterical reaction from the main stream media. It is always the intent here to speak to the issues minus the rhetoric. To explore the best way forward openly championing the interests of our people.
Europeans are not indigenous to New Zealand, neither are Maori. The idea of White Nationalism and the creation of an exclusive home for White Europeans has more moral legitimacy in the context of the European indigenous homelands than it does in a former colony that was already occupied when our people settled here in the 1800’s. The global anti-white agenda and the constant media harping on the evils of whiteness has created a rapidly deteriorating social condition for young white people in many parts of the world. (North America, England, France Germany)
The Black on white violent attacks and generally anti-white hate crime goes on behind a total media black-out. Young white English girls raped by immigrants are told to “shut up for the sake of Diversity” as if diversity for the sake of diversity is it’s own sacred justification and to hell with the consequences. So this is the situation and the rational behind the White Nationalist drive for at least one exclusive homeland and strong immigration controls in the previously White European homelands. That nationalist tendency is also a major focus of Maori separatist ideology.
It has been obvious to this writer and many others on the Right of New Zealand politics that there is a strong common ground between Maori activists and the European Right -what the media loves to call the “Far Right”. Both groups recognize the value of people and place, the recognition of culture and race and the history of our respective peoples.
The march of the Marxists through the institutions of the west, now confronts New Zealand with an existential crisis. All of us need to understand that; that the threat of degeneration into a tribal totalitarian apartheid system is real. And the failure to take remedial action now will permanently damage the prospects for all New Zealanders for generations to come.
The Maori people faced a critical existential crisis once before, they recognised that threat and had the courage and foresight to undertake a cultural revolution to secure their survival and a future for Maori children. They consciously turned their backs on the negative aspects of their culture, they freed the slaves and embraced Christianity and the Law.
Once again there is a real need for all of us this time, Maori and European to do the same thing; to step over the divisive rhetoric. To turn our backs on the contrived and manufactured culture of guilt and grievance, and stand for equality before the law. Not just an amorphous generalised “Equality” that flattens culture and difference, and ignores the things that give us meaning but the Equality before the law that was guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi.
The principle drive must be not just an arbitrary drive for “equality” which opens the door to the left wing delusion of equality of outcome, an objective for which millions have been slaughtered. But Equality Before the Law. And a recognition of our legitimate right to access and practice our own culture as we see fit.
But will the Elite Maori establishment, so well funded and rewarded for their promotion of division going to take up the banner of Equality Before the Law, and stop pursuing massive Treaty settlements for personal and corporate Iwi gain? Only a grass roots movement of all New Zealanders, unilaterally rejecting the separatist narrative and voting accordingly has any chance of bringing enough political pressure to bear to change the direction of this country.
Nationalism is by definition opposed to globalism. If we wish to preserve a Nation of our own we are by definition Nationalists, not White Nationalists or Maori separatists. Just Nationalists. The word ‘nation’ is derived from the Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō ) “birth, tribe,” equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī “to be born”). So the word itself defines a people, and an interest in working for the best interests of our people whoever they are. Maori and European, in respect of our independent identity but united under one Law as New Zealanders.
The European New Zealander 
One thought on “Co-Governance and European New Zealanders: Part 3”