David Rankin, elocal, National Archives, Waipoua Forest Stone City

Kupe’s descendant confirms other races were here first

 David Rankin - Maori not indigenous

David Rankin - Every Maori community talks about fair-skinned people

David Rankin - Maori didn't navigate here - Te Tai Tokerau tidal drift from Tokelau

Elocal editor Mykeljon Winkel has come up trumps again with a story about Ngapuhi’s achiever chief David Rankin.


“You recently voiced support for historians who claim that New Zealand was settled much earlier than commonly accepted. Are you merely supporting free speech and political incorrectness, or do you genuinely believe that there were other civilizations here in NZ before the arrival of Kupe circa 1250AD?”


“Let me just start off and say this, Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived. I am his direct descendant and I know from our oral history passed down 44 generations.

I believe this needs to be investigated further because every Maori community talks about Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe. This goes hand-in-hand with the other research.

As Maori, we have come to a time of maturity where we need to debate these issues. I want to get to a genuine consensus about this issue, although I think academics want it to disappear. If we start talking about it and investigating it, it’s an exciting opportunity to explore.

My ancestors like Kupe came to the Hokianga in search of other people. In the Waima ranges, there was a pipi shelter on the mountains, and the kuia used to talk about the fair skinned people up there.

A lot of people identify as Paniora (translated as Spaniard), indicating that the Portuguese and Spanish washed up on ancient ships in Northland.

In 2002, I went to the Austronesian Leaders Conference in Taiwan and we discussed similarities with Taiwanese Aborigines. We traced our origins and the Maori and Polynesian connection to China.

All the leaders such as myself and Matiu Rei, Aborigines, Solomon islanders, Rapa Nui and Hawaiians were all interested in early settlement theories. There is a lot of writing about the whole ancestral link.

Really, Maori didn’t navigate here, we came on a tidal drift. Te Tai Tokerau is actually the tidal drift from the Tokelau islands. When my ancestors arrived at the shores of Aotearoa, there were people here to greet them. The question is: who are those people?

It goes hand-in- hand with our oral history. There are questions written by Ian Wishart, Noel Hilliam and others that need to be answered.”

Elocal has championed the quest for more openness on pre-Maori settlement in New Zealand. The case is well-summarised in a recent story by Raynor Capper on the Waipoua Forest stone city subtitled Undeniable Proof of NZ Civilisation Before Kupe.

Most interesting to me is National Archives’ 75-year embargo of evidence found in a three-year state investigation of 500 acres of the 25,000 acre historical treasure trove in the 1980s.

Waipoua embargo - National Archives

Is the idea of a pre-Maori stone city in the Waipoua Forest the ludicrous fantasy of nutters, as  our haughty Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson claims?

If so, why must we wait until 2063 to see what state investigators found there in the 1980s? 


“What do you think the ramifications would be if Maori appeared not to be the indigenous people of New Zealand?”


“That would put all our treaty claims in question and our indigenous rights at the UN. It would open up a whole can of worms. I do believe if we start approaching it the right way other Maori would be keen to discuss it.

I think there has been a rot been allowed to set in to Maoridom since the Lange government took power in the early 1980s.

In many ways, all the changes that have taken place have taken the basic responsibility away, their mana, from being true Maori, like working for a living, educating themselves and their families, leading strong lives and observing the laws of the land.

If you are able to work then work! Help your fellow Maori and Pakehas be successful in life. Being Maori — and, let’s face it, you only need to be 32% by government standards — does not mean you need to take the easy way out and have your hand out.

I have never taken anything from the government, I am self made, strong and I say stop the funding. Maori need to return to the warriors they once were.

It may be hard at first but intergenerational beneficiaries are embarrassing to my culture.”

David Rankin - Changes have taken away basic responsibility

David Rankin - If you can work, then work

David Rankin - I've never taken anything from government


178 thoughts on “Kupe’s descendant confirms other races were here first

  1. Excellent, John. Thank you for getting all this out there where hopefully many people will access it. Elocal needs to be highly congratulated for exposing the truth. Let’s hope many people actually read this new post.

    The cover-ups that have occurred are inexcusable and criminal really, and I would like to see everything that is subject to a cover-up, exposed to everyone so there is no dispute any more. Big articles in all the newspapers and magazines would be ideal.

  2. Indigenous does NOT mean first arrival.
    Kiwi are indigenous
    Humans are indigenous to Africa
    Once again Maori twist the meaning of words to suit their own ends

  3. Great work, I think this concept has the potential, and should be developed as a foundation of your argument John. To derail the international support that appeaser Maori currently have based on their supposed indigenous rights is a logical first step to toppling the Treaty industry, and allowing Maori to stand on their own two feet. A win for all as Maori can once again feel proud and reinstate “Mana” simultaneously lifting the Treaty industry ball and chain from the New Zealand’s Fiscal limb…

    1. that’s what this is about isn’t it? Derail the truth, white propaganda leading to another form of racism

      1. These clowns aren’t interested in the truth it’s to hard to bare……just pull out the race card ‘ that’ shuts anything down and with this government and its “political correct bullshit” the truth is always the first casualty…….

  4. John, I am very supportive of your campaign in favour of a one New Zealand/one people and against special treatment for Maori, but these fanciful claims of an ancient civilisation in the Waipoua Forest don’t add any credence to your campaign and should be irrelevant to your argument. Surely, it doesn’t matter if Maori were the first here or not – no one in this country should have any greater rights than the newly naturalised citizen who arrived off the plane five years ago.

    1. Please forgive me for putting in my tuppence worth here, Kiwiwit, but I think the ancient stuff is relevant because current part-Maori are basing so much of everything they are holding their hands out for because of their claims to be indigenous, even though I believe all of us are actually indigenous because we were born here, if it comes down to tin tacks.

      If we can prove they are not indigenous then all their claims fall flat. As David Rankin said,“That would put all our treaty claims in question and our indigenous rights at the UN. It would open up a whole can of worms.”

      Too much is staked on their so-called indigenous rights as well as the reinvented Treaty too of course.

      1. you know Helen, not one claim has been done with the criteria of being indigenous. The land claims are based on the balance sheet, a snap shot of one point in time when the Treaty was signed. To make claim to land one must prove they have inhabited the area in question and their descendants still remain there to this day. I’m not holding my hands out for a handup but I would like to see my great grandparents hurt eased from being thrown out of their homes their lands confiscated their families destroyed. I’m tired of people saying there were people here before Maori like it’s some sort of propoganda schemed up by Maori, . Maori had no input in what the education curriculum contained or what Govts decreed. So if you didn’t learn it, it wasn’t because Maori said you couldn’t.

        One other thing, Mr Rankin is supposing the Paniora or Spanish came here in ancient ships. The story, much less romantic than a Spanish fleet, is that a Portuguese and a Spanish man both whalers probably from a grubby old whaling boat decided to settle here, not from old ancient times but just over a hundred yrs ago, yesterday in the great scheme of things. This info wasn’t deliberately hidden from the public, we just didn’t know anyone else outside of our own family would be in the least bit interested.

        So it’s probably time to take another snapshot and work out where to from here.

        I’d be happy for all funding to stop when ALL things are EQUAL. I’d gladly give anybody my son’s disability allowance so he can be equal if that’s what it takes.

      2. So you’re a communist, Cheryl. Any study of recent history shows that communism fails wherever it is tried.

        For leaders to seize and redistribute other people’s money to make everyone ‘equal’ (whatever that means) is immoral and flies in the face of human nature.

        As we saw with Soviet Russia and Communist China (before they had the good sense to adopt capitalism), and as we continue to see in Cuba and North Korea now, your Robin Hood economics removes the incentive from the geniuses and hard workers to innovate and carry those less able or lessing willing.

        If the incentives are removed from the geniuses and the hard workers, progress slows and mediocrity becomes the norm.

        Communism just ensures that the leaders will pocket the hard-won gains of the others. And the others will be equally poor.

        I believe that a certain amount of compassionate socialism is justified to help those in genuine need.

        But too much generosity incentivises bad habits and bad behaviour. The dependency mentality and criminal tendencies of so many Maori is a direct result of socialism.

        To that extent, they certainly can blame the white man — not for colonisation, which enriched them beyond measure, but for socialism, which corrupted them.

      3. Does it make a difference if they were indigenous or not? Wasn’t the Treaty signed with Maori?

    2. I agree Kiwiwit but unfortunately you centement (which I share by the way) is one which we have been hammering away at fruitlessly for some time. The counter argument (that appears to have international support) is that Maori are indigenous. If this claim is disproved then the game changes very rapidly, and we end up with the desired result.

    3. I know what you mean, Kiwiwit, and I do understand the risks of being sidetracked by the pre-Maori issue.

      I don’t rely on it, and I’m not ready to say that the welter of evidence for Maori not being the first people here constitutes proof.

      But I am interested in this evidence for two reasons:

      1. All of the Treatygater governments of the last 30 years have tried to cover it up. Why?

      2. A Ngapuhi chief who says he’s the direct descendant of Kupe agrees with it. When a Maori chief aligns himself with with those whom our opponents would have you believe are nutters, that’s news.

      1. David is a self proclaimed chief and could only claim chief of his sub-tribe which is Ngati Tautahi in Kaikohe, the name Rankin never crossed the Hokianga borders. Ngapuhi’s leadership consisted of many Ariki (chief) who were Ariki of sub-tribes. Good luck to you John, it would appear you are in search of a Maori to play your racist game with you to try again to rewrite Ngapuhi history like your ancestors have done.

    4. “One nz” I don’t want to put a downer on your little happily ever after parade but I think we all need to” wake up and smell the roses” it’s never going to be one nz’ and I believe anyone that even entertains that is a fool !

  5. It’s all totally irrelevant – you are just arguing about numbers of angels dancing on a pin head. 1. Maori will never agree no matter what evidence is presented and 2. What does it matter? The whole point is that a person whpo becomes a citizen tomorrow has as many rights as someone who can trace a single ancestor being here for centuries. Surely that what equality is all about. Simply NOT relevant !

    1. Yes Roger we all agree on that point, but it is an idealistic and ultimately fruitless argument… we need to go for the jugular and this seems to be whether Maori are in fact indigenous… disprove this, and their argument (as Helen suggested) falls flat…

  6. The UN criteria for “Indigenous people” is the ethnic people occupying the land prior to colonial power arriving.

    Based on that Maori are “indigenous”to nz

    That is why sharples with don keys blessing rushed off to the UN to secure the UN and accordingly international acceptance that maori were indeed “indigenous to nz.

    I stand to be corrected but I think that is the situation.

    maybe a trip to the UN by David Rankin all expenses paid of course, to show the UN powers that they have been deceitfully misled bypart Maori.

    don key is a happy smilely agreeable chap, and seeing that it is a maori chief going, money will not be a problem just add it to the 1.5 billon he has been giving away each year he has been in office..

    1. In no way do I want to seen to be defending John Key or his government who performance in this area is frankly appalling but you have to consider that the alternative will be much,much worse. I could be worse-much worse! The Greens who will be the tail wagging the Labour/Green government, should it ever happen, will demand some extraordinary extras for Maori that may not be possible to roll back. The left are always keen to express the equality of citizens and deplore inherited wealth but then support special treatment for Maori. They seem incapable of seeing the contradictions in their positions. Rather than attack the government the best thing is to change the whole way of looking at Maori and remove the guilt aspect that the Maori elite are promoting.

      1. I think we should do all these things – including attacking all appeaser governments.

        I don’t see three years of Labour as too much worse than what we’ve got now. On the Treaty issue, Labour was better than National.

        If National should ever break with tradition and honour its own principles by behaving like a right wing party, they might be worth supporting.

        But ever since their foundation they’ve talked right but acted left. Instead of opposing socialism, all they have the courage to do is manage socialism better.

        A party holding the balance of power will only achieve our goal if it is prepared to go with Labour in order to force Key’s hand. It can’t be a bluff that Key can ignore. It must be a genuine threat.

        When threatened with the loss of power, the Nats will do anything – even uphold their founding principles!

      2. Thank you for this informative, fair and balanced comment. It appears our points of view are closer together than I’d realised.

        While it’s fun playing the competitive game, it’s better to form a mutual appreciation.

        There is much for today’s Maori people to be proud of about their Maori and British cultures, very much including the coming together of those two civilisations into the best of both worlds.

        The purpose of this blog is to call for equal citizenship in a political environment where it is considered right and proper to grant one group’s every demand for other people’s money, based on a totally one-eyed review of the historical facts.

        If the country could review the facts in a fair and balanced way, as you have done here, we could move forward together in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

        That is all I want.

    2. I believe that’s the case. The UN know Maori and others aren’t indigenous, so they simply change the meaning of the word to: “The good brown people who got to the country (a bit) before the bad white people”.

      They would say it means “The victims of colonisation”. How doubling your life expectancy and skipping three thousand years of evolution constitutes victimhood, I’m not sure.

      1. Hi John, just want to ask you what you think colonisation brought Maori?

        Thanks and hope you can reply.

      2. Their continued existence (considering they were on track to become extinct by about 1860 if their inter-tribal genocide had continued unrestrained by British law), in the kind of luxury they could not even have dreamed about in 1840.

        I think that’s worth a bit of gratitude, don’t you?

      3. Agreed. But that was Utu, the balancing of all things. And, as highly spiritual people maybe they valued their religion over their life. I am not religious so I can’t really relate. I certainly do like living though!

        As for skipping three thousand years of evolution? Could you please expand?

        Thanks again John.

      4. An endless cycle of revenge doesn’t sound very spiritual to me (though it’s typical of so-called religious societies everywhere, most notably the Middle East).

        By ‘skipping 3000 years of evolution’, I mean you have to go back to about 1000BC to find the Britons in the same state as Maori were in in 1840.

        Suddenly they had access to writing, the wheel, shoes, cloth, steel (nails being a prized gift whenever a missuonary wanted to imoress a chief), to say nothing of sophisticated institutions like the British legal and Parliamentary systems, which they continue to exploit to massively enrich themselves.

      5. Well of course it doesn’t sounds very spiritual. They are not your religions.

        What defines the “same state”? Is it material objects, writing and sophisticated systems of law? Maori had sophisticated systems too, such as tikanga, kaitiakitanga, tapu and not to mention utu. They are actually so sophisticated that intelligent people like you still don’t understand them.

        There were many great and helpful things our Pakeha ancestors brought to Maori. But I don’t think these technologies and systems qualify as three thousand years of evolution. Remember early Pakeha were very impressed by the Maori people, their morale and character, their strength of memory (a result of no written language), the quality and intricate detail in their arts and crafts, their techniques and knowledge of cultivation, their physical capabilities and stature (partly a result of not wearing shoes and having the wheel), and of course prowess on the battlefield (unfortunately a result of inter-tribal warfare) are just some examples. Maybe the Maori weren’t so far behind on the evolutionary scale as you think.

        People have been exploiting the British legal and Parliamentary systems since they began. Maybe they just aren’t sophisticated enough?

        Cheers John.

      6. It’s not my intention to decry everything Maori, simply to try and locate the truth amid the fashionable patronising clamour to exaggerate every Maori achievement.

        In an internet debate last night, a Mana member from Auckland tried to tell me that the ancient Polynesians were one of the most advanced civilisations on earth.

        He also said with a straight face that Te Rauparaha ought to be revered as one of the greatest New Zealanders because he composed the cannibal war dance made famous by the All Blacks.

        Now you are suggesting that utu – the endless cycle of revenge – rather than being barbaric and highly destructive, is sophisticated.

        Would you also argue that when the Croats and Serbs were slaughtering each other over centuries-old grievances, that they too were participating in a sophisticated cultural ritual? Or is it just Maori whose customs, however unhelpful to their wellbeing or reputation, must always be depicted as sophisticated?

        Moana Jackson argues – again with a straight face – that Maori had a sophisticated system of law and that British law was no great improvement.

        This beggars belief, given that Maori law could be summed up in three words – might is right – while British law brought them peace and security of property for the first time.

        Yes, early Pakeha perceived a number of worthy attributes, including a strong oral tradition, strong people, and strong family ties that remain evident today.

        Others like Abel Tasman, Marion du Fresne, and the crews of the Harriet and the Boyd, had less positive experiences.

        My point about skipping 3000 years of evolution is accurate. Maori in 1840 were roughly at the same stage of development as the Britons in 1000BC, were they not?

        A thousand years later and those Britons had fallen under the influence of the Romans, who were certainly more advanced than 1840 Maori.

        There is no need for any Maori today to be ashamed about their chiefs having the wisdom to go forward with the British.

        If a Venusian spaceship landed today and its crew offered to share with us the products of a wondrously advanced universe that would allow us to live to 200 in luxury and good health, we’d likely eat the same kind of humble pie and make the same kind of choice.

        The decision of those chiefs has worked out extremely well for Maori. Had they not signed the Treaty, today’s Maori would be either extinct, French, or living like the tribesmen of New Guinea.

      7. I think of utu as Newton’s Third Law of Motion : Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Utu however it is more than just physical, it also incorporates spiritual and emotional forces.

        I would argue that the Croats and Serbs were engaged in a war for independence. It is possible the war was due to cultural reasons but I will not pass judgement as I am not accustomed to their culture and the complexity of it. Some would argue that the war resulted from flaws in the law and conflicts over boundaries and property.

        I can define the law of the world’s most powerful country in three words – price is right – and in the modern world – price is might.

        I disagree, British law did not bring Maori peace and security of their property. The laws put in place to acquire Maori land such as the Public Works Act strengthen my point.

        Now let’s flip the switch and put ourselves in the shoes of early 19th century Maori (or more fittingly on the earth they stood on). They did not view themselves as a single race but as separate iwi or tribes as it was translated. They were independent peoples, independent societies with independent laws. When laws could not settle disputes almost always relating to boundaries and use of resources, war broke out.

        It is not uncommon to find war in the history of all nations and is more commonly found in and between the most advanced of civilisations. Consider the Roman, Greek, British and Chinese empires.

        I was told a story of a Great Maori Chief which helped put some things into perpective. The Great Chief was from the lower reaches of the Whanganui River and had sold some land to a Pakeha farmer in the 1800’s. The Great Chief said, “You should not shit and piss in the river for it is tapu and it is against tikanga,”
        The Pakeha farmer replied with disbelief, “Do not petty me with your native ways, this is my property and I shall do with it what I please.”
        And so the Pakeha farmer and his many cows continued urinating and defecating in the river.
        “Tangaroa will have his way,” the Great Chief whispered.

        Think what you like of this story but it holds some truth to me. Only recently are changes in NZ Law being discussed to regulate nitrogen entering our rivers and protect our country’s most valuable resource – freshwater. The Great Maori Chief knew the implications of dairy farming on the river and the environment.

        Moana Jackson is right. Maori did have a sophisticated system of law, they called it Tikanga.

        I believe Maori/Iwi were a far advanced civilisation. My great grandfather, G. P. Crimp gifted me his Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary and it defines civilisation as : 1) a society of any period or place, unified by language and having distinctive legal systems, customs, art styles and governing powers.
        2) an advanced stage of society and culture, embodied in a high level of art, science and government.

        Should one really judge a civilisation if one hasn’t lived in it, been governed by it, or contributed to it?

        Ka ora, ka tu te Maoritanga.

      8. New Guineans live a great life rich in culture in a land with plentiful resources.

        It is only when a military powerhouse like Indonesia invade things turn sour. Maybe one day the natives and the Indonesians will reach a treaty agreement.

        Only then will the people of New Guinea reap the benefits of colonisation. Only then will they live in luxury and good health. Only then will they evolve and form an advanced civilisation and only then can they start destroying the planet for money.

      9. If New Guineans life such a great life, why do they die on average 15 years before we do?

        I don’t know if you’re aware, but there’s an independent nation called Papua New Guinea which is not run by Indonesia, and their life expectancy is somewhere between 62 and 66 on my initial enquiries.

        Indonesia’s, by the way, is 71.

      10. What about West Papua? If they had an army 1000 times stronger than Indonesia’s maybe they would be an independent nation too.

        Age of death does not determine quality of life. Besides, who are we to say they aren’t living a good life. Maybe they don’t wan’t to live like us.

      11. Or perhaps they just don’t like living.

        Nice try, but by every international measure I could find on the internet – not just life expectancy and GDP per capita, but also life satisfaction and even the ludicrous Happy Planet Index designed to reward nations without industry (where Americans would have to register 100% life satisfaction and live to an average of 439 years to compete with the no.1 ranked Vanuatu!) – Papua New Guinea is down there among the basket case countries.

        I’m not sure where you’re going with this, apart from making some majestically irrelevant political statement on behalf of the West Papuans.

        Are you seriously saying you’d prefer to live like the Maori of 1840, or the Britons of 1000BC? If so, be my guest, but I guess we won’t be communicating on this wonderful medium again.

        After our Native Affairs debate last Monday, Annette Sykes was looking forward to flying to a world indigenous peoples’ conference in Hawaii. In the green room, she and Ella Henry were excitedly comparing hotels in Waikiki.

        Neither seemed to appreciate the irony that if those indigenous peoples hadn’t been colonised, at least one of them (Maori) would have been driven extinct by their own hand about 150 years ago.

        And if they’d survived the intertribal genocide, and wanted to meet other similar peoples in Waikiki, they’d be travelling there by canoe, and sleeping in mud huts.

        I was more impressed by your other comment, and will be replying to that later.

      12. Born in NZ (as am I, and as were my two parents, four grandparents, most of my great-grandparents and at least one of my great-great grandparents):

        Do you consider yourself incapable of judging (forming opinions about) the Nazi regime because you did not live in Germany under Hitler?

        Are you unqualified to comment on the Khartoum court’s decision to kill a young mother for the ‘crime’ of becoming a Christian, simply because you live in New Zealand and not Sudan?

        In answer to your question, yes we certainly should judge civilisations that we have not lived in, been governed by, or contributed to – as long as we have enough information to make an informed judgement.

        You defend a system of endless vengeance on scientific, emotional and spiritual grounds.

        I attack it on practical grounds: that if the cycle of utu had not been stopped by the British (along with Maori slavery and cannibalism), it would have resulted in the extinction of the race by about 1860.

        And yet you claim British law did not bring peace!

        It was hardly the fault of the British that Maori chose to violate that peace again and again and again, with acts of aggression in Wairau, the Hutt Valley, the Bay of Islands, Wanganui, etc., etc., etc.

        But once their various rebellions were put down and the rebels punished (in accordance with Maori as well as British law – a point made clear by Apirana Ngata in his book about The Treaty of Waitangi in 1922), a peace was established which has lasted to this day.

        Do you think it fair that Maori should have been allowed to set up a rival monarchy and wage war against the Queen – both actions in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi – without Governor Grey following through on his warning to confiscate their land if they did?

        You believe Maori were a far more advanced civilisation, presumably than the Europeans. I look forward to hearing your evidence for how:

        – tikanga Maori was more advanced than the British legal system dating back to the Magna Carta;

        – Maori rock drawings were more advanced than the Mona Lisa

        – Maori wood carvings were more advanced than Michelangelo’s David;

        – the music produced on a Maori nose flute was more advanced than a Mozart symphony from the London Philharmonic;

        – Te Rauparaha’s kamate haka is more advanced than a Russian ballet or Italian opera or a Broadway musical; and

        – the chiefly governance of the many disparate warring tribes was more advanced that the Westminster parliamentary system.

        I’d quit while you’re behind on this line if I were you.

        Where you do have a point is on the Wanganui chief taking a dim view of the despoilation of the river by the dairy farmer.

        However, once again you’re not telling the full story.

        First of all, the Maori double standard on environmental vandalism is breathtaking. Of the 40 species to go extinct in New Zealand, 34 creatures died out on their watch.

        When Maori burned down the forests, it was to drive out the moa, which they then hunted to extinction.

        When the British cleared the forests, it was to create the industry which made New Zealanders the richest people on the planet.

        Socialists and greenies have a hard time accepting that many choices in the real world are between bad and worse. When it comes to farming and rivers, there is, as yet, no good option.

        No clean rivers is bad. But no income from dairy and sheep farming would be much, much worse for you, me and our four million countrymen.

        Cleaning up dairying is a work in progress, but we’ll get there the same way we solve all our problems.

        When faced with a choice between bad and worse, responsible leaders have no choice but to choose bad.

      13. To me, the end of inter-tribal warfare or genocide as you like to call it was the best thing that happened to 19th century Maori. I’m sure many people would agree with me on this one and also that it was largely due to interaction with Pakeha and the influence of their philosophy, ideas and of course, law. The Maori of today often (this is a generalisation) under-look this gift from the Pakeha. I do not however think that it was colonisation that brought the end of inter-tribal warfare but decades of inter-racial relations.

        The most influential thing in stopping inter-tribal war were the missionaries and Christianity The concept of forgiveness is to me one of the greatest developments of humanity and so the spreading of this religion was instrumental in stopping these wars.

        I think the second best thing that happened to Maori of that time was realising or re-discovering the fact that a vast world exists beyond the shores of Aotearoa and Te Moananui-a-Kiwa. A new world filled with strange people, great civilisations, and endless opportunities.

        Who knows, the Maori probably (based on accounts of their desire and requests made to Pakeha to travel abroad) would begin exploration of this new world. They would call on their ancestral sea-fearing instincts and rebuild the great voyaging ships of ancient Polynesia – which were used over a thousand years ago to travel across the World’s largest ocean and settle its most remote land mass.

        Considering how entrepreneurial Maori were – creating a booming flax and agriculture industry in NSW is one example – and how quickly they adopted Pakeha techniques and technologies, it is easy to assume they were more than capable of establishing a large and very powerful economy. This would create a new wave of trade and business with the outside world.Trade which was undoubtedly present throughout the history of the British empire and crucial to its evolution and possibly existence. Isolation meant Maori weren’t so lucky.

        Just to add my unneeded 10cents, Maori, as I’m sure you know, had developed ropes far superior to those of the British.

        Or, they could have hunted themselves to extinction.

        But without getting lost in my own should’a could’a would’a fantasy, back to Utu. Before the eruption of enormously devastating inter-tribal warfare – which conveniently had reached its peak during the time of British settlement/colonisation – Utu was a fundamental part of Maori culture and everyday life. It is now so often referred to as everlasting revenge for the sake of nothing other than heartless murder. As you know, time distorts truth. But Utu was so much more than just revenge.
        It was to ensure fairness between businessmen and that each trade was met with one of equal value. Utu kept up with the constant change in supply and demand. In this way it took the place of money.
        It meant alliances made between chiefs and tribes must be respected. It was an unwritten contract.
        It meant manaakitanga, exceptional hospitality on the marae must be reciprocated.
        For these reasons and more, Utu was practical and sophisticated.

        British law did bring peace. It brought peace between tribes. But for the first century or so it couldn’t grant complete peace between Pakeha and Maori. Again, I make references to the various laws which took Maori Land and displaced tribes. They hardly had security over their lands like you claim. How could people who affiliate so closely to the whenua be at peace knowing the govenment had and could take more of their land with the drop of a hat? I should also mention the problems associated with colonisation such as racial discrimination, segregation and so on. Peace, mmm, yes. But hardly a luxurious life for the recently(in the grand scheme of our existence) colonised.

        I do say punish or deliver justice to those rebellious leaders and their followers. But I often wonder why many of these rebellions and the NZ Land Wars started? Perhaps I will look into it.

        I didn’t say Maori were a far more advanced civilisation than the British. I said they were a far advanced civilisation, which according to the Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary, they were. I will quit while I am behind on arguing who’s civilisation is more advanced based on certain arts, crafts and govenment systems. I love Mozart, Da Vinci and Michelangelo.
        On the other hand, early Maori or late polynesian (more on this later) rock art is fascinating, how it stimulates imagination on what life would have been like in their new and ancient world, the thoughts of them conversing with small family groups huddled around a bonfire as they depict the mythical Taniwha.
        My first experience of a nose flute and its voice still resonates in my mind.The strength it had was like Mozart, or the first time I heard Beethoven’s Four Seasons, in they way it provoked a range of powerful emotions from its sound.
        Maori wood carving is widely regarded as the highest form of Maori art. It is a style with intricate detail and symbols largely based on nature, such as the world renowned koru and silver fern. What I admire most about tohunga whakairo is that it holds the history, the beliefs and the culture of a nation. Some carvings depict gods and the creation of this planet and the demi-gods who first walked its soil. Others of legendary pioneers who explored vast distances and discovered new homelands. Many carvings hold the lineages of ancesters tracing back to the mythical homeland of Hawaiki. Some tohunga believe spirits of the dead and memories of the living can be instilled in the carvings.

        Ah, the famous war dance.

        Although it was made famous by the world’s best rugby team, they are also its greatest downside.

        Ka Mate should be regarded among the highest of all forms of composition, symphony, musical, opera etc.

        I say this because of its wonderful poetic beauty, its immense significance to not only its composer but his people and all who understand it (along with global rugby fans).

        It is said he chanted these words while he was under attack,

        “Ka mate, ka mate, ka ora.”

        “Will I die, will I die or will I live.”

        He survived the attack by hiding in a kumara pit under the legs of a woman, he payed tribute to them by composing the rest of this haka,

        “For it was indeed the wondrous power of a woman that fetched the sun and caused it to shine again.”

        I say them because Maori Religion holds woman and food to be highly sacred as they are the two things (along with fresh water, which this country has/had heaps of) man needs to ensure the survival of his species. Thankfully inter-tribal warfare (which turned out to be Te Rauparaha’s favourite past-time) isn’t in the equation.

        I think it’s a stunner of a song/chant/story/fable/savage tribal war dance. I wonder if Shakespeare would have enjoyed Ka Mate.

        Again, my point is not to argue that this song is more advanced than that dance or that that painting is more advanced than this carving, or even and better yet that one civilisation is more advanced than another.

        The point that I am trying to get across is the idea (which exists in Maori Religion) that all things terrestrial and celestial exist on an infinite number of planes. And, to say one is more advanced than another based on an observation of one of those planes, is a fairly ignorant point of view.

        The whakatauki, “Ka mate kainga tahi, ka ora kainga rua,” in this context could mean that although the British felt they were a more advanced civilisation, so too did the Maori.

        More on the Moa-hunting Maori later.

      14. The infamous Moa-hunting Maori. An interesting subject.

        Firstly, you are quite possibly right about the double standard. It is ironic that Maori view themselves as environmental guardians given the number of species they drove to extinction. It will be interesting to see how many species become extinct after nine hundred years or so of European occupation of this country. The Hector and Maui’s dolphin, NZ sealion, the kakapo, the takahe, the short-tailed bat, the white heron and so on. Although, the Government funded DOC and other similar organisations are doing a marvelous job and so the future may be brighter than the past.

        Secondly the extinction of the eleven species of moa (and many other large ground-dwelling birds) was a horrific loss to our world. They were undoubtedly critical in the growth of the flora of this country and the great people who came to be known as the Maori.
        They may have become useful domesticated animals and farmed or kept as giant three metre tall pets. They could possibly have become a beast of burden and used like European horses (which played a huge part in the development of the British civilisation). But most of all, as a food source.
        KFC wouldn’t exist. KFM or Kiwi Fried Moa would be the world’s largest fast food chain. We would export it around the world for ridiculous prices, marketed as a giant dinosaur chicken of the south Pacific. We would sell their eggs which were 100 times bigger than a hens to the french for their toast, to the Japanese for their tamagoyaki omelette and to the Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the world for their dangerously high protein diets. I mean, imagine how tasty those enourmous legs were. 100 kilo drumsticks of succulent meat which could feed entire tribes or last one person over half a year. It would have been hard to turn away from such a great source of meat. But no doubt a great loss.

        Contrary to popular belief, scientists now know the moa were not the easy prey once thought. They along with early “Maori” developed strong instincts to evade attacks from the World’s most devastating aerial predator since the time of the dinosaurs, the Haast’s Eagle, with a three metre wingspan and talons the size of tiger claws. A large number of human skeletons from have been found with shattered and broken bones believed to be from the kick of the giant bird. And so, I dislike the notion that Maori so effortlessly ate this bird to extinction.

        Thirdly and more closely to the point, the moa-hunters were not Maori. They were the first generations settlers. They were Polynesian hunter-gatherers who arrived in (controversially) about 1250 AD. Over 150 years this abundant and seemingly limitless food source would nurture a booming population. Suddenly it became scarce.
        This was where they burned large tracts of forests. It was to find the food source their race had become dependent on.

        And this is where I noticed another difference in cultures.

        The Polynesian moa-hunters did not destroy forests as the pakeha did 500-600 years later to become the richest people on the planet. They did it to feed their population, they did it to survive.

        The moa-hunters suddenly were faced with a catastrophe. The Maori people and their beliefs of being bound with and protectors of the Earth as tangata whenua did not develop until after the extinction of the great moa. They discovered the consequences of upsetting the balance of nature. They reached a defining evolutionary point and began to move towards the Maori conservationists we hear so much about.

        It was from this tragic extinction that drove the desire to maintain and live with a pristine environment. The Maori Great Chief and his story from the mid 1800’s (centuries after his ancestors killed off the last moa) stem from the loss of the giant bird. I also see his story as a kind of, “We stuffed up. We learned our lesson. You don’t have to make the same mistake we did.”

        I do not think Maori should view themselves as the untouchable spiritual guardians of Mother-Earth. But I don’t think that the double standard is quite so breathtaking.

        As with the rivers and the bad and the worse options for our environment i agree with and respect your view. It’s a toughy.

        But maybe we shouldn’t put such a huge focus on growing our economy. Maybe we shouldn’t aim to quench our thirst of becoming the richest people on the planet, like the Pakeha forest fellers did.

        I think we should just look at survival, much like the generation who saw the last moa did, and evolve to ensure the survival of our species by protecting the only two things man needs – food and woman (and of course pure NZ water).

        John, I apologise for the rather irrelevant rant. I just feel passionate about my Maori heritage and our story. I feel the same passion for my Pakeha heritage too, which is why I try to keep a cool head when bringing up these meaningful subjects.

        At 22 years old I will continue to feed my passion with ideas, knowledge, and culture, in the hope that one day I become a leader for my iwi and my kiwi brothers, and help to mold our great country into one of equality and mutual respect.

        Although I do not agree with everything (actually most) you say, I do admire your passion and determination to expose the “truth” and build a better nation.

        All the best for your campaign and thank you for the little debate.

        Kia Ora John.

      15. You’re welcome. I compliment you on your willingness to see both sides of the story.

        When I was a child, I was brainwashed by everything I saw on television and read in books to believe that the British, Americans, New Zealanders and Christians (I was brought up C of E) were part of that general grouping known as ‘the good guys’.

        It was only later that I had to face the unpalatable fact that my beloved British Empire was founded on piracy and bolstered by slavery, and that my ancestors once condoned witch-burning, and the hanging, drawing and quartering of pretty much anyone they didn’t like.

        So I’m not surprised that people with Maori blood – who are nothing if not a proud people – don’t much enjoy being informed by a descendant of the people who defeated their great-grandparents that their forebears practised cannibalism and female infanticide.

        The test of our honesty is what we do with information that casts our own people in a less than glowing light.

        Do we immediately shoot the messenger for daring to offend our sensibilities and threaten our worldview?

        Or do we examine the facts with both eyes open, decide whether or not they’re correct, and, if so, humbly accept the new reality?

        I say we do the latter. We let the facts fall where they may. Humans being a mixture of good and bad, we’ll likely find some of those facts to our taste, and others not.

        When they’re not, we can at least console ourselves that we are not our ancestors just because we carry a tiny fraction of their bodily fluid. That is absurd.

        One of my great-grandfathers was a convicted embezzler. I have a photograph of him in the 1880s in Melbourne Gaol.

        But his dishonesty does not seem to have been genetic. I didn’t know his son – my grandfather – but his grandson – my father – was the most honest man I ever met. He and my mother taught me the importance of always telling the truth, regardless of the consequences.

        By the same token, Te Rauparaha’s son, Tamihana, was by all accounts a most impressive gentleman, who was so appalled by accounts of his father’s depravity that he travelled round the South Island apologising to the affected tribes.

        I believe we can acknowledge the sins of those who went before us without needing to feel emotionally, financially, or in any other way implicated by their poor choices.

        We are, in short, individuals. We can only be responsible for our own actions, no one else’s (except perhaps those of our children when under our care).

        If we examine the facts of New Zealand’s early history, we find that the version being peddled today is totally one-sided. I think it should be two-sided.

        Is that asking too much?

        And is that belief grounds for being condemned as a racist by those who wish to conceal the other side?

        I do think your hypothesis about why Maori developed an acute appreciation of nature has merit.

        I note that many once violent societies evolved into relative pussy cats – the Vikings into the neutral Swedes, Norwegians and Danes, the Romans into the war-averse Italians, the racist Nazis and sadistic Japs of World War II into today’s peaceloving Germans and Japanese.

        At 22, I was certainly not as interested in political matters as you are, so I commend your efforts to make sense of the world and look forward to perhaps hearing from you again as your leadership ambitions come to fruition.

      16. Well now were all on the same page with understanding english i’ll give you some alcahole and yous give me back my land..fair..plss be real man we got ripped and thats the truth to this dispute.. some people are so fake

  7. I remember Willie and JT sticking it to David Rankin on their show about a year or so ago saying he’s a lunatic and shouldn’t listened too. Well now we know why don’t we?

    1. Gday there Marvin.

      I would like to make it public that after reading your above comment, that nothing is as it seems mate, on this issue in particular issue anyway.

      I have to give my full support and respect to Mr David Rankin on this particular issue and personally don’t give a rats arse for anyone running him down for speaking the truth, which he is in this instance.

      These people given mention by this great man still survive in our fair land to this day I and others know this for a fact and it will totally munt the gravy train and all the maggots aboard her.

      It will also prove to the world that we as a Country have every right to claim our full Democracy / SOVERIEGNTY back and honour truly honour our forebears by doing so.


      In a nutshell mate problem solved 🙂

  8. The article is extremely interesting but the past is the past, we should stand as one “New Zealander’s” we are one people, of a completely mixed blood line now and our race is known around the world as “Kiwi”

  9. Seems that Willie and JT conveniently ignore bits of genealogy that do not suit their purposes.
    However, it is not only Ngapuhi that have a tradition of pre maori inhabitants. Amongst others, Ngati Whatua also do – see info below
    “Among the (Auckland) Library’s collection of Māori manuscripts amassed by Sir George Grey there is a nine-page whakapapa (genealogy) of Ngati Whatua compiled by Tuhaere, at Grey’s request, in 1881. He traces lines of descent from various ancestors, including the legendary Tumutumuwhenua, described as a being ‘not of this world’ who came from the interior of the earth and married Te Repo, one of the mystical ancient race of Patupaiarehe.”
    Paora Tuhaere. History of the ancestors of Ngati Whatua,MANUSCRIPT, 1881

    1. Cheers for that Irene.

      Wouldn’t it be great to open the caves and tunnels at North Head Devonport ( their locations are known ) and support Mr Rankins claims with solid evidence to the World N.B. skeletal remains, Petroglyphs, tools etc of the race he mentions for tangible proof to the claims of many and also to have a lot of New Zealands early Aviation and Boer War Artefacts and general “True History” returned to the New Zealand Public?

      If that were to happen the future would start looking a lot brighter a lot sooner I reckon.

      1. That…would be amazing.

        You say the tunnel entrances are known?? Has no one explored them??

        The legend of Tumutumuwhenua(I am REALLY glad this is a written rather than spoken conversation, I’m sure I would botch the pronunciation of that word quite badly) that you mentioned greatly intrigues me. I’ve been trying to find as many tribal/oral/ancient legends of beings or races of beings that are said to live within the earth itself..like the Ant People and the Snake People of Hopi tradition.

  10. David Rankin said; “Let me just start off and say this, Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand.”


    1. Sounds like the nobs at the Herald believe that cruise ships only visit the tribal Maori areas of the North island

    2. This renaming of our country really gives me the stitches!! Of course, like you said, Mike, it must be the North Island. However, we don’t want that renamed either do we!!

      1. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t really mind if any place is renamed, as long as it’s done in a democratic fashion.

  11. Was once speaking to someone who ardently believed that maori are indigenous and I asked if that was the case, how come the flora and fauna that they brought with them (pigs, rats, dogs, kumera) are always referred to as ‘introduced’ species. She replied that indigenous refers only to people.

    Amazing!!! She is an otherwise intelligent, well-educated person.

    I agree wholeheartedly with everything that Helen, Mike, Marvin, John and many others who contribute to this blog, CPR, 100 Days, but what now can be done. Badly need some real action.

    Something very odd happened today and it is very disturbing: I saved the ‘Not Wanted John Key’ poster and forwarded it to a friend. It was blocked and I was referred to http://postmaster.yahoo.com/abuse, with the comment ‘cannot send message due to possible abuse’. Is this Waihopai in action.?? I contacted telecom after a very long wait and they sent the email off. I asked who was reading my mail to see if it is abusive. It would appear that there is monitoring that I don’t know about. I will follow this up in the morning.

  12. Can any of you find one single qualified anthropologist or archaeologist who agrees that Maori were not the original inhabitants of this country? Just one? Or are they all part of your grand conspiracy?

    1. Possibly, overseas, and untainted by the status quo in New Zealand both past and present Thomas however we do know collectively of a lot more than the 105 known (by the elite) moratoria (embargoed) sites of the Ancients known and suppressed by “ALL” our Govts both past and present including a Portugese Man O War sailing ship that lays thirteen feet underground in the old River course of the Northern Wairoa river near Dargaville.

      It lays under private land and the site was shut down by DOC in the 1980s after half the ship was already exposed (the other half is blown out due to a spark iGNITING the powder kegs.

      This ship is supported in Maori oral tradition and referred to as the ghost ship as it disappeared in a ball of light.

      We (collectively) have much more evidence to bring to the light of day when the Political climate changes big time and know the evidence will not be destroyed and generally covered up by the current so called elite in order for them to continue the big lie that grows exponentially by the day with the exorbitant BS pay outs and payoffs coupled up to the subsequent gravy train wailers and apologists in general..

      Yes it is a conspiracy Thomas but a little more patience is required in the now, all will be revealed when the time is right, the elite should know that only a fool tries to deny the truth especially when the greedy turn totalitarian, demanding and righteous.

      I hope this goes someway to answering your question and wish you also a great day.

      Peace, out.

      1. Hi Ironsides
        The portugese man o war you refer to near Dargaville – is that the same type of ship as a caravel?

      2. Hi Irene I believe it could well be, although I am not an expert in early ships yet I do know good people that are.

  13. So that’s a “no” then I take it? Not one single credentialled expert in this country is prepared to put his/er professional reputation behind the suggestion that a arce of people occupied this country prior to the arrival of those now known as Maori. I find that significant. In find your arguments, on the other hand, absurd.

    1. The “credentials” of experts being issued(or detracted) by the same governmental institutions seeking to obfuscate any evidence of prior races makes it unlikely for such a person to exist even if they wanted to. A credentialed expert that expressed support of the idea would swiftly be relieved of their credentials.
      I can tell you take a special sort of nose-lifting pride in standing atop such an argument, which you profess to find “significant”…but it is a circular argument by nature. It will roll away in due course, landing you unceremoniously on your arse.

    2. As a sailor, skipper / captain of various ships I can expertly mention those vessels found around Dargaville and Kaipara coast line also the east coast near Kerikeri are as follows Caravels, . many others of different sailing ships of various designs too many to list here, one being a submarine from WW11., A masive 400ft wooden Chinese junk 4 miles in from the sea buried in sand dunes.

  14. A very mature and persuasive response, sir. You evidently have a powerful argument in your favour.

    1. And a very lowered BS tolerance level after being fobbed off by the seemingly corrupt practices of the elite for most of my life when attempting to do my country a service to enlighten them all which I can no longer abide.

      This however is no justification for my previous response and I hence apologise for reacting instead of interacting but well how long can anyone be expected to bang their heads against a brick wall?

      Not many people can evoke such a response from me but still you
      managed to and extremely well in fact.

      I think it in the best interests of the cause *Together New Zealand*
      that I withdraw (if possible) from posting my truth in this type of forum any further yet will always remain in full support of John Ansell and co.

      Peace out.

      1. Cheers mate 🙂 I wont be far away as this cause is very near and dear to me. Have an awesome day

      2. Ironsides, I find your posts excellent, so please reconsider. I look forward to your input very much. Don’t let negative comments deter you. We have to expect them now and again but basically most people posting here all desire the same end result – racially equality for everyone.

        We know we have right on our side so must press on. The truth will come out in the end. I just hope it is in my lifetime. In the meantime we must do our best to make it happen.

      3. Thanks Helen I shall reconsider my last post as it were and you are (just about) all very inspirational to me.

        It seems that I do need a wee break I mean if a johnny come lately self opinionated Dhomars “know it all newbie” that supplies no fact backed up by self opinionated dribble can run me down so quickly when I can supply literally Mountains of physical evidence in the right political climate of course well I don’t want to do any harm to the great work done so far by so many good loving caring and knowiedgeable people.

        In the words of Arnie the terminator “ill be back” when recharged of course. Thank you all for your support and see you soon.

      4. Have a good break, Ironsides, and we look forward to your return fully refreshed and raring to go again. Don’t leave it too long though.

      5. Nil Bastardo Carborundum


        Another *fact* as they have been trying to do preciceley that for many years now 😉

      6. Hey Ironside we absolutely value your input; some down to earth interesting stuff has been penned by you. Don’t let the no-brainers get to you. ‘Timing is of great importance’ in the political world.

        (NB: Off the topic now . . . We bought the Scorpions Acoustica CD after yr message about Send me an Angel and welcomed 2013 in with it out in the wop wops where we live. Thank dude for some great tunes and great comments & info.)

      7. We fully support you Ironside and some people are only on the blog to wind others up. We sure as hell value your interesting messages and most of us can sort the chaff from the wheat so stay around . . .

        It wouldn’t surprise us if this stirrer is one from the past; sometimes you just have a short fuse with gravy trainers espec when u know for a fact there’s all that evidence out there.

        (Random comment: We bought the Scorpion Acoustica CD after your message re ‘Send me an angel’ and welcomed 2013 in playing it on the laptop in the middle of nowhere. You sure made a difference so hang around dude)

  15. Thomas, Did you not read the comments of of David Rankin, at the beginning of this thread? Do you not think that the oral history, coming from such a source is not more accurate than modern day anthropologists, and historians? Or do you believe that oral history is of no importance compared to the utterings our university indoctrinated apologists?

  16. Hi Owen

    Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society, by any chance? Now there’s a fine body of unconventional minds, unconstrained by scientific modes of thought. I’m sure they’d love to hear you and/or Mr Rankin expound your theories of a pre-Maori race.

    1. Hello Thomas,

      I have read a number of books about pre Maori civilisations in NZ.

      Personally I think there is too much uncertainty to know for certain what these where, where they came from and how extensive they were.

      However there is a multitude of evidence that clearly shows there were people of some sort here when Maori first ‘arrived’.

      Maori tradition states this as well.

      There is also plenty of doubt about whether Maori ever arrived in some sort of organised expedition as modern myth has all but set in concrete.

      So if you anyone is playing dumb I think it is people who claim that the status quo is all there should be, that anyone suggesting otherwise is a heretic and any alternative evidence discovered should be suppressed and destroyed if possible.

      So if you wish to see a flat earther I suggest you grab yourself a mirror.


      1. There is plenty of evidence to show ancient stone construction in the bay of Islands also on the west coast near Dargaville. Why not view on special page of videos / photos plus comments from readers around the world; write the title of our research ‘Before Maori NZ’s First Inhabitant’s for readers comments / inputs taken after our publication.

    2. Hello Thomas

      Actually I don’t know for sure if New Zealand was populated by other peoples before the Maori arrived, or if say, in the 15th century the Portugese touched on the shores of this country, but I am willing to keep an open mind on the subject. Why, because the prevailing opinion of professionals could be incorrect and sometimes it takes an “amateur” unfettered by conventional orthodoxy to find new information and new ways of looking at the past.

      One example for you. Have you ever heard of Joan Wiffen? She was a truly remarkable woman and amateur paleontologist who despite prevailing opinion, discovered theropod fossil bones in New Zealand in 1975. The fossils had to be identified in Australia and it took huge perseverance on her part but her work was an absolute gift to science and her life an inspiration to what it is possible to achieve through work and determination.

  17. Thomas, No not flat earth believer, not overly impressed by oral history either, but, the same threads of oral history are repeated by more than one tribal historian. As these oral histories were being told long before it became fashionable to claim that the Polynesians, who ended up calling themselves maoris, were the indigenous people of this country one has to keep an open mind. The fact that the UN has recently changed the definition of indigenous is of no great note. If the Polynesians who call themselves maori can still recall the names of the canoes on which they arrived it makes them immigrants, the same as the rest of us New Zealanders. No one is claiming there was a race of people here before maori, but there is certainly much evidence that other people were here first.

    It is of little importance in the grand scheme of things, if it was not for treaty of Waitangi rorts if would be of very little note.

    1. Thomas Bracken sounds remarkably like our old friend Ngamoko.
      Consider this, dear Thomas: Good jobs are very hard to come by in this country and any Government or quasi-Government positions (such as in the education sector or hospitals) are ruled by the politically correct. Nurses have to agree to the “official” indoctrination about the Treaty of Waitangi to be considered fit for employment and ‘academics” and “historians” have to toe the line or be ostracised and ridiculed by their sycophantic peers. Teachers have to preach official mantras about the “tangata whenua” (cough) and speak reverently about an invading cannibal race.

      Our intrepid Minister Of Treaty Propitiations, Chris Finlay, is typical of our current crop of neutered politicians, the majority of whom are yes-men of the highest order just waiting to be told how high they must jump and what they must say to be with the in-crowd.
      And there goes New Zealand.

      Your insult directed at David Rankin does great injustice to the bravest part-Maori leader in our country; a man who dares to speak the truth while other so-called leaders grovel for a greater share of the Treaty gravy train. Perhaps he might be the next Nelson Mandela needed by the mixed-race part-Maori to restore the mana that has been destroyed by their current leaders’ lies and distortions of history as they grasp for the pakeha dollar.
      Those who are in denial about their own ancestry can hardly be trusted to be truthful on other matters.

      Whoops! There goes another blue-eyed, blonde-haired Maori.

  18. Thomas Bracken has a very valid question , but the problem is that he wants to know whichanthropologist of TODAY agrees with pre-maori settlement.
    In the past there have been various discoveries of artifacts that point in the direction of pre-maori settlement. I think f.i. Julius von Haast here in the 1800’s
    But every time a scholar sets up a theory , another one tries to disprove that, and since nobody was there at the time, everything is just guess work
    The problem is that the nowadays this whole issue of settlement is so politically loaded that I doubt that the truth would ever come out. I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I think that if I would find something in my back yard today, that would prove indisputably that the Egyptians were here way before maori, I would be in deep s**t

    I don’t think it should matter , anyway ….if it hadn’t be for that silly UN declaration of indigenous people….which is all politics again

  19. Barry Brailsfords DVD “Who Was Here First” has clips of various well educated and suitably qualified people extolling all the different viewpoints that exist both for and against of where Maori originated and the reasons for their viewpoints leaving it up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions over this prickly / contentious issue that no one wishes to address, Linguistic experts deduced after much research that place to be Taiwan they then followed the many island groups and finally arrivied in New Zealand.

    This of course also ties in with Mr David Rankins recent statement of Maori arriving by tidal drift and arriving on Northlands West coast this of course blows away the mainstream Academics theories of the mythical
    “great migration”.

    As for the kumara well there is Maori oral history stating one particular Wahine was known for its cultivation in numbers around the Dargaville area back in the day.

    A quick communication with the correct well known and reliable non PC Historian/s in the Northern Wairoa area should yield much more information should you or any other wish the blanks in my text filled in for a more rounded and complete picture if interested.

    Hint; They are quite partial to good company and freshly baked cake if that’s any help.

    The truth is definitely there if anyone wishes to seek it.

  20. That “restricted until 2063” thing is *interesting*!
    It really does make you wonder – they *MUST* have found something there! Something that would *demolish* the claim of Maori to have been the first people here.
    If they hadn’t found anything, then why the information ban???

    I wonder what the penalty would be for breaking that ban and releasing the information?
    It’d be interesting to request the info under the Official Information Act.

    My guess is that they made the ban that long because they wanted to wait until everyone who was NOT “PC” died.

    1. *My guess is that they made the ban that long because they wanted to wait until everyone who was NOT “PC” died.*

      Well it is a ploy that has worked all the way through recorded history I guess. 🙂

    2. I would say you are very right, Thor42. Otherwise why a ban!! Says it all really. I would say that you probably wouldn’t get the correct information under the Official Information Act either. They would have found some way of suppressing it.

      For me, the ban means there really is something there but how shocking that we are not allowed to know our own history – that they are actually suppressing it from us. This is worse than corruption of the highest order. Heads should roll.

  21. Great stuff Thor42 another critical thinker and a very good point another is to extrapolate more and more as one becomes aware of new information which I am pretty sure you would do of course e.g. Aunty Helen rolled the Moratoria over, possibly dumped the role of P.M. then jiggles off to the U.N. not long after for what possible reason?

    1. Is it my imagination or is the brainwashing of the public accelerating to the point of breaking the sound barrier. Every day there seems to be not just one new distortion of anything to do with ‘Maori’ but more and more all in the course of a day. We are becoming saturated with it to the point where it is choking us.

      How can we make it stop? It really is injurious to our health as well as our country as a whole.

    2. Yes indeed.

      Speaking as a Christian, the common attitude towards the past amongst all traditional denominations today never fails to amaze me.

      They all officially believe that Maori were systematically very badly treated by the society of the past.
      Yet by and large, NZ society of the past was far more Christian and far more devout than the largely un-Christian, non-devout and secular society we have today.
      Therefore what they are saying is that their devout Christian ancestors of yesterday were far worse in their attitudes and behaviour towards their fellow human beings than the less devout and largely secular descendants are today. They are also agreeing that it is the largely secular society today that must use it’s ethics and morality to atone for the sins of the largely devout society of the past.

      I can understand Atheists using this sort of argument against Christians (as indeed they do all the time) but for the Christian churches to accept and promote such nonsense is unbelievable. It’s like Turkeys voting for an early Christmas (excuse the mix of imagery and metaphors). If the church believes this (as they officially do) then it is nothing less than a call to disband and abolish itself.

    1. Hello David,
      Have you read this report? Is all the research done available including the carbon dating results?

    2. Yes, David. Wouldn’t you think that if there was nothing to hide, Finlayson would delight in presenting the evidence for ‘the nutters’ instead of suppressing it all until 2063? That really confirms for me there really is something they don’t want us to know about.

    3. The link doesn’t go to the document itself – only to a booking system that allows you to go there and read it in situ. Presumably that means that copies cannot be purchased, and the document itself (if indeed it actually is the relevant document) is not available on line. I would be interested in reading it, but I am not often in Auckland (Mangere) so the opportunity is not great. And the question still lingers: why is access to the document(s) made so difficult ?? Is there anyone who is willing to apply via the link and spend the time to view the document ?

      1. I must try and check with someone but last I heard there were only about 14 pages available. Apparently nowhere near what should have been. It was very definite that the 75 year embargo was put on things while Chris Carter was in the Government. Why would anyone do this – it’s our history after all? However as I said, I will check it out but I’m going away for 6 weeks so may not have the info before I go.

  22. There are over 340 document files in total – some of the titles are obviously of more interest than others, but it looks like quite a time commitment is required. I think it should be done, so that the question of whether or not there is documented evidence proving or suggesting pre-Maori settlement can be validated one way or the other. Having said that, this has very little to do with our primary objective of one law and equal treatment for all.


  23. Personally I think the whole pre- Maori issue, while interesting in it’s own right, is largely irrelevant and separate to the Treatygate issue.

    It’s only relevance is in further showing that Maori are not indigenous and are nothing more or less than immigrants from elsewhere. As we all are.

    However we already know this by the fact that Maori only came to NZ 300-400 years before Europeans and others.

    What Maori may or may not have done with previous inhabitants of this country pre European arrival is largely unimportant to the question at the centre of the argument of Treatygate today, that is: Were Maori badly treated, tricked and cheated by Europeans and the authorities post TOW in 1840?

    I think even a cursory investigation shows that this is certainly not the case. The more detailed and in-depth the investigation, the more it becomes apparent that Maori were by and large extremely well treated and that administrations and society has bent over backwards and laboured at huge cost to ensure this was not the case. And this is before the all the appalling ‘settlements’ and escalating nonsense of the last 30+ years.

    1. You are absolutely right, Mike. We shouldn’t really be worrying about who was here first and everything I have read dating way back to the early times reinforces the facts that people have bent over backwards to assist Maori and their decendants. Billions of dollars have been spent to assist them. I know that for as long as I can remember and also my parents, endless dollars have gone to their assistance.

      One would think that by now, that need should not be required and only the genuine needy (of all races) should be assisted. However, it seems certain ones still continue to hold their hands out and refuse to take responsibility for themselves by getting educated, aspiring to better things and working hard to achieve them.

      However, I did say I would get back to David (I think it was) seeing he alluded to us possibly being conspiracy theorists and here’s what I have been told.

      …..the “Embargo” which was going to run for 75-yrs, was broken by Gary Cook (who, through a lawyer, laid a complaint against the illegal embargo with the Ombudsman).

      One can access the archaeological dig record, with difficulty (you’ve got to know where to go to find it). However, the really old carbon dating figures seen by Noel Hilliam in the late 70s haven’t reappeared.

      The original embargo document is in the link below:


      So it appears that even though you can access them, it doesn’t appear everything is there. Surprise, surprise!!??

      1. Sorry Mike, I have to disagree with you. Whilst I understand your point, I would have to say that this is relevant. Simply because it strikes at the very foundation of the treaty industry’s justification of its existence. How could this not be relevant?

      2. Brad:

        The reason I don’t think it’s especially relevant is that the main foundation of the Treatyists is not specifically that they are ‘indigenous’. It is that they have been badly treated by the ‘colonists’ and successive ‘colonial governments’ since and even before 1840.

        Although the ‘indigenous’ argument is part of their arsenal, we already know it is nonsense because it has been proved and is supported by their own stories that Maori were only here for a relatively short period before the rest of us. We don’t need prior civilisations before Maori to make the indigenous claim for Maori false or at least no more true than it is for all of us. The possibility/probability of prior civilisations does not help or hurt the ‘indigenous Maori’ argument. Maori were here from roughly 1200 – 1300 AD whether or not others were here before them. Either that makes them indigenous or it doesn’t.

        They are colonists too, just as we all are.

        The critical issue is whether Maori were misled/cheated/robbed of what resources they could genuinely have called their own, by non Maori colonists and governments under the general laws, ethics and principles that applied at the time. This has nothing to do with possible pre-Maori occupants of NZ.

      3. Thanks Mike I understand a little better now.

        So what about the rights (if any) that Maori have secured under their recent recognition by the UN as New Zealand’s Indigenous people? Are there any special privileges/rights here? and if so what are they costing the rest of us?

  24. I have been on two expiditions with martin Doutre’ founder and author of
    our goverment is actively covering up the truth, our children are being lied to in our schools.
    “Its time we spoke out”

  25. where is the physical evidence of the so called other races? Can one noted academic be named that would back this up? It seems to me all these quack theories about other tribes being here before Maori are mostly put forward by White Supremacists—- and david rankin for goodness sake stop embarrasing Ngapuhi with your lack of scholarship put down your axe and at least use google

    1. Piripi, if you are calling Martin Doutre a white supremacist – a man who has spent years living and talking with Maori and who gained his information from kaumatua – then your own scholarship must be questioned.

      Very conveniently, you deny the validity of any theory unless it is backed by a ‘noted academic’. And yet it is precisely those ‘noted academics’ who are responsible for having twisted our history to suit the radical Maori agenda.

      You demand the most forensic physical proof of anything you don’t want to be true. And yet, like the Waitangi Tribunal, you are presumably happy to accept the word of kaumatua for anything you do want to be true.

      David Rankin is a kaumatua. Why do you say he is lying? Why do you say his tribe’s oral history going back 44 generations is not true?

      I don’t claim to be an expert in these matters. But I do know Martin Doutre to be an honest researcher, and a meticulous and articulate recorder of detail.

      Martin’s recording of the astronomical observation systems and structures of the pre-Maori stoneworkers is extensive and deserves at least to be respected.

      What expertise do you bring? Or do you blithely dismiss Martin’s work as “quack theories”, and Martin, and no doubt me, as “white supremacists” simply because we put up information that challenges your preferred world view?

      I don’t respect minds that are bolted so tightly shut that they can’t let in daylight. I respect evidence.

      Martin Doutre and David Rankin have provided evidence that there were people here before Maori.

      Martin’s evidence is physical, David’s is oral.

      What evidence can you offer that Maori got here first?

      1. the proof I would like to put forward as proof that Maori were first people here can be proved by the way Pakeha came here after Maori , it’s occam’s law ………. hahahahaha

      1. Is that the stories the elders told you..the same ones that let our language be banned..pfft. no more stories nowadays let go on facts

      2. Do you realise, Damian, that it was the Maori chiefs themselves who demanded that Maori children be taught English rather than Maori in schools?

        Just as it was Dr Maui Pomare who promoted the Tohunga Suppression Act, and all the Maori MPs supported it.

        There have always been Maori who wanted to take their people forward to a bright new future in a modern world, and those who wanted them to stay stuck in the violent, squalid, unhealthy past.

        My problem is that today’s most visible Maori leaders embrace the latter attitude, not the former.

      1. What an excellent response, John. No-one could possibly fault what you have said. I take my hat off to you for expressing yourself so lucidly and your analysis is without parallel.

      2. First to inhabit nz for sure why yous hating that maoris were here first without any facts..strange people out there want us to believe them just because lol..ahh but because of what..why the hating on maoris..get your good and bad everywhere man

      3. Yes i do john hence my comment about the elders..it was right to.have english as main language taught at schools but did they have to take the stand against maori langauge like they did and as for pomare hes as good as those maori rats back in the day that narked out tribal locations..but anyways ive studied this issues indepth about where maori come from and have some awesome factual answers that uncover our history

  26. Maoris need to rediscover our true and original language shown in the original treaty of waitangi and get over the hang over of our language being forbidden to be spoken and therefore lost for that time in our history. Maori are the original people of new zealand and artifacts will arise when technology allows us to find factual evidence that has been hidden by natural disasters. The only facts about where maori come from start and end at new zealand..think hard about that

    1. Damian said: “The only facts about where maori come from start and end at new zealand..think hard about that.”

      I’m thinking hard Damian. I’m thinking, “If Maori come from New Zealand, why do they also say they come from the other side of the Pacific?”

      My simple brain cannot understand how a people can be indigenous to two places. I look forward to your explanation.

      1. That story about us coming from hawaiki was brought about by a missionary from us influenced by the bible and has recently been labelled a fake all based on shouldve been this way and not scientific facts..jus another hair say one

    2. Damian, I agree that “Maori need to rediscover our true and original language shown in the original treaty of waitangi”.

      That language includes the word ‘taonga’, which the dictionary current in 1840 defined as ‘property procured by the spear’. That word was defined for that dictionary by the great Chief Hongi Hika, no less.

      So when we hear today that ‘taonga’ means ‘treasure’, and that ‘treasure’ to Maori means ‘any property of the universe or invention of the white man that we take a shine to’, can you see why people like me get a bit annoyed?

      1. Tonga wasnt even in there bro our langauge was written symbols similar to egyptian you’ll freak when you see it

      2. – Aotea, Kurahaupō, Mātaatua, Tainui, Tokomaru, Te Arawa and Tākitimu –

        Are all the stories of these waka an untruth? I would be very careful in whose company you are in when you state such crap as you are espousing.

      3. You know egyptians crossed paths with nz well b4 anyone else..what does that make maoris..mind blowing scientific facts ae..ra was first to step foot in nz and nz had been found to b alot older than or iginally thought..its great science has come so far to answer our questions

      4. I’ll say it infront of anyone lol time 4 the truth you dont have to like it lol thats your pov
        Time for maori to b proud is my pov

      5. Its people like you owen got maoris living in dream land asking unanswerable questions about a mythical place called hawaiki..come on bro give us some credit man dont keep us in thr same old maybe couldve mightve bracket the answers are there just gotta do your research and get answer for yourself

      6. Takitimu is my waka..it was made in samoa in one of there sacred forests called mauli its a reserve in samoa now..we made takitimu because our waka got damaged travelling there from nz..maoris go way back but samoa is the only place we’ve found with anything artifactual directly linking to maori..and they got pyramids in samoa..freaky ae

  27. So, the fact that much of your DNA has been traced back to Taiwan and other Pacific places isn’t true, Damian? You sound to me as if you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. With a name like Damian, I would say you probably have other ancestry besides Maori. I do hope you are equally proud of that side of your heritage also.

    There is too much evidence already found that says everyone came here from elsewhere. We all intermingled and intermarried and are all now New Zealanders above anything else. I’m proud of that and also proud of whatever other ancestry I have.

    It is also in many of the Maori stories passed down that there were always people here when someone arrived.

    1. I love my maori-welsh heritage thats why ive studied it as much as i can to be able to pass the facts ive learnt on to my tamariki and im talking about real answers not uneducated ones and as for people already in nz when we got there that was another tribe lmao.. the moriori tribe there was no maori label way back then..why cant our beginnings be from new zealand..and as for DNA i’d love to know the pure maori they got that from i thought they were long extinct lmfao

      1. But i wont hide the fact that we were,nt allowed to use maori in public to and how our own people let that happen and its a lesson to learn from not to hide..waste of a bad lesson if i pretended we should b happy about that..im made because i thought we were stronger and smarter than that..gotta b real man help us move foward

      2. No doubt english was best to learn but did they have to make maori forbidden..get the strap styles if caught speaking it thats terrible and im letting the world know from a maoris view telling these pakaha they got the good deal here..straight up just b happy to live in our beautiful country away from those wars going on else where because of gready human beings with militery power over others wanting to take there country over..hhhmmm

      3. Getting the strap for speaking Maori has been found to be mostly a myth-but of course one that fits in with the ‘victim’ mentality and suits a political purpose today. Perhaps it happened occasionally but the whole idea doesn’t fit. I mean some kids were whacked for writing with their left hand, even though they wwere left handed.

    2. Damian, I would not wish to deny the fact that there have been many racist and hurtful actions perpetrated by Pakeha against Maori (not to mention Pakeha against Chinese) during the first century and a half of our living together.

      That, sadly, is human nature when very different people come together.

      And when one group is more numerous and better off than the other, that effect is no doubt heightened and the sting of prejudice more keenly felt.

      The strapping of Maori children for speaking Maori may have been an example of this ‘special treatment’.

      Or, as I suspect, it may just have been par for the course for a discipline-focused education system that was, right up until the 1980s (certainly when I was at school in the 70s) pretty barbaric across the board.

      I wouldn’t like to say which view is correct, because I don’t know.

      We do know that Maori themselves were behind the move to have their children taught English.

      And we know that those teachers who were strapping Maori children for speaking Maori were also strapping non-Maori children for all manner of other infractions that we would now say were undeserving of such violent punishment.

      Whether they were laying into Maori children more than they were strapping and caning non-Maori, I don’t know. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that.

      I have been distressed to hear from two Maori friends that they went through school angry at the way their Pakeha teachers would not bother to pronounce their names even part-way correctly, even when reminded by the children.

      I dare say that happened a lot, and it smacks of both ignorance and arrogance.

      All we can really say with certainty is that those days are largely behind us, and that we have matured into a kinder and more tolerant society.

      This probably sounds strange coming from someone who continues to be distinctly and deliberately unkind and intolerant about a section of Maoridom and their non-Maori sponsors.

      On the one hand, I regret the inevitable consequences of that stance, being the common accusation that I dislike all Maori.

      But criticism is not racism.

      To me, it is vital to strongly criticise the glorification of the primitive, the ugly, the rude, and the violent.

      It is all the more vital to do so when educated people commend these uncivilised qualities to the young as more virtuous than the finer, more beautiful, more enlightened qualities of civilisation.

      The primitive and barbaric has become the new elite thanks to a cadre of thugs and cowards who roam the halls of academia unchallenged.

      For the sake of anyone who wants the world to continue to progress in a positive direction, it’s vital that such notions are challenged.

  28. Sir Apirana Ngata that famous Maori poltician in the 1920’s (I think it was) was one of the people who thought that if Maori were to leave the Stone Age behind and become civilised they would never do it if every effort wasn’t made for them to speak English. They would have been able to speak Maori anywhere but at school.

  29. Yes, it is rather strange Kray1900 isn’t it especially as I’m female!! Did you not know that Helen was a female name Damian?

    I’m assuming you are referring to the fact, that in stories handed down to people of Maori descent it was always mentioned there were other people here when their people arrived. It’s not a ‘study’ as such. In the absence of history being written down like the rest of us had, with people of Maori descent who had no written language, it was their stories handed down through the ages that they learned from and then passed on to younger generations. It’s what they have always said, not what I have said. Did you not know this?

    1. Hi Helen, I’m guessing from this characters responses that any knowledge has been gathered from marae mentality of which has plagued younger and sum older Maori for half a millennia.
      We seek truth’ nothing more, it’s not hard to find, just hard for some to except, however when our own government and spin doctors are misleading and lying to the greater public it’s a battle, it’s just a matter of time though.

  30. You are so right kray1900. It’s actually encouraging that more and more people are becoming aware of our true history. It’s all out there for anyone who wants to the research themselves to verify anything. In fact it is very easy because others have already done the research and put it on sites like this but anyone who wants to verify it can do so without any trouble.

    1. Hi Helen it’s great to see we are all becoming more aware of exactly what is being passed off especially in the academic circles as factual truth.
      Back in 1998 & 1999 I had the opportunity to be part of two expeditions with Martin Doutre to the waipua forest, I am so glad I meet Martin, his knowledge is extensive and he would be one of the nicest guys I have ever met.
      What I have seen with my own eyes is irrefutable proof of the ancients.
      The landscape is literally littered with it,
      Particularly hokianga in the far north, an area I’d love to investigate more.
      What sickens me the most is our own government refuses to even acknowledge any of it.

      The greatest book I’ve ever read was of the ancients was gifted to by Martin,

  31. Yes, Kray1900, much of our history is being suppressed and/or re-written. However, it is all there for anyone who is interested. I totally agree with you about Martin’s knowledge but I haven’t had the pleasure of actually meeting him. He has been extremely helpful to me though.

    Amazingly apparently a moratorium was put on Waipoua Forest and other sites around the country for 75 years during the Clark years of Government. What on earth is there about our history that we aren’t allowed to examine? I find it totally unbelievable – disgraceful really.

    1. This is just a guess, but it is based on what I have seen here in the U.S….

      The reason for the concealment of certain sites and artifacts that call into question the modern accepted paradigm of “innocent Indigenous” and “Evil Europeans” is probably because there is a special kind of political power involved in the word “indigenous” that is a direct result of that ridiculously simplistic view.

      For instance…look at the gambling industry here. Gambling, having long been outlawed across the country, was operated largely by organized crime syndicates. In Nevada, where it was legal, mafia types still tended to own all the casinos.
      And now, because of the power of the word “indigenous” and the meme of them as a people wronged so badly they should be made permanently exempt from all of our laws, a government-sponsored and protected nation-wide monopoly on the hugely profitable gambling industry has been secured by….someone. I don’t know who it is. But I can tell you that none of the resulting casinos are owned and operated by real Native Americans, who have exactly zero interest in running a gambling joint for economic gain.

  32. Rankin your dream of pakeha dominance of Aotearoa will finally topple into the domain of Hell where your pakeha ancestors will end for all the corrupt and Genocidal deeds they have done against mauri-ora Ariki Ranga tira Maori our ORIGINS are from the heavens.And we can choose to be what the Wairua will let us be .KIA ORA

    1. There have been no incidences of genocide by Pakeha, but plenty by Maori. Refer the Musket Wars and the Chatham Islands. “Our origins are from the heavens” is Maori fundamentalist religious brainwashing, frighteningly similar to Islam.

    2. Dream on Matuakore. You certainly sound as though you live in wonderland. We should all be New Zealanders first and foremost and stop this divisive nonsense.

  33. hahahaha someones been smoking too much temarijuana. The race responsible for the most brutal killing of maori was……maori.
    Pick up a history book and read about it!

  34. hi. elocal has a lot of interesting info. be nice if the font was larger. ian wishart is i believe one of the greatest writers we have. he may sound a little winey live but his info is well researched and verified.
    the greatest injustices i see in the treaty settlements has caused this country taxpayers is the fact the it was ENGLAND that governed this country and the English government that funnelled into its imperial money chest the rewards and profits, so why is it that the english government makes this country pay for her wrongs. so new zealand is forced to compensate its on people. billions of dollars to watch it squirreled away and supporting fraction of the peoples it is meant for.
    i noticed the we were punished for speaking maori at school and thats why we all stopped speaking maori distortion raising its head again.
    i not a historian, but sometimes it can help not to be.
    1. did this practice take place? YES
    2. why?
    to destroy language and culture? NO
    why not? 168hrs in a 7day week. school 6hrs a day x 5 days = 30hours at school that leaves 138hrs or 5 & 3/4 24hr days that these racist teachers had no authority over young maori kids.
    it was about respect and keeping order to deliver the teaching in the most efficient way that was practiced at the time in history.
    so what do a bunch of kids do if they speak a another language and there teacher does not understand being fresh off the boat? laughing giggling humiliation of there teacher and control is lost. so to prevent this implement a english, french, german ,japanese or what ever language your school system uses
    total immersion maori education is an example of modern day use of exactly the same approach and the children that have done this still manage to speak in others languages?

    just because you say something that is not true over and over will never make it true!
    But this type of uncheck distortion of reality leads to hate crimes in history over and over

  35. John, there is another website with a lot of interesting stuff re maori taking over NZ. I don’t want to upset you by putting it in a post without your permission. I will wait until you respond.

  36. so as people living on the biggest island nation in the pacific , we are all pacific islanders do we all come from the cook islands or is new zealand a cook island so being is it james cooks islands coz history claims he was the first to discover new zealand or able tasmans sea , we are all kiwi and live in a country that will be the second biggest asian nation when us living now are dead , so will china pay claims to our offspring to reconcile for people getting swallowed up with evolution and land shortages , we need to stop fighting amongst us now who are all new zealanders , im a 4 breed mongrel with no english heritage but work , play eat and sleep with my fellow humans in a great little country in the amazing pacific , 1000 years from now we will be memories and a laughing stock as a primitive race living on 2 little islands who were proud to be called kiwis and battle to be an outstanding people in a world of hate greed and corruption , think of all our children battling just to pay rent and living costs , unite as a country and look after our little country and our slice of heaven ,most of our big mouth speakers never left or saw the hardships endured by other comunities , look at Africa the bithplace of humans as we are told to beleive , its a scam to line all major goverments with working puppets , greed is corruption , divide and conquer is the plague , stand and fight corporations is the start , now we are told you cant have a vege garden , come on forget what we are told is right and wrong , it all seems wrong to me , work and work then die , what a sucessful life path we are told to endure , sitting on your hands will only make for a dull life , think of our life rights as humans not for our skin colour or heritage , , be happy everyday for being alive to many die and dont get a chance at life , fight amongst ourselves for a reconsiliation that will never happen coz we cant please all the people all of the time and some of the people none of the time , no one wants to be forgotten , but in the end we are all turned back to dust , help your fellow man and he may help you back , hurt him and be hurt back , what a sad way of life we have , so fight each other , for what a few dollars , it is said the meek will inherate the earth so yes i hope the animals get there world back , most humans are just a plague , kill fight die , hahaha , what an advanced race of fools we are becoming

  37. “So you’re a communist, Cheryl. Any study of recent history shows that communism fails wherever it is tried.” – John Ansell

    The Soviet Union. Soviet China. Cuba. In these countries socialism led to massively improved lives for hundreds of millions of people. This is just a fact. Only gullible people fall for imperialist propaganda. This is proven by statistics that don’t lie, like life expectancy etc.

    The very reason such efforts are put into demonization of these regimes is because socialism greatly increased the living standards of hundreds of millions of people, giving them access to decent health care, decent education, job security and many other social securities, transforming backwards agrarian societies into world powers against the grain of imperialism, which was only enriching a hand full of imperialist countries at the great expense of the incredibly resource rich third world. Only capitalist ideologues have managed to call this oppression while ignoring the actual oppressors supported by imperialism in the name of cheap resources.

    These were real world accomplishments and the fact that capitalist imperialism managed to undermine these countries and infect them with the hard to remove cancer of capitalism (man on man exploitation), doesn’t take away from the valuable lessons that should be learnt.

    Of course those not interested in an honest and dialectical analysis will just ignore the role of colonialism and imperialism in sustaining and fostering the accumulation of capital and the development of capitalism, how the capital made from super-exploitation of colonies and slaves was used to industrialize, how much wealth Britain stole from India, etc etc, the fact that socialist states accomplished all these monumental achievements under their own steam, while up against encirclement from these imperialist powers who used every tool conceivable to destroy this threat to their class power. They will ignore how neo- colonialism is an economic tool that perpetuates the exploitation of the former colonies. They will ignore how much wealth was stolen from pre-revolutionary China, and how Russia was imperialist before the revolution yet anti-imperialist after, exposing the imperialist deals the Tsar had with other capitalist nations and tearing up these deals. Nothing whitewashes history like the dominant ideology.

    “For leaders to seize and redistribute other people’s money” – John Ansell

    So, you are not even aware of how socialism even works. That is some ignorant shit there!!! Labor and resources are used to create wealth, and the go-to ways of maximizing profit is to source cheaper labor, or cheaper resources. The distinction between the two is that one involves the selling of labor for the profit of private capitalists; ie; wage labor. Meaning you actually have to work to make money. Socialism provides jobs so nobody is taking other peoples money.

    And before anyone wanks on about any “economic miracle” in China; when China retreated massively away from socialist modes of production Deng Xiaoping cooked the books for ideological reasons (to get away with his revisionism) while taking advantage of what Mao had built (providing “free market” ideologues with the narrative of their dreams). This article has a section on ‘Deng’s Campaign Against Mao’s Legacy’; https://monthlyreview.org/…/did-mao-really-kill-millions-i…/ It was Mao that built China into a powe
    r while boosting living standard; life expectancy is a statistic that can’t lie; https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN

    The transition was not smooth, and Mao’s socialist economy showed more solid and consistent growth without the inflation or inequality that came with “reform”. The following is from bourgeoisie American geopolitical intelligence platform Stratfor: https://worldview.stratfor.com/artic…/china-dragon-inflation

    “After China’s initial economic opening in 1979, there were three major bouts of broad based inflation — in 1985, when average annual prices grew at more than 10 percent, in 1988-1989, when prices grew nearly 20 percent, and in 1993-1996, with price increases reaching nearly 25 percent. Each of these incidents was economically and socially disruptive, with dissatisfaction over high prices in 1989 contributing to the protests at Tiananmen Square. Imbalances of supply and demand naturally occurred as the Chinese economy transitioned from a Marxist command economy to a pseudo-free market economy.”

    This book demonstrates how the internet is great for grass roots investigation and information gathering. http://www.socialiststories.com/…/The%20Battle%20for%20Chin…

    Deng was purged from the party leadership as “China’s No. 2 Capitalist Roader” during the Cultural Revolution for good reason, and got Milton Friedman in as an adviser for good reason. His de-collectivization of agriculture and the rest of his nonsense gets exposed for what they were in the above book.

    China has had growing inequality since reform and have over five hundred billionaires (a few getting arrested for corruption does not make a revolution), who all got rich through the art of man on man exploitation (how else does this much wealth get created?), and China have fed the high tech capitalist states much bloated need for growth with much needed cheap labor; fueling super-profits (feeding the beast) and prolonging crisis that hits capitalism without growth. Now China are looking to outsource cheaper labor and shift towards a more consumer economy, because these are the laws of capitalist production. They are just as prone to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall as other market economies. China are now far more vulnerable to crisis in the global capitalist market.

    1. So why did the communist paradises of the Soviet Union, East Germany (sorry, the German ‘Democratic’ Republic), Albania, Cuba, Communist China (sorry, the ‘People’s’ Republic of China), North Korea (sorry, the ‘Democratic’ ‘People’s’ Republic of Korea), etc. have to imprison their citizens behind Iron Curtains?

      If life was so wonderful in these countries, why were people always risking their lives to break out of them, never into them?

      Or is that capitalist roader propaganda too (along with that amazing satellite photo of the two Koreas at night — the South ablaze with lights and the North enveloped in almost total darkness)?

      In which capitalist hellhole are you writing this — and why?

    2. I note, Robin, that we are communicating via systems and devices invented by capitalist roaders. Could you perhaps enlighten us with some examples of innovations provided for us by communist societies?

      I’ll start the ball rolling with a car I was once hired to advertise — the Lada.

      The resulting commercial won an award for car ad of the year. Not sure the car itself won too many awards, except perhaps in Russia.

      (Though it may have headed off the Trabant at the East German Car of the Year Show.)

  38. They didn’t. The troops sent to Russia by 14 capitalist states to fight for the exploiting minority against a peoples revolution and lost (because it is hard to defeat a peoples movement), mass murdered people. Time and time again the imperialists backed minority exploiting (right-wing) regimes over peoples movements. All in the name of cheap resources and anti-socialism.

    Yet we are supposed to believe that people who risked their lives overthrowing oppressive regimes backed by the weight of imperialism somehow submitted to oppression from regimes even when they had the full weight of imperialism backing them to rise up? Regimes put under pressure by terror attacks, sabotage, espionage, sanctions, embargoes, etc?

    In the real world these people massively backed popular socialist governments and the new societies they were creating and defended them against imperialism. Thing about capitalist anti-socialist propaganda is that it makes no sense. People were as free to travel throughout Eastern Europe as they liked, and yearly vacations were the norm. Making it sound like hostile imperialist encirclement was somehow their fault is naive and simplistic to say the least. This would only work on people with no knowledge of history or political economy.

    1. And the prison authorities (the Soviet Union) forcing hundreds of millions of unwilling citizens of their own country and those they invaded to live behind an Iron Curtain is somehow ‘encirclement’ by the countries on the other side of the barrier they had nothing to do with erecting?

      How many West Berliners were shot trying to pole-vault the Wall into East Berlin again?

      And are those elite North Korean soldiers still allowed extra rations of grass for good behaviour?

      1. Ever heard of fifth column’s and the Nazi threat? Look, I see you have no understanding of real Soviet history and just spin the usual Cold War narrative’s (so shallow, tacky, cheap, or fabricated) so this convo is pointless, as I prefer truth over spin. Reality is that we have the communists to thank for defeating fascism and for most of the gains and securities workers in the capitalist world gained as class collaboration and concessions to workers were forced on the monopoly capitalist class to compete in the “Cold War”. The fact remains that China and Russia went from backwards countries with most of the population being illiterate, in extreme poverty and often starving, to having access to health care, job and social securities, education (making for a practically fully literate population). Collectivization of agriculture completely ended food shortage problems in China and the Soviet Union. Then you have them leading the world in gaining woman’s rights etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE1NFDIT9WM&t=1890s

      2. I thought my questions were simple enough and I (and perhaps others observing) would be grateful if you would now answer them.

        We certainly agree that the (forced) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics played a pivotal role in defeating the National Socialists. Industrial-scale killing is, I understand, something of a speciality in such societies.

        I’d also be fascinated to see your evidence for Mao’s reforms ending mass starvation. My Chinese friends seem to have got it into their heads that 70 million of their friends, families and other countrymen died as a direct result of his management.

        A very close relation by marriage grew up not knowing her grandfather because he had the temerity to be stoned to death for the crime of being educated and a mayor of a small town.

        Her father was then forced to take great risks to flee the country for fear of being killed by the communists – not something people in free societies normally have to worry about.

        Or perhaps he made up the whole thing and his father stoned himself?

        Another thing we agree on is that politicians and media tell lies, making it hard to discern what is true and false.

        How, therefore, can you be so confident, that what you are saying is ‘truth’ and what I am saying is ‘spin’?

  39. Your question actually proved that you are ignorant and deeply unintelligent. You must actually have zero understanding of how oppressive capitalist imperialism has been and that it is the capitalist powers that have invaded, bombed, infiltrated, sabotaged, imposed sanctions and embargoes, etc, etc, etc.

    So, since you ignored every point I made that proves that the Cold War narrative makes zero sense and that without the peoples overwhelming support for these socialist governments they wouldn’t of survived a month, I have just one specific questions.

    Why did 14 capitalist states invade Russia to destroy a peoples movement fighting to free themselves from terrible oppression?

    1. Your points prove no such thing, and your continued reliance on the ad hominem (personal attack) logical fallacy is evidence (which if it continues will rise to proof) that you have no answer to the rather fundamental questions I posed you.

      Responding to questions with another question is a diversion, not to mention impolite.

      Your question is an example of the straw man logical fallacy. When you’ve been good enough to answer my questions, I’ll explain why.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s