elocal, Treatygate

TREATYGATE — Time to Expose the Con

This article is now running in elocal magazine, thanks to one of our country’s few courageous media owners, Mykeljon Winckel.

It explains the double-pronged campaign I’m planning to end the Treaty Grievance Industry.

Read it here, or double click the pic.


 Wake Up New Zealand, We’re Being Conned!

by John Ansell

Photo of yours truly in the church yard at Russell pointing to a headstone that neatly negates the latter day lie that Ngapuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840:


A friend asked me recently, “Do you think truth still matters in New Zealand?”

I froze.

I couldn’t give him the answer he wanted.

Because for too many members of the New Zealand elite,  certainly including state Treaty historians, the answer is no.

Evidence-based critical thinking is out. Ideology-based wishful thinking is in.

We have become the Land of the Long White Lie.

Telling the truth in New Zealand can get a stroppy copywriter into a power of trouble.

Last year I fumed to a reporter, no doubt after yet another holocaustic exaggeration by a neotribal extortionist demanding my water or flora or sky, that Maori had gone from the Stone Age to the Space Age in 150 years and had yet to say thanks.

For pointing out this irrefutable fact, I was roasted by Rosemary McLeod, disowned by Don Brash, and honoured by an anonymous brown supremacist with my very own Facebook page ‘John Ansell is a Racist F***wit’.

However, I was also contacted by a Maori friend, who gleefully trumpeted how clever his people had been to make such stellar progress, and, in the absence of my forebears, thanked me most profusely.

These two opposite reactions caused me to divide Maori into two broad groups, which I call Achievers and Grievers.

The Achievers I admire very much, especially those who – sadly – feel they have to escape to Australia to live the lives of equal New Zealanders.

But the Grievers I can’t abide.

They clearly descend from the ethically-flexible rebel minority who breached the Treaty in the wars of the nineteenth century, and their inflated sense of entitlement has been costing the rest of us dearly.

It is a charming but potentially fatal flaw of New Zealanders that we want to be nice to people at all costs.

Unfortunately there is a fine line between niceness and cowardice.

Being nice to Griever Maori can be very costly indeed – especially when the iwi elite are aided and abetted in their extortion attempts by all the other elites– the political, bureaucratic, academic, judicial, legal, and media.

The approach of successive governments since the early seventies can be summed up by a word most commonly associated with the late thirties: appeasement.

Consider the Evidence

  • We’ve had prime ministers inventing Treaty principles out of thin air, forging unnecessary alliances with Maori separatists, and surrendering our beaches so they can be handed to iwi in secret by their very own tame minister.
  • We’ve had a corrupt Waitangi Tribunal refusing to pay researchers whose findings do not support their racist fantasy, and a Race Relations Commissioner who instructs councils to create special seats for one race only.
  • We’ve had historians hushing up the 1989 discovery of the final English draft of the Treaty when they realised that Hobson included “all the people of New Zealand”, not just Maori.
  • We’ve had activist judges pretending that this 1840 sovereignty-for-protection deal was an equal partnership between the world’s then-greatest empire and dozens of warring stone age tribes that the British had saved from cannibalism, slavery and extinction.
  • We’ve had battalions of lawyers making fortunes from bogus claims, with one of those lawyers now the minister in charge of rubber stamping those claims. [This sentence was left out of the article for some reason – possibly legal.]
  • And we’ve had an editor of a major daily who refused to run an entirely factual election ad asking if you’re fed up with pandering to Maori radicals, yet was happy to cite free speech in defending a cartoon that compared welfare minister Paula Bennett with Nazi death camp doctor Josef Mengele.

On second thoughts, appeasement is too wimpish a word for such a sustained and orchestrated con.

The only word that cuts the mustard is TREATYGATE.

The elite’s methodology is clear…

The Treatygate Con

  1. Get state academics to rewrite New Zealand history as a fantasy novel, where the Maoris are the goodies and the British the baddies.
  2. Get state schools and universities to indoctrinate New Zealanders with this fake history.
  3. Get the bogus historians to slam past historians as unreliable (even those who witnessed the actual events or interviewed those who were there).
  4. Get the state media to peddle the fake history to stoke Maori grievance and Pakeha guilt.
  5. Get iwi to fake claims to right fake wrongs.
  6. Set up a state tribunal to hear these fake Maori claims.
  7. Pay senior lawyers to represent Maori, and junior lawyers to represent the Crown.
  8. Give the tribunal sole  power to interpret the Treaty.
  9. Let the tribunal approve claims based on pure hearsay.
  10. Make all Treaty-related documents as hard to find, and hard to read, as possible.
  11. Brand as ‘racist’ anyone who questions any Maori entitlement.
  12. If enough people object, threaten a race war.
  13. To continue the resource grab indefinitely, entrench a Treaty-based, Bolivian-style constitution where indigenous people are more equal than others.
  14. Pretend that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, when they sailed here just before the Europeans, and suppress the mounting evidence that other races got here first.
  15. Pretend at all times that Maori remain a separate race, even though they’re all now part-Pakeha.

For the last year I’ve been studying Crown-Maori history intensively with the help of nine authors who have written more than thirty books on the subject.

The scale of the Treatygate fraud is massive and reaches into every agency of the New Zealand state.

But What Can We Do?

It will take money, but I believe the secret of success is a powerful public education campaign using the plainest of English, rolling out one fascinating fact, one ad or poster at a time.

The goal is to get sheepish Kiwis, ‘the Passionless People’, to understand what has been done to them, and to tell their politicians, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more!”

If we can make Treatygate a Top Three issue when the big parties do their polling, then our leaders will have no choice but to listen and act.

Here’s the plan…

How to Defeat the Con

  1. Launch Colourblind New Zealand, and set a goal to lock in one law for all by December 2014.
  2. Raise a $2 million fighting fund so the politicians know we’re able to embarrass them.
  3. Petition for a referendum at the 2014 election. Question: “Do you want New Zealand to be a Colourblind State, with one law for all, and no racial favouritism of any kind?”
  4. How to make the PM obey the referendum result? Run lots of bold Treatygate ads telling voters just who has been conning them, and how.
  5. If media refuse to run these ads, use rival media to expose them as part of the con.
  6. Bombard government MPs with instructions from their voters to obey their will.
  7. Support local body campaigns on Maori wards (typically attracting an 80% NO vote).

With your support I hope to work full-time on this project until New Zealand is a Colourblind State.

The racially-rigged Constitutional Advisory Panel has already begun the process of changing the constitution by stealth, meeting mainly with Maori groups in contravention of its pledge to meet a wide range of New Zealanders.

So there’s not a moment to lose.

Because truth does matter.

If you’d like to help and/or donate to this campaign to free NewZealand from this perverse reverse apartheid, please email me at john@johnansell.co.nz.

This is not a religious or political party-driven campaign.

I simply want the government to give us the racial equality that the Treaty promised.

Photo caption:

John Ansell calls himself a ‘conviction copywriter’, who hates selfish politicians, and is known for distilling political concepts into the plainest of English.

He created the ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ billboard series for National in 2005, two award-winning radio campaigns for Labour in 1987 and 1993, and in 2011 fell out with ACT over his proposed press headline ‘Fed up with the Maorification of Everything?’

He sees the racially-rigged National-Maori Constitutional Review as a major threat to our country and has founded Colourblind New Zealand to see if a referendum, reinforced by a hard-hitting public education campaign, can succeed where politicians have failed to halt the appeasement of Griever Maori.


The latest water rights issue where Maori are simply extorting ‘free’ shares from asset sales under the artificial privileged race umbrella is nothing short of racial abuse.

To quote Muriel Newman’s NZCPR:

“Another myth perpetrated by tribal leaders is that the first settlers ‘owned’ the whole country. This is totally illogical and a complete fabrication.

“New Zealand’s small population did not ‘own’ the whole country. In the days before private property rights were established by the rule of law, people ‘owned’ what they could defend.

“Common areas like mountains and wilderness areas, the foreshore and seabed, rivers and lakes, were not ‘owned’ by anyone but were used by all.

“The same goes for resources — minerals, the sea, the air, our water, wild animals and plants, and other common goods.”

When John Ansell approached elocal with Treatygate, I decided to run his story on the basis that Maori continue to have a privileged NZ media platform to expound their radical views and it’s time the NZ race have their say.

I invite our readers to have their comment. Blog on www.elocal.co.nz.



My planned ad campaign will not happen unless a whole lot of Kiwis like you are prepared to dig deep to save your country.

If a lot of us give a little, and a few give a lot, we can stop the professional grievers and their ‘useful idiot’ appeasers in their tracks.

Please give whatever you can afford, and send this link to everyone you know.


714 thoughts on “TREATYGATE — Time to Expose the Con

  1. When was the last time you used your common sense John and visited a marae to raise your questions/ concerns? It appears Maori are happy to join in for the conversation, why not you?

    1. HA. You have to be joking. Tribal Maori only know how to:
      1) Abuse
      2) If that doesn’t work – bully and threaten
      3) If that doesn’t shut up the opposition – obfusticate
      4) If the opposition is still hasn’t disappeared – return to 1).

      Grow up and smell the roses Milan. Or perhaps you need to go to Milan? The Italians don’t have tribal Maori and their attitudes to deal with.

    2. In this country we have the majority of citizens losing their resources – which Maori owned as well by virtue of their universal citizenship. These resources have been stolen by tribal Maori in concert with corrupt authorities.

      As a parallel example – imagine your home is burgled and you and your family raped by the mongrel mob. They make off with much of what you owned. The police clear the way for them and escort them back to their gang headquarters.

      Milans advice is to go cap in hand to the mongrel mob, politely knock and wait.

      When someone turns up, politely and patiently suffer through another long saga of violent actions, threats and intimidation.

      When finally you are ushered into the leaders mighty presence and paid due homage, respectfully plead for your stolen belongings, that you once used to share with the very people who stole them, to be returned to you.

      Carefully and respectfully retreat, bowing and scraping as you go and return to what remains of your home and family to await the thieves verdict on whether they will return anything to you.

      Good one Milan, yep that should do it for sure.

    3. Now it’s your turn to put up or shut up, Milan.

      Tell us: which Maori are prepared to “join in for the conversation”?

      Any time I’ve been invited anywhere – included Maori TV – I’ve fronted. With facts.

      I took my facts to Waitangi on Waitangi Day. I took them to the Victoria University Marae for a Constitutional Debate.

      But how do Griever Maori respond to the facts? Always and only with derision and abuse.

      They find facts inconvenient. Indeed they find them highly impertinent.

      (Not surprising, since few have had the guts to front up to them with facts before.)

      For the typical response to my challenge to debate the facts, see my exchange with Willie Jackson on page 2 of Truth.

      When I tried to steer our conversation from abuse to facts, he ran away. And stayed away.

      Now do tell us who among Griever Maori is prepared to have a polite, civilised, fact-based conversation.

      I predict with great confidence that you will not be able to give us even one name.

      1. I’m Half Maori/Half English and I take no sides as I am proud to be both. I will join in you conversation and I have and open mind you have a good argument on the English perspective I think and so do Maori from their side I don’t know what to believe as people recount things differently and also the story’s passed down from all our ancestors would have changes as we would each interpret them differently. But it happened so long ago that no-one really knows apart from the evidence, but then again we didn’t have those systems perfectly in place anyone could have written anything and called it “evidence” on both sides. I would hope that whoever was wrong would apologise and I can honestly say as a half Maori Half Pakeha I am very sad to see the hate each race has for one another because of their differences and have battled with Familys from both sides disagreeing and pulling me apart with hate towards the other. Please don’t start another hate/moan campaign but try to do something about it rich dude from Invercargill so we can all live in our beautiful country together in peace 🙂

  2. @ Milan; As MKvL says, tribal maori are intimidating bullies. They do not take kindly to the truth when it shows up their rorts, scams, lies, half truths, etc. When Findlayson gives them $ billions, they have their phoney plastic ceremonies for show with all the wailing and fake tears etc, but when something does not go their way, we see their true colours. Violence, intimidation, threats, bullying, lies etc. Their only concern is $$$$ and they will do whatever it takes to continue the handouts/grievance industry. BTW, the book, ‘Twisting The Treaty’ has been available for many months now and I have yet to see any factual evidence ( by evidence, I mean ‘EVIDENCE’, not wishywashy make-it-up-as-you-go PC BS) contradicting the book. The con is being exposed and the beneficiaries of the con are not happy.
    Come on Milan, open your eyes and open your brain. The evidence is there.

    1. @ Nadia, sure there is some hate… possibly from one side more than the other ( I have never seen anything like Hone Harawira aka John Hadfield’s outbursts) , but our main concern is to be treated equally. I am denied hundreds of special race based privileges that you are entitled to, because of my skin colour/blood lines. I will never accept my standing as ‘second class’ in my country of birth. And these privileges are now legal, just as the white south african privileges were. But that did not make it OK did it?
      I still have part-maori friends and probably always will. However, when they get something that I am not entitled to, because I have no maori blood, then even they can see there’s something not right. Something amiss. And some are even embarrassed and apologetic about it.
      Good that you are open minded and prepared to see the race based discrimination from the victims viewpoint.

  3. I’m not sorry to say that I have only heard the same old sensationalised reteric/ excuses as to why you should not directly deal with Maori. All of the explicitly sated comments above are entirely unfounded… More excuses.

    1. As I predicted.

      Griever Maori are fundamentally dishonest. Start with that assumption and you can predict their every move – especially their unwillingness to debate the facts.

    1. It isn’t rhetoric. Pay attention. John Ansell gave the example above, of the Truth series, and the te Papa debates. He also has presented several meetings of his own, at which he presented facts.
      Your rhetoric comment is an example of rhetoric.

      Rhetoric: re-tu-rik
      1. High-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation
      2. Loud and confused and empty talk
      3. Using language effectively to please or persuade

    2. Grow up Milan and enter the real world populated by people with facts and principle. Get out of your world populated by liars, thieves and fraudsters and fuelled by…wait for it…. rhetoric.

  4. How about answering the above question and let us know which Maori you speak for. John has already had a discussion with Willie Jackson and the end result was just a lot of name calling by Willie.

    1. Forget it Graeme. He sounds like Ngamoko Nikora, he would never answer a direct question either.
      Hang on…maybe they are the same person ?….

  5. You may say ‘treaty gate’ ……you may use the same or similar circular arguments to present an opposing view to those who claim treaty grievance…yet race relations in New Zealand is by in large …..peaceful. Apart from the fringe of New Zealand society (people such as yourself John) race relations appears as a non issue for most.

    Circular reasoning where the conclusion leads followed by unsupported emotive statements is only the work of fools.

    1. Andrew, you may prefer to think it’s a non-issue, but every poll taken on the subject reveals that around 80% of voters want to abolish racial privilege.

      This suggests I am not on the fringe. You are.

      1. It’s just that I work with many maori men, young and old; also I live in an area of Northland which has a large maori population and in these environments people get along in the community, often meet up socially, greet in the street or at work – I’ve been in these enviornments most of my life and they dont change. Although I am white I have maori friends. Do you John have any maori friends?

        Survey Polls – what of them. I’ve never been surveyed and I’m 50 years old. But again you use the circular reasoning – any poll that starts out with the words “abolish racial privilege” would get anyones hackles up! It is a provocative and and suggestive phrase. If the poll a second poll represented the same dollar of Government spend in the same area but was entitled “fund the poorer for a better New Zealand” peoples hearts would move in a different way!

        So you develop the theory of maori’s being part europeon – therefore not true maori and concluding therefore that maori grievance is fundametally dishonest – yet if you are some part maori, and if you have chosen to follow maori culture and belief and or you are raised in one of the thousands of families that idenify as being maori – then you must be maori. No fraud in that. You have the blood, you live in the culture, you adhere too and subscribe to maori values – you are a maori!

        As a little kid I grew up in Howick, there were two maori families in the area…one family clearly poorer than the majority, one daughter from the family coming to school with green snot hanging out her nose and sores on her legs – in those days the area was all white so far as I recall – so as an adult I now realise that there was something wrong with that situation where a little maori girl was coming to school in that condition. So I wish that my parents had befriened that girls family and given them a hand – because obviously they needed it.

        I have travelled widely in Northland over the years and in the interests of charity I think it right to help up those that forwhatever reason havent been able to get up. What is wrong with that?

        Surely even you would help up some one that tripped and fell on the foot path in front of you? Or would you walk past? What is the difference?

        Incidentally through face book I found out that the maori girl died a few years ago as a woman in her mid forties. I dont know what caused her to die but I wept actually when I remebered what she went through as a little girl (Teased and Taunted at school for her snot and sores) her life was worth a helping hand even if the help came about because she was Maori. The polls also keep telling us of this problem of maori suffering with poorer health, more imprisonment etc – so should the country have a sift face and offer charity and help to rid Maori of this blight? surely you dont think we should have a face of stone toward it?

        The blood mix will get more diluted as races in a community mix…..so the investment into Maori must in time largely benefit the community as a whole and hopefully those children yet to be born who who have one parent Maori and one parent white – could be your grandchild – New Zealand is not a big place!

      2. also – government money spent on Maori…is Government money – that is the Goverment of New Zealanders – Maori pay just as much GST on every hundred dollars as the rest of us New Zealanders…. just as much excise tax…..just as much PAYE per hundred dollars….just as much ACC levy and so on.

        ………Probably more non moari are able to legitimatly manipulate the tax system and overall pay less tax per hundred dollar than maori! So there is an issue – Tax Gate.

        ……….Or what of the politicians who make the laws that appoint and control the higher salaries commission who are the body that give them their annual increases ……….while each year they happily tell us “the higher salaries commission is independant ……so yes I can accept my salary increase again this year”

      3. Andrew, you talk about my circular reasoning, then say things like “Survey polls – what of them. I’ve never been surveyed and I’m 50 years old.”

        Well neither have I, and I’m 55. But what does that prove? Surveys are surveys, not censuses. Only a minority get surveyed, and the margin of error determines what percentage they speak for.

        Please don’t talk to me about logic if that’s your idea of it.

        You assume that these surveys start with the words “abolish racial privilege”.

        Why do you assume that? Do you have any evidence?

        No. You made it up.

        Again, don’t criticise me for circular arguments when you make things up to suit your own arguments.

        The surveys I refer to had questions like, “Do you think Maori should have a separate seat on the [Waikato/Nelson] local council?” and “Do you support the option to spell Wanganui Whanganui?”

        These are not leading questions, Andrew.

        Yes, since you ask, I do have Maori friends. (Though why that should make me more or less qualified to have opinions about the Treaty industry I can’t imagine.)

        As a matter of fact, I live in a town that is 25% Maori – the highest Maori population percentage in the province.

        The town’s biggest businessman is Maori.

        All of the people who serve me food and drink at my two ‘locals’ are Maori.

        I’ve just got back from one of them. After a year in their company, I remain unpoisoned.

        Perhaps that’s because these people are living the lives of ordinary people.

        Perhaps it’s because they hate being patronised by people like you as some sort of second class citizens.

        You have a very dim view of Maori and their capacities.

        I don’t.

        I recently flew from Wellington to Christchurch to attend the tangi of a school friend.

        Larry had not only been the only boy in the school’s history to win his school colours for both soccer and rugby.

        He’d also been the school’s best-ever cartoonist.

        And writer/producer of, and performer in, a comedic play that was good enough to relegate Shakespeare to second in the inter-house play contest.

        He was a competent academic and musician.

        And because of his range of talents and engaging personality was by far the most popular boy in the school, despite being about the only Maori.

        I went to Hutt Intermediate, where there were many Maori from Waiwhetu marae.

        Many of them went on to successes of various kinds.

        At my primary school I was friendly with a Maori boy. He later went into a gang.

        I think he’s dead now.

        But his lifestyle was was his choice. He had the same educational opportunities as the rest of us.

        Today’s Maori, according to the late Bishop Bennett, a Maori, grow up in a society where the system is biased towards, not against, them.

        But it is up to them to take advantage of the privileges on offer.

        Maori are individuals, Andrew, like everyone else. And individuals are free to make good choices or dumb ones.

        When people make dumb choices, they should look to themselves for the reason, not to long-dead members of another race that provided them with every possible opportunity to succeed.

        That is what gets me, Andrew: the constant moaning of money-grubbers and thugs like the Harawiras, when they have a great deal to be grateful to the “white motherfuckers” for.

        (Not least the legal and political systems which they exploit to the full, and beyond.)

        That’s where you should be directing your comments about circular arguments.

        Hone bleated to me on Close Up once that “it’s all very well you talking about a colourblind state, but our people are at the bottom of all the bad statistics”.

        And so they are. (Including the Harawira family.)

        In other words, goes Hone’s logic, as long as his people remain the poorest and most violent race in the country, the rest of the country must keep giving them money.

        Where he conveniently fails to join the dots is that they’ve been given billions of dollars of state welfare for decades.

        And yet, by his own admission, it has made not one iota of difference to their standing at the bottom of every social indicator.

        So obviously, welfare isn’t working.

        Maybe it’s time to try a new strategy – like self-reliance.

        The other thing that disgusts me about the prevailing attitude among many ‘griever’ Maori is the way their kids seem to get the last dollar, rather than the first.

        In other poor cultures, the kids spend their first dollar on the children’s food and healthcare and clothing, not on themselves at the pub or TAB.

        The Pacific peoples seem to be good examples of putting their children first.

        The Maori habit of bashing their children to death does not seem to have spread to their fellow Polynesian Samoans, Tongans and Cook Islanders, despite the Pacific Island fondness for (purportedly excessive) corporal punishment.

        I note Pacific Islanders are 9% of the population and commit 11% of the crime – roughly in proportion to their numbers.

        Maori, meanwhile, are 15% of the population and commit 51% of the crime.

        Why is this?

        Because of colonisation?


        It’s a stretch to say the British taught the Maori to be violent. The war-obsessed, cannibalistic Maori were the most violent race on earth before the British arrived.

        (At least in terms of the number of fellow Maori they exterminated in the Musket Wars – to say nothing of the depraved genocidal butchery of the Moriori, and the diabolical cruelty their chiefs exhibited towards their legions of slaves.)

        If you think I’m exaggerating, read Paul Moon’s This Horrid Practice sometime – preferably before lunch.

        There are many thousands of good, honest, hardworking Maori people in this country.

        (And, sadly, in Australia, where a high proportion of Northland Maori felt they had to escape in order to live the lives of equal citizens, away from patronising hand-wringers like you.)

        Sadly, there are many thousands of bad, dishonest, drug-addled, workshy Maori as well.

        That won’t change until social policy contains incentives to persuade the latter to behave like the former.

        While they are given the incentive to keep behaving like basket cases, obviously (to all except Harawira and the rest of the money-grubbing tribal aristocrats) they’re going to keep doing so.

        While they are given the incentive to keep blaming “the Pakeha” for their own bad choices, just as obviously they’re going to keep doing so.

        And the logic of your argument about blood dilution beggars belief.

        You’re right: with several more generations of interbreeding, virtually everyone could be Maori, by the current definition.

        Already we have Steve O’Regan (1/16th) and his daughter Hana (1/32nd) claiming to represent “their people”, when their people are overwhelmingly Irish.

        Bob Jones is on record as saying, “I’ve known Steve since before he was a Maori.”

        According to Bob, Hana (formerly Hannah, I think) was a flaming redhead.

        There’s nothing wrong with someone with 1/256th Maori blood adopting the ways of Maori if they so choose. That’s no different to people who choose to be Christian or Buddhist or Rastafarian.

        (Or Pastafarian, like me. I’m a bishop of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, did you know? But taxpayers don’t pay for my bolognaise.)

        But for such nano-descendants to demand money from the rest of us as if they’re fully Maori and therefore, by today’s PC definition, inferior, is flagrantly dishonest.

        In your next comment, you again expose your lack of logic by implying that because Maori pay just as much GST per $100 (I note you avoid income tax) they should receive a disproportionate amount of other taxpayers’ money.

        In a welfare state, of course the government should give money to Maori.

        Where you and I differ is that you want to give it to them because they are Maori (second-class citizens).

        I want to give it to Maori who genuinely need it – along with everyone else who genuinely needs it – because they are New Zealanders (equal first-class citizens).

        You describe my statement of the obvious that most Maori are part-European as a “theory”.

        Then you invent your own theory of non-‘Moari’ paying less tax.

        You describe this theory as “probable”, despite offering no evidence.

        Then in the next breath you upgrade it to a scandal – Tax Gate!

        I will leave it to readers to decide who is the fool.

  6. You haven’t been surveyed and neither have I – I cant recall knowing anyone that has! so for the sake of this discussion I suggest you make a foolish assumption by using the so called polls as being accurate enough to form the basis of your initial statement that 80% of the public want what you first described as ‘racial privilege’ abolished.

    The words racial privilege in themselves are leading and provocatively suggest an unrighteous favouritism – so poor choice of words? If Maori genuinely need assistance for a generation or two so as to become strong enough to compete then that is a good thing…we are all citizens and no right thinking person would despise their fellow man leaving them in a poor position while enjoying they themselves enjoy the benefits that are available.

    The history and the reasons why Maori are disproportionality represented in the poorer areas of society are well discussed – No doubt there are many reasons but some fundamental truths remain – the biggest being that a foreign people came here and their society became bigger and stronger and all encompassing of Maori – we are told that Maori did not want that and so todays arguments are formed around whatever view the individual has on what occurred in history and what relationship that has to the events of today – but the one truth does seem to be that Maori are disproportionately represented in the poorer areas of life – not a good thing and of course there is a reason for that (whatever it is)

    Concerning Hone – I’m glad that he is in politics – that great melting pot! The beauty of our system is all views are able to be considered and aired – pressure points get released, people get educated and views change – a bigger picture becomes apparent! When a man speaks publically in a foolish way it is amusing and all people see it – so the hole the man digs for another he falls in! Not many Maori I know speak so well of Hone…he has fallen in his hole as most see him as a bit of a hot head and not a leader to follow….Maori people that I know are not sheep – they are have their views as we all do and just because Hone says something, Maori don’t bow down to him – no he first has to gain their mana and make some sense to the individual……but yet the truth is that many Maori know themselves first hand of the poverty of family and so these issues touch a nerve (I think) when Hone speaks about it.

    You cant truthfully claim not be a fringe New Zealander – because you are leading a small voice that is the opposite to Hone whose views are also on the fringe?

    I don’t fall for your strategy of making a partial agreement with me (in your blog above) and then directly mis quoting me where you say I say ‘give to Maori because they are Maori’ you know better than that – you know that I am saying that Maori are disproportionality high in the poor areas, that agreement has been reached in this country (right or wrong) for Maori to be due some reparation for historical wrongs.

    Surely the Tainui wealth must cheer your heart! Gifted Money turned into more money and wealth – which can only mean the man is running and the need and the grievance is being beaten! How many non Maori contractors, draftsmen, lawyers, worked on that big Tainui industrial area in Hamilton? Money and wealth being generated for our country. Young people working.

    More wealth more income – maybe my daughter will have a job because of it? Great.

    You say that “I have a dim view of Maori “- a strange thing to say. A deflective statement? Another lame duck? I know what I think of Maori – I completely respect Maori as my fellow man and admire much of their character – hardy, never take a step backwards in confrontation, brave, strong, generous, very talented (the best) that I have seen (generally) at machine operation (which is the area I work in). They are my fellowman and as such it is my responsibility to cherish that and do the best I can for them (love thy neighbour) and hope it is returned. That’s all.

    1. Andrew: There is a serious flaw in your “way” of thinking. The very premise of your thought processes begins with a “separation” that does not exist. And I believe this is what John and others are trying to highlight.

      This Maori versus everyone else (Pakeha), or black versus white nonsense, has you all running around looking for things that aren’t really there. “Race” is a social construct; most learned people including anthropologist groups and biologists all over the world can clearly show you it is impossible to divide people by race.

      Because of that you should not be pointing to people with snotty noses and calling them Maori’s. This girl may have been a Catholic but I noticed you did not label her a Catholic. Of course not, your “way” of thinking prevents that, it doesn’t help your argument to call her a Catholic.

      I note that pre European Maori did not call themselves Maori either and later when they did it was not a distinction around race, it was merely referring to “ordinary” or “usual people’. Maori were and still are a number of separate nations or Iwi. To think of them as a race is flawed thinking, despite the government using the “race” word to keep every other law abiding citizen from using the Waitangi Tribunal.

      So, if there is no such thing as race and there is no way of defining race we need to stop having conversations based on race. John has pointed out that having a system that allows 40 years of giving money to a race has actually resulted in people who “identify” as Maori being worse off socially, you also allude to this.

      The way forward then must be a focus on preventing the social situations that result in bad outcomes. The Maori girl you referred to earlier with the snotty nose had parents who did not take proper care of her. There are children of all sorts of ethnicity, all over New Zealand, that have parents who lack the skills to bring up children to be part of a wonderful society.

      So Andrew, we can actually swap the word I used to describe your thinking “way” with a word that better describes your thought processes “racist”. That is because you ignore that fact that these people are humans, the same as the rest of us. You attach a connotation when you introduce “race” or “Maori” to describe people.

      As long as you and people like you think there is something to be gained by talking about people as a separate people there will be people trying to tell you to stop it.

      I believe this is the (sole) basis of John’s political aspirations (correct me if I am wrong John).

      Equality, within our statutes and laws MUST be the basis of a New Zealand that improves the standard of living for all.

      1. I think you confuse your self Andy – you say ‘race dosent exist’. Yet according to the socitey that we live in, of coruse it exists and is used as a defining criteria – in many ways. The only determining consideration is how peope are defining their race. You can forget your dna and all the science – it is proved irrelevant in the context of how people live and which part of their heritage they choose to acknoweldge.

        So on this basis of course seperation exits.

        To see your nose you have to see your face Andy.You cant see the reality only your own considerastion which is that all the maori ‘issues’ if you will are wrong based on your view – but you ignore the facts.

  7. Also – regarding Hone – he is a politician (like you); he knows how to appeal to an element in Maori culture – politicians think they are so expert at correctly representing an issue by twisting and turning to suit the crowd – instead of having the moral fibre to tell the truth and to stand in the truth.

    Don’t you think your words describing his family as ‘thugs’ are just as provocative as his insults toward you? What does it serve by saying that?

    1. It serves to highlight that they are thugs.

      What word would you use to describe a family where even the mother has been convicted of a violent crime?

      Someone with better maths than me might like to add up the combined convictions of the Harawira clan.

      I note the total increased by several in the past year alone.

      I do concede, though, that compared with his mother and nephews, Hone is a saint.

      1. No John, ‘thug’ is your word…..but then you are the great ‘wordsmith’, right? Your judgement on this matter is therefore superior? Right?

      2. Again Andrew, if thug doesn’t do it for you, what word would you choose to describe a violent family?

      3. John – wiki pedia says ‘thugs’ are an organised gang of professional assassins’ so nah over the top there John – over stated. It is a big label ‘thug’ –

      4. sure – I’m not an educated man. just a factory worker – trying to do several things at once. some of it is key booard error and some speling error. 🙂

      5. Did you think I wouldn’t check your deception, Andrew? As anyone with a smattering of English would know, the current meaning of thug is not the same as the original Indian meaning. Lots of words are like that, Andrew.

        You deliberately misrepresented the definition using the old meaning, thus confirming that you are dishonest and not worth debating with.

        If you were honest, you would have reported that the topmost definition of thug in Wikipedia (not wiki pedia) is “a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire.”

        That sounds like a Harawira to me.

      6. Slow down and you’ll spell better – and think better too.

        We’re probably not that far apart. (I often find this once we get past the abuse phase. :-))

        You think that I think I’m superior because I’ve had an education. I don’t. When it comes to practical matters (that you’re probably good at), I’m decidedly inferior.

        It takes all sorts to make a world, but we need to be honest and fair.

      7. So you checked my deception eh…. ‘dishoest and not worth debating with’ what you write in this comment is so tangled that it is almost (but only almost) not worthy of reply.

        So here you are scolding me, right? The next post you crazily suggest ‘we are not that far apart’ – earlier you scolded ‘don’t talk to me about logic’ – John you are illogical. You cant have it both ways – either to your mind I am dishonest and not worth debating with or I am ‘not that far part from you’

        This is the whole problem with all of what you present, and all of what your little band of follows present – you have locked yourselves into a diatribe (good word eh….chosen especially for you because it has the word ‘tribe’ in it – I hope you dont manifest, but maybe Andy might – after reading his baloney) that is not representative of the factual situation – which is almost a fait accomplie ie Treaty settlements almost done,treaty money spent back into NZ economy, maori heritage preserved, yet still a few families of ‘protestors’ that ignite you guys to flames, still sparking away….. but almost a fata accomplie (I think)

      8. also John – if you pull out of our debate now – then you would have to agree that you have been defeated. Our debate has been underway for sometime; so it is way too late to bring the lame duck (almost cry baby) “you are dishonest..you are illiterate” remarks as an excuse to disengage.

      9. I think you ought to be careful calling a Harawira “a common criminal who treats others roughly and violently and often for hire” ….gee at least one of the Harawira’s is an elected politician – you could end up with a leagl issue of some type?-

        it seems to me that I wasnt that dishonest when I grabbed the first listed meaning for ‘thug or thuggery’ from the wikipedia because even your chosen meaning has components of the one I posted ie referencing someone as being ‘for hire’ to complete a criminal act.

        John have the Harawira’s been convicted of hiring themselves out to committ violence? – because that is what you are saying with the use of the word ‘thug’ …..so if not – then you would have to agree that I therefore have a better understanding the word ‘thug’ than you! – Mr Wordsmith.

      10. You are correct about the ‘for hire’ bit.

        Note that I didn’t say you think I’m superior. I said that you think that I think I’m superior (“great wordsmith”, “God” etc.)

        My point about your dishonesty was that you did not “grab the first listed meaning of thug from the wikipedia”.

        Instead, you deliberately ignored that meaning and chose, simply to be difficult, the clearly outdated original Indian meaning, “assassin”.

        I’m happy that readers will now be able to conclude who is arguing more honestly, and to continue this tit-for-tat would be pointless.

        But feel free to continue making comments if you wish. We’re now over 700, which is a record!

  8. so you cant draw a connect between Maori offenders who have killed their children and colonialism

    Could it be like this:

    Pride over generations that has not submitted or been able to system to a system of governance.

    Depression, anger, substance abuse

    Mind altering substance abuse.


    What would the answer be if the question was:

    “Pre European did Maori kill their children in this way way?

    if the answer is “no” then how can you NOT make the link in the broadest sense?

    Another question (hypothetical) “Would Maori behave in this way if the Europeans had formed an agreement where the Maori were the head of state and were the decisions makers from the word go? Where today they held the power positions?

    1. But the answer to “Pre-European did Maori kill their children in this way way? (whatever that means) is not “No”, Andrew. It’s “Yes”.

      According to former Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit researcher John Robinson, the chief reason why Maori population declined in the late 1800s is lack of breeding stock caused by both the slaughter of young males in the Musket Wars and the killing of young females at birth.

      Female infanticide was rife in Maori society before the British put a stop to it – just as it is in Asian societies today where girls are held to be not as economically viable as boys.

      Maori grievers have no capacity for sympathy towards anyone but themselves.

      When have you ever heard a Maori ‘leader’ express any feeling for the many innocent British settler families who were butchered by their ancestors?

      Answer: never. Maori were the sole victims of the wars, apparently – even though it was their aggression that started them.

      It’s that pathetic, self-imposed victimhood that is the downfall of Maori society. They should get over themselves, realise that they’re doing fantastically well under the new management, and get with the programme.

      By the same set of excuses, British New Zealanders should still be blaming any problem on the French for the Norman invasion. Or if you want a more recent example, Chinese Kiwis should still be sulking about the poll tax.

      The only hope for the more backward-looking Maori is if they adopt a new forward-looking attitude and ditch the excuses.

      It’s attitude that determines altitude.

      1. Such an impatient and blind man eh. Too blind to see the thousands of peaceable law abiding maori…only interested in highlight your own biased eh … For someone like you John, who is so puffed as to be able to give himself labels of graduar such as ‘i’m a wordsmith’ you are clearly visable as a fraud yourself. You give yourself away through your own stuffy persona

      2. so you say ‘maori grievers have no capcacity for sympathy to anyone but themselves’ wow what a statement to make. Do you think you are God? You are a politiician who used words craftily to attack the maori – by making these outrageous statements and trying to support them with ridiculous assertions! Even in a eurpoeon court the example you give as evidence for this assertion would be thrown out as baseless. The maori politicians you fight against have their fringe points to prove as well – so like you they present themselves in silly ways.

      3. A wordsmith is someone who works with words. How is that a description of ‘graduar’ (assuming you mean ‘grandeur’?

        Do you have anything to offer except illiterate abuse?

      4. “It’s that pathetic, self-imposed victimhood that is the downfall of Maori society. They should get over themselves, realise that they’re doing fantastically well under the new management, and get with the programme”

        it;s good to see you agree with me John. Yes they are doing fantasically well in many areas – all the issues you dramatise are fading……John they cant be doing ‘fantastically well…and at gthe same time be in ‘downfall’ – I think yoy are confused? WHich is it? they do well? or they are in down fall?

      5. Maori achievers are doing very well living the lives of ordinary, honest, law-abiding, forward-looking New Zealanders.

        The backward-looking, backward-thinking grievers, by contrast, are giving all Maori a bad name by whining about the past, blaming everyone but themselves for their own people’s violence and dishonesty, and annoying 80% of the population with their outrageously inflated sense of entitlement.

        The crocodile tears-shedding professional mourners fool no one with their money-grubbing antics in the name of culture.

        Many of them are only Maoris of convenience anyway, being mainly Irish (like Steve O’Regan) or English (like Annette Sykes).

        They make ordinary Kiwis think that Maori are all about getting something for nothing. They are a disgrace to the aforementioned Maori achievers.

      6. Agree – but you say too much ‘giving all maori a bad name’ – that statement makes no sense! That statement presumes that we are all idiots unable to see people around us. So I work with many maori people int his factory – I can see that they are doing as you say ‘achievers’ ‘working’ and so forth – it is those men and the ones in my town that impress me as to who Maori are. people struggling to get ahead as we all are – struggling under the massive taxation that you politicians have applied – paye, gst on taxed money, excise tax, land tax, water rates, acc levies – John they all add up to difficulty for the working person. Forces people into debt to achieve ‘the car’ ‘the house’ ‘the boat’ etc –

    2. So let’s see if I’ve got this right, Andrew…

      A part-Maori man has no choice but to kill his baby because one or more of his 16 great-great-grandparents was there when one or more of his other great-great-grandparents arrived and brought laws that freed his people from slavery, stopped them killing and eating each other, stopped them killing their newborn girls, kept them and their property safe from each other for the first time ever, and brought untold technological advances?

      1. So John, Maori responded with their ‘utu’ and took lives for lives. How is it different from any past society. Did Britian hang people, did they hang, draw and quarter people? Did this occur for a wrong against the society of that time? but of course for you Maori are the ‘savages’ right?

    3. there you go John – ‘illiterate abuse’ you say- so you shift away from the issues to cynically denounce crticisim – but you can crtiicse right?, as you are a ‘wordsmith’ and on that basis you decide what is ‘literate’ and what is not? Literate means able to ‘read and write’ John – your word smithing needs some polish because again you have misrepresented what was said and prove yourself a bit rusty in the word smithing department.

      1. “your word smithing needs some polish”.

        Ah I see, Andrew, so ‘graduar’, ‘visable’, ‘capcacity’, ‘politiician’, ‘eurpoeon’, ‘crticisim’, and ‘crtiicse’ are Polish? 🙂

  9. My farm lived king Toki poto , the area calle hotuiti where the ngati hotu lived , he was murdered by te rauparha and rangitane who then sold the land he had jurisdiction over ,

    1. and what is the point Ross? Look at Europeon history … historically and after war people who enslaved, riches were taken, lands confiscated and so on – but to your mind Ross is it that this was a ‘criminal act’ what statute did it offend against? Or was it (as with your forefathers) an act of war? Maybe you need to shift your thoughts?

  10. “According to former Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit researcher John Robinson, the chief reason why Maori population declined in the late 1800s is lack of breeding stock caused by both the slaughter of young males in the Musket Wars and the killing of young females at birth. ”

    So who else says this is the case? Wasnt he sacked for lying , ? Then he came back, said now he isnt lying….I cannot find anyother historical document at all pertaining to female infantacide – could you publish some links please

    1. Dr Robinson was refused payment unless he altered his findings to suit his employer’s agenda.

      This is nothing unusual. Everyone in a New Zealand university who does not wish to commit career suicide – teacher or student – is required to espouse primitivism in order to pass or be paid.

      To call this education is a linguistic and moral perversion.

      Robinson was not sacked. He retired. Only then was he free to tell the truth.

      I suggest you read This Horrid Practice by Paul Moon. But don’t read it on a full stomach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s