Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Bruce Moon: Our Reversion to Tribalism

"The intense tribalism we are seeing, domestically and internationally, does suggest that we may be approaching a point of true planetary peril." 

So asserted commentator Robert Wright in writing "Why do we fight and can we stop?" in "The Atlantic Magazine" for November 2013.

"People", he says, meaning all of us, "magnify their grievances and do the reverse with their rivals  ... you forget your sins and remember your grievances. ... We're not aware of the information [our] biases exclude. ... The world's gravest conflicts are not over ethical principles or disputed values but over disputed facts. …  We seem designed to twist moral discourse to selfish or tribal ends."

A challenging insight, is it not? 

And does it ring true in New Zealand today, where false accounts of our history keep appearing in our news media almost every day and expression of fraudulent tribal grievances is actively and continually fostered by the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal?

The basic reason for the prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflicts is, says Wright, with supporting evidence, that they "posit different versions of history". 

Iranians and Americans believe quite different accounts of the American overthrow of the democratic government of Iran which led to the present theocratic state and their mutually belligerent attitude.

Support for Wright's view comes from Allan Burnett, writing in "The Referendum Issue" of "The Scots Magazine", August 2014, in reviewing the many years of strife between Scotland and England before 1603.

The English claimed the natural right to dominate the Scots on the basis of their Brutus legend. 

The Scots countered with their claim to seniority - the legend that their kingdom was founded in 330BC by King Fergus MacFerquard who was descended from ancient Egyptian princess, Scota.

Given that Wright's thesis is correct, to defuse any conflict it is vitally importance to establish the true history of the situation beyond reasonable doubt. 

True history, it would seem obvious, is an account of what actually occurred, though "no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment when [all the little events] occurred" as the Duke of Wellington observed not long after the battle of Waterloo.[i]

True history is not anybody's "interpretation" or "opinion" or "view" and if anybody's account is flawed by too narrow a perspective (remembering that everybody's account is delivered from some perspective or another) then evidence from many sources should be sought if it can be. 

Self-evident though this may be, there are people in New Zealand who think otherwise. 

One Kelvin Day of the New Plymouth museum is an example who wrote to me on 20th December 2012 that: "there is no such thing as one true history"!! 

Having given himself this latitude, Day allows himself to foster in a 2012 exhibition on the tribal rebellions in Taranaki, what Mike Butler has called a barefaced falsehood[ii]: that there was no cannibalism of the shipwrecked sailors of the Harriet on 10th May 1834 and following days.

It is chilling to think that such people exist in New Zealand.

But the reality is that many official bodies promulgate such falsehoods. There is a veritable industry composed of individuals going around the country doing the same.  We nominate some of them. 

Note that it is possible that some people who state untruths about our history are unaware that what they say is false and to that extent it cannot be said that they are liars. 

We do not do so here but do note that people setting out to make public statements on important issues have a responsibility to ensure that what they say is correct and to that extent at least, such purveyors of falsehoods are culpable. 

If we do not stop them in their tracks, then we are rushing headlong into civil and ultimately worse forms of strife, as many lessons of history show.

"One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;"
Fitzgerald, "The Rubaiyat", Ed 1, Quatrain 26

Falsehood Number One
That in signing the Treaty of Waitangi,
the Maori Chiefs did not cede sovereignty
completely and absolutely to the Queen. 

The truth is that Waitangi and elsewhere chiefs who spoke made it crystal clear that by signing they would become subordinate to the Queen – put very simply: they ceded sovereignty.[iii]

It may be noted that Hugh Kawharu claimed that "There could be no possibility of the Maori signatories [to the Treaty] having any understanding of government in the sense of 'sovereignty'.[iv]

The diametrically opposite statement is made by Anahera Herbert-Graves: "'He Whakaputanga [Busby's 'Declaration of Independence'] 'declared our sovereignty'.”  Take your pick!  Ominously, she writes "My generation have already trained our successors"[v] which means that yet another set of young people will be infected by the falsehoods which she espouses.

This falsehood is based on false interpretations of the word "kawanatanga" and in particular the failure to see that derivation is not the same as translation

Amongst those who make false statements about it are:

The Waitangi Tribunal, with its proclamation after many months of procedures that the Ngapuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty to the Queen.[vi]  As much evidence is readily available showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the chiefs at Waitangi ceded sovereignty and knew that they were doing so, this must rate as a colossal falsehood. Following a long line of similar false conclusions this must rate the Tribunal as the most corrupt body funded with taxpayer money that has ever existed in the history of New Zealand. 

Auckland Central City Library:  This library displays prominently a grossly false statement that Article 1 of the Treaty grants "governorship" to the Queen but Article 2 guarantees Maori leaders absolute sovereignty and self-determination. 

Having mistranslated "kawanatanga", this body does the same for  "rangatiratanga"and further compounds this perversion of the truth by omitting to say that  Article 2 applied to ALL the people of New Zealand - "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani". 

Given that a library has ample opportunities to establish the truth if it chooses and indeed an obligation to the public to do so, this statement can only be construed as a deliberate falsehood. 

When this serious state of affairs was drawn to the attention of Greg Morgan of the library, he ignored it.

Others whose work is likewise distorts the truth are:

Margaret Mutu – in her book "Weeping Waters", pp.21ff.  Why,  in her pseudo-translation of the Treaty, does she fail to give Captain Hobson his real name?

Veronica Tawhaia of Massey University, editor of Mutu's book.

Anne Salmond
- who claimed[vii] that "kawanatanga ... was not a plausible stand-in for Crown sovereignty" and that in 1860 the chiefs could not remember what they had signed 20 years earlier.[viii] (Strange that, when many claim they know what Kupe said, 1000+ years ago!)

M L Tankersley who claims falsely like so many than "kawanatanga" means merely "governance' and that "Under Article 2 Maori retained the right to tino rangatiratanga which refers to their absolute sovereignty"[ix] 

She omits saying that whatever tino rangatiratanga meant, under Article 2, it applied to all the people of New Zealand.

Peter Stephens (aka Pita Tipene)[x]  who said, a little differently,  "The Crown, or what we call the settler government, acquired sovereignty by guile."

Sammy Phillips (aka Haami Piripi) - who said[xi] "nothing existed that showed Ngapuhi ceded sovereignty". 

As spokesmen for Ngapuhi, these latter two have a clear obligation to find out and state the truth.  That they fail to do so shows clearly that their motives need to be questioned.

Aaron Barlow, dumped by the Green Party as its Nelson candidate for the 2014 election[xii].
In advertising a  book "50 Shades of Green" "contributed by the Nelson Environment Centre", Barlow mistranslates Article 2 of the Treaty. He then says "Its pretty emphatic that Maori never ceded sovereignty" - a classic case of deducing a false answer from a false premise.

Catherine Delahunty, Green spokesperson for Te Tiriti O Waitangi. Given that she has this position, she has no excuse for being ignorant of the truth about the Treaty. 

Yet she says[xiii]: the Treaty "promised to respect the existing authority and law of the country while governing the new settlers according to British law."  This is so flagrantly untrue that it is hard to accept that it is not a straight lie.  At the very least it is dereliction of duty in her appointed role to make such a false statement.

Kate McIntyre of Victoria University of Wellington varies this with the statement that the chiefs ceded "legal sovereignty" but not "political sovereignty"[xiv] - a remarkable twist of meaning!

An almost rabid blog by so-called DigitalMaori claims[xv]:"Maori sovereignty was established in 1835 at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and was not ceded to the Crown as the Government would have us believe."

Falsehood Number Two:
That the Treaty of Waitangi established
a "partnership" between the Queen
and Maori tribes.

Those who must be exposed for the falsehoods they promulgate include those who claim that the Treaty of Waitangi created some sort of "partnership" between the Queen and Maori tribes. 

This fabrication, which is flagrant constitutional nonsense, is based only on a foolish remark by the late judge, Robin Cooke, exceeding his judicial brief. 

David Lange saw this as the nonsense it was[xvi]: "Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumb prints and 500 people?  Queen Victoria was not that sort of person."

Amongst people proclaiming the "partnership" falsehood are the Constitutional Advisory Panel[xvii] which, in one of its handouts[xviii]  makes the grossly false claim that it is "the most commonly referred to principle" [of the Treaty].

Another is Ngapuhi "facilitator", Peter Stephens (aka Pita Tipene) "When we went to Waitangi it was as two sovereign states signing a partnership agreement"[xix]

Even more flagrantly, Briane Smith, Private Secretary to former Prime Minister John Key has stated[xx] "Earlier this year [2009] Prime Minister John Key made a commitment that a Maori flag would be flown at the next Waitangi Day.  The Maori flag will not replace the New Zealand flag, but fly alongside it, to recognise the partnership the Crown and Maori entered into when signing the Treaty of Waitangi.  No changes will be made to the status of the New Zealand flag."

This statement, presumably made with the approval of the then Prime Minister, indicates that John  Key himself subscribes to the falsehood that the Treaty created a "partnership" between "the Crown and Maori".  Recognizing this gives a sinister tone to his subsequent effort to reject our flag for something else.

 The Acting Government Statistician, 2013,  is even more blatant about this falsehood, saying[xxi]: "It also goes without saying that Maori and the Crown are partners in the Treaty of Waitangi".

"Pharmac" makes this claim in a powerpoint presentation.[xxii]

Tariana Turia
is another who stated this falsehood as if it were a matter of fact (twice in the same article - typical of Nazi techniques) [xxiii]: "the Crown and tangata whenua entered their partnership at Waitangi" and "whanau, hapu and iwi [are] partners to the Tiriti - ... between the Crown and Maori."

Sharleen Baird
,who calls herself a "Treaty trainer" states that "Maori have legal rights to co-governance of NZ ... iwi groups legally should be equal partners"[xxiv]  From a "Treaty trainer" responsible for telling the truth, this is another falsehood.

Danny Keenan,
with a doctorate in history, wrote that  Maoris are a "sovereign treaty partner:[xxv]  Incidentally, Keenan also made the false claim that "In the 1860s Maori paid most of the country's taxes", a claim refuted by John Robinson who established that they paid only about one-fortieth of the total.[xxvi]

Anna-Marie White
parroted the usual falsehood[xxvii] about "the special rights of Maori as the indigenous people of New Zealand and partners under the Treaty of Waitangi".

The late Jim Nicholls in seeking exclusively for Maoris, a free slice of the valuable high frequency radio spectrum[xxviii]  "What we are seeking is the Crown to halt its process and consult in a meaningful way with its iwi partner".

Aaron Authier
: "The Treaty is a partnership between the Crown and Maori".[xxix] 

Harry Burkhardt, spokesman for Ngati Kuri: "The [Far North District] Council had forgotten the high-level partnership between Maori and the Crown."[xxx]

Governor-General Patsy Reddy promised in her acceptance speech to honour this false partnership.

Sadly those we nominate above are only a few of those many who propagate this pernicious “partnership” falsehood around New Zealand.

Falsehood Number Three:
That the Treaty of Waitangi is not
a straightforward and simple document.

Principal amongst those who advance this falsehood is Geoffrey Palmer who is quoted as saying "the meaning of the Treaty, in terms of its operational consequences now, was far from clear. In fact, it's a document that is so vague that that is the primary problem. In fact, it's a document that is so vague that that is its primary problem." 

This statement is in direct contradiction to the truth. 

However, it has not stopped Geoffrey Palmer and others from establishing themselves very comfortably as "Treaty consultants".[xxxi]  This man, and others too, would nevertheless entrench this “vague” document as the basis of a written constitution – clear evidence of his muddled thinking.

Moreover, his setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal to hear alleged grievances from tribes, not individuals, he is directly responsible for the colossal surge in tribal activity today, precisely the danger of which Wright warns us so clearly.

Another who clearly agrees with this falsehood is Annette Sykes who said when Susan Devoy was appointed as Race Relations Commissioner, "the appointment is an affront as only people with an intimate knowledge of the treaty could be qualified for the role".[xxxii] 

Really?  In about five minutes one can understand, if one tries, what the Treaty actually said.

Falsehood Number Four
That the Treaty grants special fishing rights,
 and hence today, quotas to Maori tribes. 

The truth is that the word "fisheries" occurs nowhere in the Treaty but only in a bogus, so-called "Treaty in English" composed by Hobson's pompous secretary Freeman. 

Thus the granting of tribal fishery quotas, of which Nick Smith, formerly the relevant Minister, appears to be proud[xxxiii] is based on a false interpretation of the Treaty.

Falsehood Number Five:
That the peaceful occupation of the cult centre of
Parihaka by Government forces in 1880
was "the holocaust of Taranaki history".

Those who make this Nazi-style propaganda claim include:

The Waitangi Tribunal, which stated as much in its 1996 interim Taranaki report, before it had heard any Crown testimony.

Tariana Turia, who repeated this falsehoodin her second appearance on this blacklist!

Keri Opai,
a Maori language teacher in New Plymouth, who said the same in a Waitangi Day interview with Kim Hill.

Falsehood Number Six:
That Ngai Tahu were "dispossessed"
of lands whose value "lay between $12 and $15 billion" [xxxv]
and that "people lost 96% of their land and resources".[xxxvi]
The sheer effrontery of the first of these false statement by Sacha McMeeking would be hard to beat. 

In the first place, Ngai Tahu repeatedly sold much of the South Island, both before and after 1840.

Second: while the value of that land today may lie between the figures quoted, around 1840 most of it was virtually worthless to the few surviving Ngai Tahu living in a few squalid villages around the coast.[xxxvii]  The hard cash and goods they received when they sold were practically a gift.

The second claim, by Catherine Delahunty, is a wild mis-statement, deplorable in a Member of Parliament. 

Again, most of the North Island, much of it worthless to Maoris, was sold freely by the tribes, sometimes more than once. 

Land was confiscated from rebel tribes, to pay in part the cost of suppressing those rebellions by which the rebels dishonoured the Treaty.   They were informed in advance that it would be, in accord with early Maori custom "tikanga".[xxxviii]  That it occurred was their own fault. Much was returned subsequently. A nett 1.4% of the land remains so.

Falsehood Number Seven
That in recent "Treaty Settlement" operations,
Ngai Tahu were entitled to $170 million in real estate
and other assets, with further "top-ups" in due course.

Sir Tipene ("call me Steve") O'Regan asserted that the tribe would claim "hundreds of millions of dollars". He acknowledged at the same time that "the Crown [i.e. New Zealand taxpayers] could not afford to meet the value of the tribe's South Island claims". 

Geoffrey Palmer said that such expectations were unreasonable and would not be met:  "The idea that somehow hundreds of millions of dollar are going to change hands in a short period of time ...  is, I'm afraid, idle and the reason it is idle is that the country can't afford it and it won't happen and in any case I don't know of any authoritative adjudication anywhere that would suggest it ought to happen."[xxxix] (Note that the real reason he fails to mention is that so many of the claims are false.)

That so-called "Treaty settlements" now total well over one billion dollars, with ‘top-ups” for Ngai Tahu and Tainui negligently promised by Doug Graham, demonstrate starkly how the whole business has got utterly beyond legitimacy and control.

The Waitangi Tribunal recommendations, eagerly accepted by Chris Finlayson, flagrantly ignored the fact that Ngai Tahu had received four previous "full and final settlements" with which they had pronounced themselves satisfied. 

He also ignored the careful study of the Ngai Tahu submission to the Tribunal by Alan Everton.[xl]
Prior to the awards, Everton found that "The short answer is that the [forthcoming] settlement is a swindle ... based on 'principles' which have been formulated by a crude re-writing of New Zealand history" and "any settlement of Ngai Tahu's claims based on [the tribunal's] report will be nothing short of a fraud".

Such "crude rewriting of history" is precisely the behaviour which takes our country one step closer to Wright's "point of true planetary peril”. 

In conniving in this abuse of history, the Ngai Tahu advocates, including, the Waitangi Tribunal and the responsible minister, the since-convicted Doug Graham all stand guilty of deceiving the people of New Zealand, in other words of promulgating falsehoods.

Falsehood Number Eight
That Article 2 of the Treaty
applied only to Maoris.

Why this falsehood is so prevalent is that Freeman's bogus "treaty in English", legislated as such in 1975, fudges the wording to make it appear to apply only to Maoris.

In the real Treaty, this article actually guarantees rights of ownership (of "taonga") to "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani", which translates directly and simply as "all the people of New Zealand".  In a clear distinction, Article 3 grants certain rights to "tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani" – existing British subjects already having such rights. 

Yet in direct contradiction to what the Treaty actually says, some people twist this to claim that the two statements mean the same thing.

One such is David James who in a handout for presentations which are mostly sheer propaganda, in a translation of Article 2, writes "all the people of New Zealand ie Maori" [Our emphasis]. 

Can this flat denial of what the Treaty actually said be construed as anything but a straight falsehood by a man who does not want to believe the truth?

Gary Clover is another who writes[xli], "Full chieftainship was guaranteed 'to the Chiefs, the Hapus, and all the people of New Zealand, ie to Maori".  "All" means simply "all" but Clover twists it otherwise.

Juliet Golightly who claims that "In fact, the Treaty guarantees many rights to Maori that are not expressly given to British subjects - preservation of lands, forests, fisheries, etc."[xlii]  The Treaty says no such thing.

M L Tankersley
who ignores her predominantly European ancestry and continues[xliii] :"Maori retained ... everything that they considered to be treasures - which was far more that just their land, forest and fisheries that are referred to in the English version." She blatantly twists the 1840 meaning of “taonga”.

Sue Gee
 makes the pernicious and unfounded claim that "Maori have special land rights and many customary rights".[xliv]

Falsehood Number Nine:
That "taonga" meant more
than 'ordinary property' in 1840.

As late as 1844, no dictionary defined 'taonga' as anything more that 'property' or 'possessions'. This word occurs only in Article 2 of the Treaty, whose wording specifically states that it includes all the people of New Zealand.

Treasures’ was only a later meaning, which it is entirely dishonest to use in referring to the Treaty.

M L Tankersley is one who does so in the quotation above.[xlv] 

Another is Hugh Kawharu  who says[xlvi] "'Treasures': 'taonga'. As submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Maori language have made clear, 'taonga' refers to all dimensions of a tribal group's estate, material and non-material."

Such unsworn testimony is entirely worthless and can only be construed as a dishonest way to obtain material advantages by appeal to the corrupt Tribunal.

Falsehood Number Ten:
That Freeman's bogus treaty
was in any way an "English
version" of the Treaty.

Appallingly this claim was accepted in legislation in around 1975, but this in no way renders it the truth.  Its wording shows clearly that it is impossible that it is either a draft or translation.

Falsehood Number Eleven:
That Hobson's final treaty draft in English of
4th February 1840 (the so-called 'Littlewood treaty') was
no more than a translation of the Treaty from Maori.

All the positive evidence indicates that this document pre-dates the Treaty and cannot possibly be a translation of it.  No evidence contradicts this.

Claudia Orange claims that 'It's a translation into English of the Maori Tiriti o Waitangi'[xlvii]  In view of the existing evidence of its true provenance, her statement cannot be regarded as anything but a straight falsehood. For more on Orange's distortions of history, see "Twisting the Treaty", 2013, ISBN 1-872970-33-8, pp 295-301.

Falsehood Number Twelve:
That the Maori owners of
Tongariro National Park did not
gift it to the nation.

When Te Heu Heu Horonuku, chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa, was concerned about the fate of the mountains, Mr L M Grace MP suggested that "they should become the property of all the people of New Zealand in memory of Te Heu Heu and his tribe".

Te Heu Heu responded "that is the best thing to do ... a gift forever from me and my people".[xlviii] 

A deed was drawn up, signed by him and his principal co-chiefs and ratified by the Native Land Court.

Now, the Waitangi Tribunal in its report[xlix]  mistranslates the word "tuku" in the document and claims that there was no more than an offer of joint guardianship of the peaks. 

As Mike Butler says this "appears to involve a blatant and self-serving reinterpretation of history".


Events in New Zealand may be a sideshow on the world stage but if these promulgators of falsehoods are not recognized by all reasonable New Zealanders, and strong action taken to counter them, we are exposing ourselves to what may become nothing less than a civil war. 

Tuhoe have already come close to inciting it.[l]


"If this will not suffice, it must appear
 That malice bears down truth"

Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice", Act 4, Scene 1

"The falsehood has to go and the truth will prevail."

"The Quran", quoted by Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it."

George Orwell

Bruce Moon                                                                                                                9th August 2017

(Revision of document of 28th November 201

[i]     As quoted by Chris Skidmore in the introduction to his 2013 book "Bosworth" an account of the battle which led to the greatest dynastic change in England since the Norman conquest.
[ii]     "Twisting the Treaty", Tross Publishing, 2013, ISBN 1-872970-33-8, p.123
[iii]    W. Colenso, The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi", Govt. Printer 1890
[iv]    Authorised translation of the Treaty of Waitangi
[v]     "Northland Age", 3rd June 2014
[vi]    News release, 14th November 2014
[vii]   "Your Weekend", ibid.
[viii]  A. Salmond,email to me, 24th August 2010
[ix]    "TeTiriti and Community Development", Community Development Conference, May 2004.  (This white-faced woman nominates her descent from three Maori tribes but ignores her predominantly European ancestry.)
[x]     ibid. p.9
[xi]    "The Press", 10th May 2010
[xii]   "Nelson Mail", 4/6/14
[xiii]  Grey Power Magazine 15, September 2013
[xiv]  'Sunlive", letter, 21st June 2013
[xv]   3rd March 2013
[xvi]  NZPA Sydney, 6th March 1990
[xvii]  J.Burrows, P.Chin, D.Coddington, M.Cullen, J.Luxton, B.Mene, S.G.O'Regan, H.Poutu, L.Pihama, L.T.Smith, P.Tennent & R.Walker.
[xviii]             6079 TOW_1
[xix]  "Your Weekend", 16th October 2010, p.10
[xx]   Email to me, 23rd December 2009
[xxi]  Letter, "NZ Listener", 27th July 2013
[xxii]  November 2014
[xxiii] "The Press", 23rd July 2012
[xxiv] "Hawkes Bay Today", letter, March 2014.
[xxv]  "Wanganui Chronicle", 16th March 2013
[xxvi] Letter to "Wanganui Chronicle", 22nd April 2013
[xxvii]         "The Nelson Leader", 7th June 2012
[xxviii]        "", 15th December 2009
[xxix] "Weekend Sun", 10th May 2013
[xxx]  "NZ Herald", 4th December 2014
[xxxi] NZPA Sydney, 6th March 1990
[xxxii]         "Sunday Star Times", 21st March 2013
[xxxiii]        As he indicated to me in a personal interview.
[xxxiv]        For an accurate account of Parihaka events, see Kerry Bolton, "The Parihaka Cult", Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol.7. n.1, pp 79-98 (easily 'googled')  Note: some writers try to discredit Bolton's careful work by stating that he was a member of an extreme right-wing party, which he was for about a year before becoming disenchanted with it.   This is no more than an irrelevant ad hominem attack.
[xxxv]         "The Press", 2nd July 2011, p.C5
[xxxvi]        Delahunty, op.cit.
[xxxvii]        JFH Wohlers, Proc NZ Inst, 1881, pp.123ff
[xxxviii]       M. King, “Moriori”, ISBN 0-670-82655-3, 1989, p. 66
[xxxix]        NZPA Sydney, 6th March 1990
[xl]    Free Radical Nos. 26-8, 1997
[xli]   "Nelson Mail", 26th April 2014
[xlii]  "New Zealand Herald", 25th June 2009
[xliii]  op. cit.
[xliv]  "East Coast Bays Courier", 16th July 2014
[xlv]  ibid.
[xlvi]  op. cit.
[xlvii] Unsigned and undated document entitled "Littlewood document – an explanation" provided by her to Ross Baker about December 2011 following her 1992 statement "It was just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author.
[xlviii]         "Otago Daily Times", 22nd July 1913.  I am indebted to Mike Butler for this reference.
[xlix]  Released on 19th November 2013
[l]     Intercepted telephone conversations,  021 0608632 to 027 5473721, 29th December 2006, 5:02 pm; 6th April 2007, 1:44pm and others

Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".


Barry said...

Thank you Bruce.

Don Mac said...

A great effort and a reminder of the insidious effort to erase our true history and replace it with the seeds of nasty strife in the future. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Can you get this published in a broader forum so all New Zealanders might read it, please! Newspapers , magazine such as North and South or Listener.

Brian said...

Revised version.

Bruce Moon: Our Reversion to Tribalism

That certainly is a great deal of research to expose what has been created by those who consider that the Maori version(s) of the Treaty are acceptable; and the province only of the “rightful indigenous people’ of this country.

This is the official indigenous policy of the United Nations, by stating that even third and fourth generations of people born in this country can never be considered as indigenous! Nothing strange about that sort of divisional rubbish; from an organisation which primary and ultimate task is to be the future World Government body?

After reading Bruce Moon’s account it is very obvious that any sort of compromise; or the much vaunted phrase (not banded around very much for the last couple of decades) that we are one people, is a highly unlikely proposition in the future of New Zealand.

We already see insidious Maori changes and adoption of undemocratic actions in our society happening and sanctioned by central Government and Local Government; it seems, any input or a vote by the general public. It is and has been, a complete surrender and pandering to one small ethnic group, backed by those mainly from the left who are quite content to see a country revert back into tribalism.

The only answer to this situation whether we like it or not, lies in a permanent separation; Maori are so indoctrinated and unable to recognise that their contribution to our society has been minimal. While the “colonial rest ” have brought every modern convenience in health, progress even civilisation.

We have a continual huge contribution from non Maori who still pay a permanent Danegeld for the so-called wrongs; which are then turned into yearly financial handouts and top-ups. At the same time we are seeing New Zealand history being politically vandalised to suit Maori claims.
Quotation. “Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to contemporary views and prejudice”.

Partition, even at this late stage would be far more preferable to tribalism and a division dominated by fear, let alone the ruining of our democratic processes. The alternative is a continuation of Maori blackmail, and succeeding Governments failing to recognise that the rights of the majority exceed those of any minority, ethnic or otherwise.

Thank you Bruce Moon for your courage and explanations, one can but hope that our politicians will cease their pandering on the altar of Maori demands, and start to serve and represent the rest of us.

Don said...

It Seems that our new Prime Minister shares the deluded interpretation of the Treaty. Her promise to incorporate the Treaty more firmly in NZ affairs reveals she has been duped by all those "alternative fact" purveyors of their own interpretations. It is a depressing outlook for future decisions and even has a sinister ring. Her message to Maori seems to be: vote for us and we will give you what you ask for.

Barry said...

Yes Brian, permanent separation might be the only way to solve this politician-caused problem. Give "Maori"s - not many of whom have ever even seen an actual Maori - the Auckland Islands and separate them down to there.

Peter R. Cameron said...

Thank's Bruce,
... for your dedicated research and documentation of one very bad undercurrent that is permeating our country.
The hope now is, it won't be too long where an honorable leader will emerge and be assisted in the pushback by being able to refer to what you have written.

G. Graham said...

In 1877 Chief Justice of New Zealand's Supreme Court ruled "the Treaty of Waitangi is a simple nullity"

Chief Justice Prendergast ruled in 1877 'Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington' case, “Any obligations which the Crown did have in relation to Maori arose from those '...rights and duties which, jure gentium (The Law of Nations(2) vest in and devolve upon the first civilised occupier of a territory thinly peopled by barbarians without any form of law or civil government”. In other words, Chief Justice Prendergast believed that it was precisely the absence of any treaty-making capacity among Maori tribes that meant that jury Gentium provided the foundation for Crown obligations to Maori since Maori were incapable of giving rise to these obligations themselves.

The reason he ruled so is because the internationally recognised 'Law of Nations' was the only way in which a primitive people without formal governance could be taken legally by a more modern country, underlined by Busby's failed attempt at setting up the 'Maori Declaration of Independence', which was abandoned as the chiefs never met but reverted to warring with each other within the first year.

Also, Britain declared sovereignty over New Zealand through the 1839 Royal Charter/Letters patent, which extended the borders of New South Wales (NSW) to encompass 'all of the islands of New Zealand'. The Treaty signing did not expand NSW law. As Maoris became British subjects, it is illegal for a British subject to be in partnership with their monarch.

New Zealand's true founding document is Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patient of 16-11-1840, ratified on 03-05-1841, the day New Zealand was born as this legally separated NZ from NSW and gave us our own Parliament, English law and language.
G. Graham

As ignorance is no excuse for committing an illegal act, all our Pariamentarians and legal profession are assumed to be aware of the above facts.