Mike Butler, Treatygate

473 chiefs signed Treaty that didn't mention water

Mike Butler is one of the experts who have been stocking my brain with Treaty facts for the past year.

This is Mike’s letter in today’s Dominion Post.

He reveals that the Maori Tiriti o Waitangi, which Hobson said was the only true Treaty — and which 473 out of 512 chiefs signed — made no mention of Maori owning fisheries or water.

In fact, Article 2 of the Tiriti — the article that talked about guaranteeing possessions — did not even use the word Maori.

It said that possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property was guaranteed to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand.

The claim for water rights is a current invention conjured up by the Maori Council and the Waitangi Tribunal.

More evidence that it’s time the Treaty gravy train was sent on a one-way express journey from Wai-tangi to Tangi-wai.

Bob Jones, King Tuheitia, Treatygate

No-bull knight nails lyin' king

As usual, it takes Sir Bob Jones to crystallise the Treatygaters’ shameless dishonesty.

Today’s Herald column is one of his best.

Read more about the Maori King at the end. (Sometimes truth can be stranger than even Bob’s zany fiction. :-))


Blatant try-on shows it’s time to derail Treaty gravy train

by Bob Jones

So, the comical Ngaruawahia ex-truck driver who can’t speak Maori and struggles with English but calls himself King of Maoridom despite his realm ending at his letterbox has declared Maori own the rain.

That’s excellent news.

I assume His Majesty will accept liability for inflicting millions of dollars of flood damage annually through Maori rain supply mismanagement.

He can ponder that when sitting on the only throne he’ll ever occupy, namely in his lavatory.

Pulling the royal pretender’s strings is his court jester, Underpants Morgan, a man evidently of Welsh ancestry and probably a direct descendent of Cardiff-born Henry Morgan of piracy notoriety.

But that was the 17th century.

Try this owning-everything-by-right racket in the valleys today, boyo, and you will discover your Welsh kin are not big on humour.

Another blowhard claimed Maori own the wind. He has a point, given the amount they generate at these hooey babblefests.

But be assured, soul-selling barristers, driven by their wallets, will shamelessly go to bat for them, twisting and turning the meanings of an anachronistic 170-year-old vague treaty.

The Prime Minister must emulate Helen Clark, who commendably brooked no nonsense and promptly legislated against the foreshore larceny try-on.

John Key could offer in appeasement free white canes and seeing-eye dogs, as all these hui hoodlums appear to be blind, wearing dark glasses day and night.

Unfortunately, this will again mean Wellingtonians suffering the aesthetically distasteful spectacle of spear-waving obese males, consistent with their predominant ancestry, most bearing Irish names, waddling down Lambton Quay.

Their risible responses after their foreshore try-on march to television reporters, asking what they were actually seeking, recalled 1970s socialists who when queried what they meant by socialism, would carry on at inordinate length solely about what they didn’t mean.

Let’s cut to the quick.

Despite the euphemistic deceit about “resources” and the “Crown”, what these parasites seek is for hard-struggling Kiwi workers to give them money without them having to work for it.

It’s that simple.

They’re a disgrace, not only to Maori but to the human race.

John Key should call an early election on this “who owns the rain, wind, air and everything else” issue and National would receive a massive majority.

The dilemma facing Labour is tricky.

David Shearer is a sensible man, as are most of his parliamentary colleagues who would all deplore this despicable attempt at bludging off taxpayers.

But what to do – vote with the Government, abstain, or vote against?

Labour should firmly state their support for clarification legislation otherwise they’ll wave goodbye to their blue-collar voters who will be up in arms over this we’re-entitled-to-live-off-you-all claptrap.

Have these thespians leaning on their carved walking sticks no shame?

It’s all reminiscent of 1951 when the waterfront gangsters held the country to ransom, deplored then even by the Federation of Labour.

Prime Minister Holland went to the country with the winning election question of “who runs the country?”

Labour was doomed after their leader, Walter Nash, weakly stated he was “neither for nor against”.

That fence-sitting contributed to National ruling the roost for 27 of the next 33 years.

The Greens face a similar position.

Some of them would assert that Maori should receive free breakfast in bed and cars, both clearly promised in the Treaty as the Waitangi Tribunal would undoubtedly confirm.

But should they side against the public anger on this issue, they would be decimated in a snap election.

Every Maori I know is angered by this rain, wind and everything else ownership claim, rightly seeing it as deceitful and divisive.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this attitude is typical of Maoridom across the land.

The ball’s in the Government’s court to make it clear that the gravy train has reached the station and is off to the museum.

It should also kill off the unnecessary Waitangi Tribunal whose predictable, absurd decisions are causing so much disharmony.

Here’s a suggestion for the Ngaruawahia pretender who will only ever become a king if he changes his name by deed poll and who’s seeking ways of getting his hands on other people’s hard-earned money.

He should send Underpants to see our top Auckland promoters, Duco.

They’ll have no trouble selling Maori monarchy dukedoms, earldoms, baronetcies, honorary consulships, etc, across the globe.

Ornate certificates signed by His Majesty will be the only expense.

His Highness could also establish a Ngaruawahia University by royal decree and flog instant doctorates, for which there’s a solid demand.

If shady, such initiatives would nevertheless be a damn sight worthier than their current endeavours.

I am of course assuming that actually working for a living is totally out of the question.


What Bob may not know is that before becoming ‘king’, Tuheitia and his wife used to run the Huntly campus of Te Wananga o Aotearoa.

(For some reason, my mind has just involuntarily flicked to an image of a young Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip  managing Huddersfield Polytechnic.)

This palace of pretension used to illegally call itself The University of New Zealand.

At your expense, it gave every student a jacket or tracksuit emblazoned with this fraudulent name, and when it got pinged it gave them all away to a Pacific island.

I’m told this make-believe university has the most generous employment conditions ever, including a $30,000 tangi grant — all courtesy of you, kind taxpayer.

When Tuheitia left to become king, he asked his employer to gift him the house and car he’d been using.

I’m told they agreed. Can anyone confirm this?

Whether or not he owns your house and car, he’s got the cheek to claim that Maori have always owned your water.

To me, that makes him a lyin’ king. He at least deserves an eye patch.

Colin Rawle, Margaret Mutu, Nin Tomas, Ranginui Walker, Treatygate

The Oblivion Constitution

One of my comic heroes Victor Borge used to call Bolivia ‘Oblivia’.

I’m sure he meant no disrespect. He was just playing with words.

But it’s an apt description, all the same.

Of all the basket-case countries in South America, Bolivia is right at the bottom of the basket. GDP per head: around $5,000.

You may think those folks in the photo are Maori 150 years ago. They’re not. They’re Bolivians today.

(I took out the colour to trick you.)

And yet Marxist Maori professors like Ranginui Walker, Margaret Mutu and Nin Tomas, profess undying admiration for the Bolivian Constitution.

In fact, they cite it as their blueprint for a written constitution for New Zealand.

This is Evo Morales, Bolivian coca grower turned president, holding up his sacred text.

Morales is a good neighbour of fellow Latin champions of freedom Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

And here he is warming up for an indoor soccer game with his buddy that great peacemonger president Ahmed Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Morales’ constitution is based around ‘pachamama’, the idea that human beings are equal with all other living things, but some humans are more equal than others.

(Yes, you guessed it, the ‘indigenous’ ones.)

The concept of pachamama is named after the earth goddess of the same name. This elegant lady here…

Now this racist doctrine is no doubt quite popular with Bolivians.

After all, 85% of them are at least part-members of races that actually are indigenous to Bolivia.

(55% fully Amerindian, 30% Mestizos — part-Amerindian, part-European.)

But here in New Zealand, precisely 0% of our people belong to races that are indigenous to (ie originated in) New Zealand.

Of course, I hear the Grievers howl, up to 15% are part-members of a race whose leaders say they’re ‘indigenous’ to New Zealand.

They say it with a straight face, too.

Despite their legends declaring – loudly and proudly – that they’re ‘indigenous’ to the other side of the Pacific!

Such is the double standard of Griever Maoridom. You gotta love the cheek.

Now I’d like to hand over to essayist/commentator Colin Rawle, who will spell out the extreme danger to New Zealand of going down the path to Bolivian oblivion.

(Subheadings mine.)


Colin Rawle:

I have recently had the dubious pleasure of listening to Radio N.Z’s broadcast of 8th March, 2009, titled Constitutions: Bolivia today, Aotearoa tomorrow?

It was the question mark at the end of this title which made my blood run cold.

Not for nothing is the new Bolivian Constitution widely referred to as “revolution by constitution”.

However, such a departure from reality would not result in a bloodless coup. Far from it.

A better recipe for armed counter-revolution or civil war is hard to imagine.

Revolutionary, in the worst sense, is exactly what it is.

And being aware that these are the constitutional changes (under discussion even as I write) which rebellious Maori and their “liberal” white patrons would dearly like New Zealand to adopt, I have the following to say:

An excuse to upend Western values

The bedrock ideology of the new Bolivian-type social engineering owes more than a little to Marxism.

It holds the erroneous dogma that all human inequalities, of any sort, arise purely out of economic/social circumstances.

Any question of individuality, of personal attributes, qualities, failings, responsibilities and accountability is dismissed out of hand.

Here is the imagined justification for turning traditional Christian-based values and social institutions, millennia in the making, on their heads.

Here is the imagined justification for attempting to terminate the great democratic project which, against the most implacable opposition, has been evolving in Western civilisation since the Greek/Roman age.

Marxist madness now everywhere

This type of “thinking” which I have characterised as essentially Marxist (the absolute nadir of materialism as a social/political philosophy) has, since the early 19th century, remorselessly permeated every nook and cranny of the international Western world, and therewith, to a great extent, the entire world.

It is now so ubiquitous, so entrenched, that it is like the very air we breath.

It has become virtually invisible, unnoticed, and thus all the more destructive.

The so-called “march through the institutions” is an established fact for those with eyes that see.

The global resurrection, or exhumation, of narrow, heirachical, parochial, tribalism is but one malign result of this “programme”.

It is no less than an attempt to nullify two millennia of hard-won social evolution, and replace it with a stage of development which most peoples transcended centuries or even millennia ago.

If such a complete abandonment of common-sense proliferates as the rest of political correctness has, it can only lead to pan-social catastrophe.

Zealots destroyed Zimbabwe

Nothing it seems, has been learned by the vast social errors, of which Zimbabwe is only one example.

The crime of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, when it was still a success story by any yardstick, was only that it was British/Western-administered and not yet perfect.

Therefore, it had to be “liberated” by an alliance of Western Marxist/socialist zealots and racists, who have always been incapable of seeing the potential good in things which are not yet wholly good.

They want to create utopias overnight.

But that is not they way of the world, nor of human nature.

Zimbabwe Aotearoa?

The Bolivian experiment will make a present-day “Zimbabwe”, North Korea or a similar totalitarian dictatorship out of any country, including New Zealand, which is foolish enough to ape it.

The Bolivian utopian fantasy speaks of Bolivia being comprised of some 36 indigenous “nations”, some of which are less than 100 individuals.

Nevertheless, each “nation” is to be self-determining and have its own ethnic laws.

In practice, this simply means that Bolivia would have no practicably enforceable law.

Anarchy, violence, and social collapse is the likely outcome.

Equality by theft

True to its Marxist/communist provenance, the Bolivian constitution seeks to impose “equality” by confiscating or nationalising private property.

This must then be leased back by its previous owners from some sort of state/indigenous peoples’ bureaucracy.

This is to fly in the face of human nature.

People, human beings by virtue of their very idiosyncratic individual personalities, are never equal, save in the “eyes of God”, so to speak, or under enlightened man-made laws which understand this.

It is impossible to make everyone equal in the sense that socialism means it.

The very most that can be done in this regard is to strive to afford every person the same opportunities.

Now there is a worthy social goal.

Extremely difficult to achieve, granted. But at least not impossible!

Here we see the vast gulf between the world-view of the atheist and the theist – of whatever creed.

Misguided separatism

Social improvements must, and will, come. We are not at the end of history.

But only if humanity can recognise and overcome such sheer anti-progressive insanity as exemplified in the Bolivian constitution model.

“Self determination for all peoples” is still the ridiculous demand.

Such fine-sounding catch phrases roll easily off the tongue.

They find immediate knee-jerk acceptance among a well-meaning populace.

Nevertheless, scores of bloody conflicts attest to the impossibility of such an ambition in today’s cosmopolitan world of some 210 nations, but 3,500 different “peoples”.

The principal underlying cause of all modern racial/ethnic conflict in modern times can be attributed less to individual tyrants than to the misguided ambition of “self determination for all peoples”.

People, not peoples

“Peoples” are an abstraction.

So-called “peoples” are actually comprised of individuals .

“Peoples” in the abstract, cannot have rights.

Of equal importance, nor can they have the commensurate responsibilities.

Only individuals have certain unalienable human rights.

And they have them not by virtue of their race, ethnicity, or nationality, but by virtue of being human.

If it were understood that “peoples” can only be liberated by liberating individuals – all individuals – then universal equal rights could be achieved in a non-discriminatory way.

However, even in a “democracy” such as ours, those who revert, or cling, to tribal mentality (which requires an enemy), will endlessly invent reasons for animosity and conflict.

Maori manamania

In New Zealand, Maori extremism is dominated by emotion.

Historical facts and logic play no great part.

This is why factual, logical arguments with radical Maori are so spectacularly ineffectual.

Nor, as history and current events show, does endless largesse, and appeasement remedy the situation.

Because from the Maori standpoint, everything is about pride – mana!

Charity is very acceptable in the moment. But there is no mana in it.

Only in retrospect do they realise that it adds to their dependency and humiliation.

Thus for a warrior people, it turns to ashes in the mouth.

Tribalism destroys democracy

Clearly, tribalism is not only incompatible with democracy, it is destructive to it.

Obviously, none of these observations apply to sensible Maori people, who have educated themselves to an awareness of all the opportunities that modernity offers them.

All racial/treaty problems since the time of colonisation can, in large measure be attributed to the great gulf separating democratic European consciousness from tribal consciousness.

If the British had understood this they would never have entertained the idea of a treaty with Maori.

They would have known that, regardless of whether or not some of their own might transgress it, it would certainly be used, for just as long as tribal mentality remained dominant as a means to gain the advantage.

Tribalism is about dominance

This is typical of tribal consciousness – a stage of social development which all peoples have experienced at some time in their history.

Obviously, tribalism is pre-democratic and non-democratic.

One of its characteristics is a constant striving for dominance, supremacy.

(In anticipation of the inevitable knee-jerk reaction this, I’ll quickly add that the non-rebellious Maori tribes which adopted Christianity and remained loyal to the Crown and the Treaty of Waitangi, were already at that time transcending tribalism.)

The West’s rejection of the West

The only thing that has changed since the West’s 1960s psycho/social revolution to allow this aspect of neo-tribalism to break through into outer events, is the rejection by many New Zealanders of their magnificent spiritual/cultural heritage.

This dismissal of “old fashioned” morality and values, and weakening of moral fibre, has undermined a democratic social ideal which was forged over millennia out of a demand of the human spirit for freedom and legal  equality.

These “old” values should not be discarded in favour of anachronistic tribalism, racial privilege and separatism.

For they are the only foundation upon which a civilised social future can be built.

Will tribalism triumph?

Whether through apathy, ignorance, or whatever else, the ramparts of democracy have not been adequately defended.

Tribal mentality is flooding the breaches.

The only choice New Zealanders will finally be left with is whether to surrender to tribalism, or overrule it.

And by “New Zealanders”, I mean all people who value this status, this privilege, above all distinctions of race, tribe, or country of origin.

“They whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”.

Thus goes the ancient aphorism, and there is no lack of historical precedents to prove the point.

Depending upon one’s belief, “life”, “the world”, or “God” will always forgive a certain degree of human error.

Yet there has to be a limit.

Reject the blueprint for oblivion

There is no way that society can for much longer survive the currently prevailing level of social blindness of which the racial/treaty madness is a good example.

If anything resembling the Bolivian experiment is taken as blueprint for constitutional change in New Zealand, it will destroy our country.

We have no excuse.

Our very humanity should disqualify us from such foolishness on pain of consequences too severe to bear thinking about.

Unless clear, rational thinking and goodwill wins the day, social ruin awaits us.

Islam, Treatygate

For Muslim, read Maori

The following email landed in my Inbox today like a thunderbolt.

Googling reveals some controversy over who wrote it, but it hardly matters. My point is this…

If you substitute the words Griever Maori everywhere you see the words Nazis, Islam and Muslims, you’ll see eerie parallels with present-day New Zealand.


A German’s view of Islam

by Dr Emanuel Tanay,

All that is necessary for evil to triumph
is for good men to do nothing

Edmund Burke

The bold  subheadings below are my additions.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of  large industries and estates.

When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

Good Germans Did Nothing

‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said.

‘But many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care.

I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools.

So, like the majority,  I just  sat back and let it all happen.

Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world as we knew it  had come.

My family lost everything.

I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

Good Muslims Do Nothing

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant.

It is meaningless fluff. Meant to make us feel better.

Meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of  Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this  moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march.

It is the  fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.

It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa.

It is the fanatics who are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.

It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill.

It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.

It is the fanatics who zealously  spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.

It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the  peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority’, is cowed and  extraneous.

Good Russians Did Nothing

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who  just wanted to live in peace.

Yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.

The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

Good Chinese Did Nothing

China’s huge population  was peaceful as well.

But Chinese Communists managed to kill a  staggering 70 million people.

Good Japanese Did Nothing

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist.

Yet Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians.

(Most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.)

Good Rwandans Did Nothing

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery?

Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

Will Good Muslims Still Do Nothing?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt.

Yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and  uncomplicated of points:

peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up.

Because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them.

And the end of their world, as they know it, will have  begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts – the  fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Will You Still Do Nothing?

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is complicit in the  passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

So extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on!

Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on – before it’s too late.

Now, Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario.

And yes, in Ottawa too – while the Lord’s Prayer was removed.

The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.

And we are silent.


Do Something

Unlike Canada, Australia, Britain, Ireland, the US and all of Europe, New Zealand has yet to be touched by the moronic, medieval, mind-warping madness of militant Islam.

Instead we have the moronic, medieval, mind-warping madness of Griever Maori.

Tame Iti and co. want you to think they’re just a bunch of bumbling buffoons. And most of them probably are.

But don’t kid yourself.

Tame Itis’s training camps in the Ureweras were real. I’ve read the Police affidavit. It’s frightening.

(But not as frightening as the consequences for me of showing it to you before the appeal is over — sorry. :-))

The affidavit shows that these are violent people, who were — and no doubt still are — planning violence against the New Zealand state.

Thanks to the Police, that threat has been averted.

For now.

And do you think Key and Finlayson’s $170 million-plus appeasement of Tuhoe will stop them?

I think they’ll be rubbing their hands with glee at the stupidity of the Pakeha, and going for more.

Let’s shut this Treaty Grievance Industry down, before it shuts New Zealand down.


Please give what you can
to the Treatygate/Colourblind State campaign.

Either click here for Paypal

or pay direct into account number


Reference: Colourblind State
Particulars: Your Name

Colourblind State

How does the name Colourblind State grab you?

I’ve heard various points of view on this, and I’d like to hear yours.

If you support this concept, would you tell me:

  • Is Colourblind State a good name to describe a New Zealand with equal rights and representation for all citizens, and all government policies based on needs, not race?
  • Is Colourblind State the name we should use to inspire people about the concept, and when asking them to sign the referendum petition?
  • Or isn’t it?
  • If not, why not?
  • Can you think of a better name?

Give me your views, either in the comments section, or in an email to john@johnansell.co.nz.

I need to finalise my referendum petition question, so I’d appreciate your feedback ASAP.

Catherine Delahunty, Colin Rawle, Treatygate

Delahunty derides again

If you were astonished by Catherine Delahunty MP’s haughty dismissal of Dr John Robinson’s evidence, have a read of this exchange with essayist Colin Rawle.


From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 29  July 2012  1:33 pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z. history

Dear Catherine Delahunty, I am aware of your correspondence with Ross Baker.

Please find below one small example of real N.Z history by a man who actually experienced important parts of it.

Almost from the start New Zealanders have been shockingly misled.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Rawle.

[Rawle then presents Ms Delahunty with an exhaustive and dispassionate report on the native situation by Major Heaphy, who was there. But that’s not good enough for the Green MP, who only accepts the word of the Waitangi Tribunal, which wasn’t.]


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: 30 July 2012  7:30 pm
To: Colin Rawle
Subject: True N.Z history

Sorry Colin, what is the point here?

Major Heaphy describes perfectly the view of western thinkers of the time and describes the world from that narrow view point.

Please also read the transcripts of the Waitangi Tribunal from the iwi he mentions as they are available on line.

There are many histories that need to be told which do not reach the media and the value of the Waitangi hearings have been the opportunity to tell some stories that most Pakeha never hear, and some do not want to, but they are of vital importance



[Emphasis mine — JA]


Author Bruce Moon points out Delahunty’s majestically blinkered analysis:

She condemns at a stroke all white men’s accounts of historical events they witnessed.

Marvellous – none of it counts for anything in her view (and, one suspects that of many/most of her co-conspirators.) 

Then she can ‘prove’ anything else that takes her fancy — intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.

It is a blatant piece of racism.

Yet the Waitangi tribunal accepts anything the grievers want to say about the past.

Notice the difference.

I ask: why should anybody else’s (Maori?) accounts be taken as any more reliable?


The exercise in futility continues…

From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 24 August 2012  12:07 pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z. history

Dear Catherine,

You ask me what is the point in sending you Major Heaphy’s Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection.

The point is that Major Heaphy lived contemporaneuosly with the events concerned and was directly involved in them.

He was not so much expressing his personal views, as providing relevent data.

If certain views are to be dismissed simply because they are those of “western thinkers”, then this is racial discrimination ~ pure and simple.

Do you so easily dismiss all western thinking and philosophy ? ~ derived as it is from giants such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Emerson, Montesque, Burke, Eramus, Pascal, Goethe, Schiller, Hegal etc, etc, etc?

You mention the Waitangi Tribunal.

This was the “tribunal” which first described the Taranaki war (caused by rebel tribes who broke the Treaty of Waitangi) as a “holocaust”.

Even Parihaka (wherein not one person was killed) was lumped together with this outright lie.

Here is a quotation from Brian Priestly, a one time member of the Waitangi Tribunal:

“Years ago I attended several sessions (of the Waitangi tribunal) while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.

There was no cross examination.

Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question. I should have been.

I resigned because I am basically a puzzler after the truth and not a one eyed supporter of causes.”

Like Major Heaphy, Mr Priestly was/is also a man of integrity.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Rawle


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: 24 August 2012  5:46 pm
To: Colin Rawle
Subject: True N.Z history

Thanks Colin but we have fundamentally different views of history. It is not insurrection to defend your homeland.

I am of course not anti-western thinking as that is my proud culture, but I cannot agree with Major Heaphy or yourself and I think Brian Priestly must have expected the Tribunal to be a court of law.

Its is not, it’s a process of historical redress.




From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 28 August 2012  11:22pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z history

Dear Catherine,

I’m sorry but your reply amazes and horrifies me. You are an adult and a politician, not an adolescent know-all.

Of course it’s not insurrection to defend ones homeland.

However, the tribes to which Heaphy referred were not defending, they were attacking ~ and therewith breaking the treaty of Waitangi.

You have great responsibilities to the people of this country. Responsibilities which ought to be founded upon verfiable historical realties, not personal ideologies.

Just as I have done, you can prove to your own complete satisfaction that the fashionable, politically “correct”, anti-European version of this country’s history is a complete idelogical fabrication.

Will you do it ?

For the sake of the future well-being of New Zealand, I urge you to shoulder your proper political tasks and get to the truth these matters.

It is your responsibilty to objectively and honestly aquaint yourself with the truth of all matters associated with Maori history, the colonisation of this country and the treaty of Waitangi.

(The “version” of the treaty of Waitangi currently being used/exploited is not the correct one and has serious far-reaching omissions.)

One who really wants the truth however, cannot begin their search with the  slightest trace of any agenda. One must let the truth speak for itself.

This requires rigid self-discipline and the willingness to abandon, if necessary , all of ones cherished pet theories.

Are you capable of this ?

If not you should find another line of work as soon as possible.

Just to confound the picture you will certainly have of me,  I’ll finish by saying that I have been a life-long environmentalist, I was a member of the Values Party, and I have always been deeply concerned about social justice issues.

Similarly, I have always been sincerely opposed to racial prejudice ~ and all other types of divisive prejudice.

Colin Rawle


It’s been 19 days, and Delahunty, a previously prompt responder, has yet to reply.

Catherine Delahunty, John Robinson, Treatygate

The one-eyed worldview of Catherine Delahunty, MP

For a fascinating insight into the thinking of a Pakeha Appeaser of Griever Maori, I commend to you this email exchange between Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty and author Dr John Robinson.

I urge you to read it all, particularly Delahunty’s second email, and Robinson’s reply.

As you read, and perhaps weep, remind yourself that Catherine Delahunty is a member of our Parliament, to whom we are paying over $140,000 a year.


From: John Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:00 p.m.
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Hi Catherine,

I was forwarded your comments on the Treaty, which I believe are mistaken.

The promise was kept and it was some Maori tribes who broke the compact by revolt against the government and many peaceful tribes.

I hope that you will read this historical account.

With best wishes,


[Dr Robinson pointed Ms Delahunty to his new book, When Two Cultures Meet — The New Zealand Experience, and the back cover blurb, which includes:

“The account, based on a wealth of information from many scholars and participants, shows how Maori played an active part in the colonisation by Britain, and benefited from the end of bloody war and social destruction, with the end of slavery, tribal attacks and cannibalism, together with improvements in lifestyle, health, food and tools.

This direct attack on revisionist historical accounts exposes the immense damage done to New Zealand society by the recent move away from the promise of 1840 – “now we are one people”.”]


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:49 p.m.
To: ‘John Robinson’
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Sorry John, I could quote you many historians who totally disagree.

Colonisation is a divide and rule strategy and there is interesting literature on how the English Crown recorded strategies that worked on the Irish and then consciously applied them in this country.

If you are interested in historical accounts from a tangata whenua perspective I hope you are reading the Waitangi Tribunal summaries, they have brief but clear accounts of how land was alienated and people disenfranchised in a myriad of ways.

They are a source of inconvenient truths from the people who lost everything except their will to survive and to uphold a Treaty which shared this country.

But I suspect we will not agree and I respect your right to this view even though cannot agree.

The colonisation process did not bring health and well-being to these people and a quick study of statistics shows this to be true.

They are at the bottom of our heap and it’s too convenient to claim we are the civilised people, we are at least as war like and in many ways barbaric.

I love the quote from Gandhi when asked what he thought of western civilisation he said it would be a nice idea.

There are many views in this world but when we speak for others and define their culture and how much our culture has supposedly done for them , I get quite concerned.

Best wishes



From: John Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:13 p.m.
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

God almighty!  How on earth can you be so definite about what I say when you have not read the book?

I certainly disagree with many revisionist historians, and I comment directly on such issues.

The point is not to be made in a one-liner and there is much therein, with careful references.

Why not read and see whether there is any sense there?  Then debate, knowing what has been presented.


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:39 p.m.
To: ‘John Robinson’
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Hi John,

I am not rejecting the idea of reading your book but when you talk about “tribes revolting against the Government” it is clear message that your world view of colonisation and indigenous rights is one I was brought up with and taught me little about the perspective of indigenous people.

I read when I can and I prioritise learning from indigenous historians and then Pakeha views which I was brought up with.

[The bolding is mine. While I like to correct people’s obvious errors, I can’t do much to tidy up the first para, because I can’t understand it — JA.]




From: John Robinson
Sent: Friday 14 September 2012 7:55 a.m..
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: an indigenous account

Dear Ms Delahunty,

I recall that you sent me an offensive and racist email saying that you read and consider the writings of ‘indigenous’ historians first, that being your criterion for the truth.

I wonder then if you have read and thought about Life and times of Te Rauparaha, written by his son, Tamihana Te Rauparaha?

It described features of Maori culture. Like:

“The Ngati Tama cut up the bodies of the slain and carried them to their pa to be cooked, as was the Maori custom.” (page 19).

“About 500 were killed in the battle, four pas were captured and a thousand women and children were slain.” (pages 30, 32)

“Three pas were captured and 200 men and 800 women and children were killed, while others were brought to Kapiti for slaves.” (page 33)

Yours sincerely,

Dr Robinson


Tamihana Te Rauparaha, to whom John Robinson refers above, was, by all accounts, a fine man — the polar opposite of his monstrous father.

He proposed the motion to endorse the Governor and the benefits of British colonisation at the Kohimarama Conference of chiefs in 1860.

He also travelled round the South Island apologising for the depraved deeds of his dad.


COMING SOON: An email exchange between Delahunty and essayist Colin Rawle, which shows the Green MP to be even more one-eyed.

Colourblind State, Referendum

Would you unwind the tentacles or shoot the squid?

Why a Colourblind State referendum will succeed where others haven’t

Think of the Treaty Grievance industry as a Colossal Squid trying to overturn our ship of state.

How do you stop it?

Do you wrestle with it one tentacle at a time?

Or do you kill the whole squid?

We’ve already had a petition for a single-issue referendum on claiming back the beaches.

It didn’t get the numbers.

I hear there’s going to be another petition to try and prevent a Treatyfied constitution.

I can’t see that working either.

That’s because these single issues are boring old tentacles. Lop one off, and the squid can still throttle you with plenty more.

No. We need to rouse the passionless people with a bigger, bolder, bunker-buster of a referendum.

Its question has to be an explosive-tipped, high-powered harpoon, guaranteed to blow the whole squid out of the water once and for all.

Instant calamari.

One vote, fix all.

And that’s what a referendum on a Colourblind State will do. It’ll derail the whole gravy train. Send Wai-tangi to Tangi-wai.

No more corrupt Waitangi Tribunal telling us Maori own the sun, the moon and the stars.

No more Maori seat MPs telling us Parihaka (death toll: zero) was a holocaust, while ignoring the atrocities committed against innocent settlers and Moriori.

No more Maori seats, full stop.

No more Hone Harawira behaving like a boorish teenage thug.

No more appeaser prime ministers surrender our sovereignty for votes.

No more bloated Te Puni Kokiri bureaucrats rorting the taxpayer.

No more Apartheid Aotearoa.

Just one country. One law. One class of citizenship. Equal right, in other words.

Here’s the question I believe will deliver a Colourblind State:

Should New Zealanders have equal rights, with all state funding based on need, not race?

What do you think?

I’ve been thinking about it for months, but I’m happy if you can improve upon it.

I was going to include the words Colourblind State, but a few people seem to think it means “blind to people of colour”.

(They forget that white is a colour too.)

What do you think about Colourblind State? Does it inspire you or confuse you?

This may not be an easy victory. (But then again it just might!)

There are three hurdles to clear:

  1. Persuade over 300,000 New Zealanders to sign the referendum petition.
  2. Persuade over 50% of those who vote in the referendum to vote Yes.
  3. Persuade the government to obey the will of the people and abolish all race-based policies and programmes.

But there are six reasons why it will work:

  1. A Colourblind State is a Big Idea that 80% of the public probably already support.
  2. It will be very hard for honest Kiwis to argue against funding based on need, not race.
  3. We’ll be running Treatygate ads showing people how their history has been twisted.
  4. Our Colourblind State ads will explain the plan to sneak in a Treatyfied constitution by stealth, and why people must stand up for their country if they don’t want to lose it.
  5. We’ll time the referendum for election year. So the media will be asking Key and Shearer whether they intend to obey the will of the people. With the public wise to the Treatygate con, they’ll be in no mood to indulge any leader who doesn’t respond with a very quick Yes.
  6. Both the Conservatives and NZ First will support the Yes position, putting more pressure on National and Labour.

To collect the 300,000-odd signatures needed to force the referendum, we’ll need to build a network of patriotic collectors. In some areas, they’ll need real courage.

If 100 people will commit to collecting 10 signatures a day for a year, we’ll get there.

Or 200 to 5 a day.


How about you? Will you help?

If not you, then who? 🙂

Please email me at john@johnansell.co.nz if you’d like to collect signatures.

If you can’t spare any time, maybe you can spare some money…

A big thank you to all those supporters who’ve already given so much.

Te Karere, Tini Molyneux, Treatygate, TVNZ

Is 'Te Karere' Te Reo for 'Trickery'?

On Tuesday 14 August, I did a pre-recorded interview with Tame Iti’s cousin Tini Molyneux for TV One’s Te Karere.

I was warned not to.

Rule no. 1 when dealing with a Griever Maori broadcaster is “insist on a live interview”.

(That’s because the Grievers regard balance as a dumb Pakeha concept for which they have total contempt.)

Next best plan is to ask for a copy of the whole interview.

So I did. Pronto.

I sent the above email on the same day as the interview — so they couldn’t try to say they’d ‘lost’ the footage.

The interview itself was a full-on scrap. I really enjoyed it.

Tini is a Tuhoe with a tomahawk to grind, and I wasn’t going to put up with any history-twisting. I wouldn’t be surprised if I was the stroppiest interviewee she’d ever had.

I figured Tini would fight tooth and nail not to let people see the whole interview.

And that seems to be what she’s done.

From the original interview of maybe fifteen to thirty minutes, she ended up slicing me into slivers totalling forty seconds.

Then followed a six to eight minute character assassination.

They even roped in Chris ‘Tangata’ Whinlayson to bag me as ‘nuts’, and Te Ururoa (AKA Jamie, AKA Hemi) Flavell to slur my totally innocent parents.

I’ll soon be doing a major dissection of the piece that ran, to show you just how biased and sleazy these Grievers and Appeasers are.

It was my lawyer’s idea to ask for all the footage under the Official Information Act.

He advised me that the recording was a document held by the state, and that I was entitled to get it.

I knew they’d stall for time.

But I’m pretty sure the law required them to provide the footage within 14 days.

TVNZ’s general counsel Brent McAnulty sent the following email after 29 days.

And guess what?

He’s saying they’ve lost the footage!:

Can you believe that? I can’t.

Not when my email asking for the footage arrived on the same day as I arrived for the filming.

So yes, Brent, I certainly will be exercising my “right to seek an investigation and review of the above refusal by making a complaint under Section 28 (3) to an Ombudsman.”

I’ll be hoping the state complaints department is more honest than the state broadcaster.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Foreshore and seabed, Treatygate

Whitebaiter too white for beach bullies

Canterbury’s Ashley River mouth is the latest part of the foreshore and seabed to witness the bully-boy tactics of Griever Maori with an inflated sense of entitlement:

A Canterbury whitebaiter says he was spat on and  verbally abused by a group of Maori for fishing at the Ashley River, north of  Christchurch over the weekend.

The man, who only wants to be identified as Simon, was  confronted on the beach after whitebaiting for three hours at the river mouth.

Simon says he was driving back along the beach when  two elderly Maori blocked the road with their ute.

“This Maori lady came up to me and said, ‘You white  piece of fu**en trash,’ and spat on the ground in front of me,” he says.

“She said, ‘This is our bloody land. Who do you think you are coming down here?’”

Except it wasn’t their ‘bloody land’. It was public land. And Simon no doubt thought he was a member of the public.

Parts of the land at the mouth of the Ashley River is  administered by the Te Kohaka Tuhaitara Trust in partnership with the  Waimakarirei District Council, but they don’t not have ownership.

Imagine what the Grievers will be like if they ever do have ownership.

To his credit, Simon’s Maori brother-in-law Marc was infuriated by the incident:

“I think it’s appalling. They don’t own the land, they don’t have fishing rights and it is just a few Maori idiots making the rest of  us look bad and that pisses me off.

“I’m all for the rights of Maori but I’m also for the  rights of everybody and everybody has the rights to be there. That’s it. Game over.”

Except it’s not over, Marc.

If we don’t stand up to these thuggish overgrown teenagers, I think we’ll find it’s just beginning.

Coastal Coalition, Foreshore and seabed, Treatygate

21 beach claims — and only 5 years to go!

This from the Coastal Coalition some months ago (which I forgot to post):

The Coastal Coalition warned that the law change would open the floodgates for claims by opportunistic tribal corporations wanting to gain ownership and control of our coast.

This map from TV3 News in early May shows that this is now occurring with at least 21 coastal claims now lodged.

Claims include valuable whitebaiting areas with many tribes competing for the same coastal area.

Tribes have another 5 years to lodge claims.

The process allows claims to be settled in secret by the Minister so there may be many other claims in the pipeline that the public is unaware of.

As I say, this is old news.

Does anyone know what the map looks like now?

David Rankin, Eddie Durie, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

How long till they claim the sun?

As I’m sure Eddie Durie or David Rankin will soon remind you, Maori (in the form of Maui) invented daylight saving.

This means their iwi should be entitled to charge for sunlight and heat.

Expect the following hysterical (I mean historical) evidence to be heard and swiftly approved by the Waitangi Tribunal:

How Maui Tamed the Sun

Maui had often heard his brothers talking about how there was not enough sunlight during the day.

Night after night they would sit round the fire and discuss this problem.

No matter how early they got up, still there weren’t enough hours of sunlight for all their village duties and for hunting and fishing.

So Maui thought about what he could do to solve their problem.

Then he announced to his brothers that he had found a solution: ‘I think I can tame the Sun.’

‘Maui, don’t be so ridiculous!’ they replied. ‘No one can tame the Sun.

‘For a start, if you got anywhere near him you would be burnt to a cinder.

‘There  is no way of taming the Sun. He’s far too big and powerful.’

But Maui said, with great authority this time, ‘Look, I can tame the Sun.

‘Get all the women of the tribe to go and cut as much flax as possible — I want a really huge pile — then I will show you how to make a net that will be strong enough to capture the Sun.

‘I will make sure that he won’t go so quickly across the sky in future.’

The brothers obeyed him and when they had collected mounds of flax Maui showed them how to plait it into strong ropes.

He made long ropes and short ropes, and tied some of them together to make a net gigantic enough to catch and hold the Sun.

After many hours of plaiting they finally had enough rope and nets to please Maui.

Then he set off, equipped with his special axe, with his brothers and some men from the tribe and it took several days to reach the Sun’s resting place in the East.

After a short stop they started their preparations.

They found the cave from which the Sun would be rising next morning and they quickly set to work covering the entrance with the net of plaited ropes.

When they were sure they had done a really good job they camouflaged the ropes with leaves and branches.

They also made themselves clay walls as a protection against the Sun’s fierce heat, and smeared the clay all over their bodies.

Then they hid. 

Maui crouched down on one side of the cave and the rest of the men were on the other side.

It wasn’t long before they saw the first glimmer of light from the cave.

Then they felt the scorching heat.

The men were shaking with fear as the light grew more and more blinding and the heat more and more stifling.

They were sure that Maui’s plan would not work.

Suddenly they heard a sharp shout from Maui, ‘Pull! Pull the ropes as hard as you can.’

The net fell like a huge noose over the Sun.

Although the men were terrified that the Sun would kill them all, they pulled and strained as hard as they possibly could so that the Sun could not escape.

The Sun, who was raging at being held captive, struggled and roared.

Maui knew he had to do something more than just hold the Sun in the net so he yelled to one of his brothers to take his end of the rope.

He rushed out from the protection of his wall and, with his special axe raised high above his head, he ran towards the Sun.

Even though the heat was singing his body and his hair, he started to attack the Sun with his axe.

The Sun roared even louder. ‘What are you doing? Are you trying to kill me?’ he screamed.

‘No. I am not trying to kill you,’ answered Maui, ‘but you don’t understand.

‘You go too fast across the sky, and we are all unable to do our daily work.

‘We need more hours of light in our days for hunting and fishing, for building and repairing our village houses.’

‘Well,’ said the Sun, ‘you have given me such a battering that I don’t think I could speed across the sky now, even if I wanted to.’

‘If we release you,’ said Maui, ‘will you promise to slow your journey down?’

‘You have so weakened me that now I can only go slowly,’ answered the Sun.

Maui made him solemnly promise to do what he had asked and then he released the ropes.

Maui’s brothers and the men of the tribe watched as the Sun, slowly and stiffly, began to lift into the sky.

They all smiled at Maui — they were proud of him.

To this day, the Sun travels on his long lonely path across the sky at a very slow pace, giving us many more hours of sunlight than he used to do.

Of course, it remains to be determined exactly what quantum of extra light and heat Maui and his brothers were able to extract from the sun by slowing its passage across the sky.

But no doubt the ancestors of Messrs Durie and Rankin — those who were contemporaries of Maui — will have furnished the two expropriators (I mean experts) with the most compelling oral evidence.

‘Justice’ Durie will, I’m sure, argue that the sun’s rays were more highly prized by Maori than by the British because Maori clothes and houses were not as able to keep out the cold.

Mr Rankin, from the winterless north, will likely point to the sun god Ra’s obvious distaste for white people, since he keeps burning them.

With this sort of authoritative advocacy, Pakeha rights to the Great Golden Taonga should be gone by sundown.

Jim Hopkins, NZ Herald, Treatygate

Straight-faced wind claimants make satirist redundant

The irrepressible, irreplaceable,  irresponsible, indefensible, indefatigably plausible Jim Hopkins is no more.

At least, not in the Herald.

His column’s decommissioning is the biggest blow to the Kiwi funny bone since Bob Jones pulled the plug on his Tuesday column in the Evening Post.

Or at least since Paul Henry was marched by state TV for a racial slur against the GG that rated about 3.6 on the Harawira scale.

But I suppose I can see the Herald editor’s point. All the comedy we’ll ever need is now being supplied on a daily basis by the jokesters of corporate Maoridom.

With iwi extortionists having mastered the art of keeping a straight face while demanding our flora, fauna, water and wind, all satire is superfluous.

Even Billy T in his prime couldn’t match today’s amateur kaumatua comedians for bare-faced cheek.

Was Jim sacked for writing this column perhaps? Or did he write it as a parting shot?

Either way, it was music to my ears:

Very soon, the baby boomers will lose their grip on our institutions and attitudes as they doddle into their dotage.

Eventually— probably sooner rather than later— all the bollocks we’ve foisted on the world will be put aside and dismissed as a nullity.

You won’t have to listen to twits asserting that some people, genetically advantaged people— however polyglot that advantage may be— actually own the wind.

Or have privileged and preemptive access to its benefits.

Under today’s rules, in today’s ideology, such expansive, expensive, fanciful racial capitalism is not only permitted but encouraged.

Jeers aren’t allowed.

Unless you’re willing to be labelled a redneck or a racist.

Don’t dis the dogma, dude. It doesn’t pay. Them as makes the rules aren’t listening.

Here’s the proof.

Ten days ago, 80 parliamentarians— each possessed of a privileged and superior conscience— solemnly declared themselves in favour of equality.

Equal rights are essential, they said— in the matter of marriage.

We will brook no discrimination, they said— in the matter of marriage.

A week later, we’re banging on about access to water being a matter of racial preferment.

A week later, the well-paid Chair of a gratuitous and unnecessary Statutory Board— created by the same parliament that’s just declared its solemn commitment to marital equality— announces a $300,000,000 wish list of services and facilities allocated on a racial basis.

A week later David Rankin insists his tribe has a Treaty right to inherit the wind.

Illogical, illiberal, corrosive, preferential, guaranteed to inspire delusional aspirations, this is a social sore, as divisive and discriminatory as those laws that once allotted seats on buses and places in school.

Yet no parliamentary champion of equality— not one— has stood up and said so, at least not credibly, not yet.

Alas, Jim then soils his nest by suggesting that the Maori Party might perhaps be that champion.

Which suggests to me that Jim may be, to use his own delightfully alliterative allusion, doddling into his dotage.

A sad end to a stellar satirical sojourn.

Hopkins Half Minute

Those who’ve had the pleasure of being one of Amy Brooke’s Summersounds Symposiasts (more recently held not in Summer, and not in the Sounds), will have fond memories of Jim as the maniacally witty, 100% PC-free MC.

One of the highlights of my advertising career was collaborating with Jim in a series of radio ads promoting Shell’s coverage of cricket on Radio NZ Sport. Continue reading

elocal, Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Eddie Durie, Treatygate

TREATYGATE Part 2 — Maori Need Honest Ngatas, Not One-Eyed Duries

Fearless owner/editor of elocal, Mykeljon Winckel, has published a second Treatygate article from me, plus two pages of reader feedback from the first story.

Read the words of the story below, or double-click the pics, or check out elocal online.


Grievers Need Achievers As Leaders

Maori Need Honest Ngatas,
Not One-Eyed Duries

by John Ansell

The Treatygate snowball that your brave magazine elocal set in motion last month is already rattling the Griever and Appeaser elites as it builds into an unstoppable avalanche.

A week or so ago I was in the Maori Affairs Select Committee room at Parliament being interviewed by Maori TV.

Gazing down augustly from on high were four huge, hand-tinted portraits of Achiever Maori leaders Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pomare, Sir James Carroll, and Sir Peter Buck.

In 1922, Sir Apirana had been honest enough to say this about land confiscations:

“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong, and that they contravened the Articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and the authority to make laws.

Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this, and blood was spilled.

The law came into operation, and land was taken in payment.

(This itself is a Maori custom – revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong.)

It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen.

The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.” [1]

Sir Apirana could have added that not only did the rebels breach the Treaty, but they did so knowing what they stood to lose.

Governor Grey to the chiefs of the Waikato:

“Those who wage war against Her Majesty  or remain in arms must take the consequences of their acts and must understand they will forfeit the right to possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Waitangi.

These lands will be occupied by a population capable of protecting for the future the quiet and unoffending from the violence with which they have been threatened.” [2]

Same story on the East Coast:

“At Turanganui Mr McLean sent messages by Hauhau chiefs to the rebel sections of Rongowhakaata and Aitanga-a-Mahaki, warning them that unless they came in and made submission to the government they would be attacked and deprived of their lands and homes.

This offer met with no response.” [3]

Faced with insurrection, the government then did exactly what it said it would do.

And for doing it, you and I have just paid over $22 million for wronging Rongowhakaata.

What exactly had Te Kooti’s
Pai Marire 
(meaning ‘good and
peaceful’) Hauhaus done 
that was
so wrong? Just hacked, skewered,
shot and burnt 70 innocent
men, women and children, 
spectacularly the Lavin children,
who they threw
in the air and
impaled on bayonets.

We, in the simpering form of Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson, have also issued a grovelling apology for sullying the good name of the tribe’s poster boy, Te Kooti.

What exactly had Te Kooti’s Pai Marire (meaning ‘good and peaceful’) Hauhaus done that was so wrong?

Just hacked, skewered, clubbed, shot and burnt 70 innocent men, women and children, from babies to the elderly – most spectacularly the Lavin children, who they threw in the air and impaled on bayonets. [4]

Sorry about that, chief.

Sadly, the achiever values of the Ngatas, Pomares, Carrolls and Bucks have given way to the griever values of the Harawiras, Turias, Mutus and Itis.

Supposedly one of the more honest of this motley gang of professional mourners is longtime Waitangi Tribunal chair, Justice Sir Eddie Durie.

In 1999, Durie was remarkably candid about dodgy iwi claimants:

Some Treaty of Waitangi claimants have asked researchers to change findings that would be unhelpful to their cases, says the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Justice Durie said also that some tribes had even tried to make the payments of researchers conditional on findings being altered.” [5]

But it’s not just the tribes who’ve tried to doctor the evidence.

The Tribunal’s claim negotiator, the Crown Forest Rental Trust, has done the same.

And at least once, it didn’t just try, it succeeded.

The researcher who succumbed, then spilt the beans, was MIT Ph.D Dr John Robinson.

As a socialist, Dr Robinson may have been seen as a safe choice to ‘prove’ the Tribunal’s agenda that Maori nineteenth century population loss was caused by land loss.

Unfortunately, Dr Robinson preferred to study the evidence, and found the precise opposite.

His analysis showed that the overwhelming reason for Maori numbers dwindling in the second half of the century was the slaughter of tens of thousands of breeding-age males in the intertribal genocides of the first.

That plus the customary Maori practice of female infanticide. [6]

Dr Robinson regrets that he agreed to conceal his findings in order to be paid. But once safely retired he made good, telling all in The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview.

Another insider to voice dismay at this uniquely Kiwi kangaroo court was that arbiter of journalistic ethics Brian Priestly, who in 1998 said:

Years ago I attended several sessions [of the Waitangi Tribunal] while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.There was no cross examination. Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question. I should have been.I resigned because I am basically a puzzler after the truth and not a one-eyed supporter of causes.” [7]

And so to today, and Sir Eddie Durie’s latest confession, when tackled about his conflict of interest in claiming water rights for his tribe from the Tribunal he used to chair:

 I believe we as Maori do not have the same luxury to observe the same ethics.” [8]

Since when was ethics a luxury – especially for a judge?

When reminded on TVNZ’s Q&A
programme that by law nobody owns
water, Durie shot back “That’s Pakeha
law. That’s a different law.”

Sir Eddie’s claim that water was more crucial to the Maori than to the British is insulting.

(How quickly the Griever focus has switched from the traditional obsession with land.) [9]

How does he think those landlubbers and their farm animals hydrated their squishy bodies?

With what substance did farmers irrigate their pastures?

What was that big wet wobbly thing that British warships and traders bobbed about on?

When reminded on TVNZ’s Q&A programme that by law nobody owns water, Durie shot back, “That’s Pakeha law. That’s a different law.” [10]

Yet he would know better than anyone that the Treaty says nothing about Pakeha law or “the Maori legal scheme” that he claimed existed, and everything about all New Zealanders having equal rights under one law.

With this outburst, Sir Eddie has become a one-man advertisement for a Colourblind State.

He and today’s other Griever Maori leaders dishonour the memory of Ngata, Pomare, Carroll and Buck.


[1] The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, Sir A. Ngata, Maori Purposes Fund Board, 1922.

[2] Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection, Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1863 Session I, E-05.

[3] The New Zealand Wars, Vol. II, J. Cowan, p.125.

[4] Cowan, p.333.

[5] NZ Herald, November 17, 1999, p. A14.

[6] The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview, J. Robinson, Tross Publishing, 2011, pp.11-20.

[7] Ngai Tahu claim: too little critical analysis, Evening Post, April 3, 1998.

[8] Dominion Post, August 11, 2012, p.C3.

[9] TVNZ Q&A, August 19, 2012, transcript of Sir Eddie Durie – Haami Piripi interview.

[10] Q&A as above.


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 ad 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.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Last month’s Treatygate story in elocal launched John Ansell’s Colourblind State campaign to end racial favouritism. View Part 1 online at www.elocal.co.nz and comment on Part 2 on our blog.

Thanks for all the comments so far and for your donations.

Donors large and small have already chipped in nearly $100,000 towards John’s advertising fighting fund of $2 million.

To keep the total snowballing, email john@johnansell.co.nz and follow more of John’s articles at www.johnansell.wordpress.com.


Thanks to Mykeljon for the coverage, Brenda and Rachel for your design skills, to Mike, Ross, Martin, John, John, Jean, Colin, Bruce, David, Trina, Don, Hugh, Caroline, Garth, and Graham for sharing your knowledge, to Iris, Stephen, Jordan, Simon, ‘Simon’, Helen, Mary, Tom, Robbie, Wendy, Basil, Karen, Lyn, Phil and Ian for your support and suggestions, and to all of you concerned citizens who’ve dipped into your own pockets to get this campaign going.

We’ve still got a long way to go, but we’ve made a promising start.

Please spread the word to click this button!

Rongowhakaata, Ropata Wahawaha, Te Kooti, Treatygate

Loyalist Ropata on Te Kooti

Major Ropata Wahawaha, NZC.

John Key and Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson have just awarded $22 million of your money to the East Coast tribe Rongowhakaata for wrongs supposedly done to the Hauhau mass-murderer Te Kooti (above).

The Treatygaters don’t tell you, but most Maori tribes remained loyal to the Queen in the rebel wars of the 1860s.

One of the greatest loyal fighters was Ngati Porou’s Ropata Wahawaha (top).

Here’s what he had to say in the Poverty Bay Herald of April 30, 1884, at the prospect of the newly-pardoned Te Kooti revisiting the coast where he had butchered so many innocent settlers and Maori sixteen years before.

It was said that Te Kooti had been wrongly imprisoned on the Chathams because he had been wrongly accused of treachery when fighting for the Crown.

If he was not an enemy before his imprisonment, he certainly was afterwards.

If Arthur Allan Thomas or David Bain had ‘done an Anders Brievik’ on his accusers, as Te Kooti had done again and again on his, what would we make of their claim of friendship?

Thanks to Trina for her newspaper detective work.

COMING SOON: Key and Finlayson’s latest appeasement offering: $75 million to Ngati Toa, for upsetting New Zealand’s most depraved cannibal, Te Rauparaha.