9 Blogs‎ > ‎Colin Rawle‎ > ‎

Part Three

ESSAY PART THREE (continued from part two)

A person can very well know what they think about any given matter, and can possibly trace the intellectual rationale of their opinions, but they cannot possibly know the extent to which one particular stream of their mixed racial heritage contributes to their consciousness, and consequently to their world views and opinions. This is so, for the excellent reason that they are obliged to use that very same mixed consciousness, or mentality to come to any conclusion about this question - or indeed, about anything else ! Again - one can think or believe anything, but ones race is determined by ones ancestry, ones heredity, ones blood, and nothing else. The closest thing to a "pure" race these days would be the dwindling remnants of peoples like the African bushmen, some South American tribes and Australian aborigines. It is no coincidence that such peoples are also the most primitive. Leaving aside difficulties which may arise from external racial prejudice, being of mixed racial ancestry would not be an inner, personal problem for anyone who understood that their individuality and humanity, not their race, is what is of importance. Above all else we are human. All other differences such as race, nationality, gender etc are secondary, and are not in themselves, (apart from human delusion), divisive.

I have earlier observed, and due consideration will confirm, that the tribal stage of human social evolution corresponds to the stage of adolescence in the modern individual. This thought together with the self evident fact that in Maori radicalism we are dealing with a regression in consciousness, should be held in mind, at least as a hypothesis, in the following. Further complicating the situation is clear evidence that the consciousness of many Europeans, (except for one dimensional, technological brilliance), is also regressing, or being "dumbed down" (to use the current colloquialism). The downstream manifestations of this phenomenon are many and varied, but its first cause is wide spread materialistic secularism and the Marxist/atheistic type ideologies which flow from it. Such a world view enormously limits the endless potential of human consciousness, and eventually of normal healthy intelligence itself. Greatly exacerbating this dangerous state of affairs is a wide spread lack of appreciation of how important a proper understanding of real history is, and of its significance to the present. Those with the requisite insight know full well that there have always been a faction of Maori who are antipathetic to all things non Maori, and that the ambitions of such people are not confined to justifiable and legitimate goals, but are all about gaining economic power as a means to political power. Maori sovereignty to such people means just that.

The question is not whether such racial madness can succeed, but how much social damage will be caused in the attempt. This subversive element of Maoridom is no more interested in justice than were their ancestors who conquered and enslaved the first peoples of this land. The psychology of this element has degenerated back to the level of the struggle for supremacy. They have simply replaced the use of musket, mere and taiaha with the use of democracy, British law and the treaty of Waitangi. Such people invariably equate freedom with license and ignore responsibilities while demanding rights. This embittered and envious minority, who never attribute any of their problems to their own shortcomings, have always been lurking in the margins of society, and, of course such people exist in all races. These days in New Zealand however, they are in the position of being able to ride the present wave of anti-European, anti-colonial delirium for all that it's worth, and to great effect, as the present precarious situation testifies. To this type of consciousness, treaties count as nothing unless they can be used as weapons. Such people, due to their failure to progress, are the perpetual warriors, knowing only the law of conquest or defeat. The old time tactics have changed only as a consequence of the realisation that conventional warfare could not succeed. Life, to this stage of psychological development is always a battle for supremacy, however subtle its manifestations. This type of person, regardless of any treaty, law, or agreement has never really ceased to be at war with the Europeans. These people do not think, they "feel", and their feelings are based upon generations of anti-European self trination and Utu mentality. This mentality requires an enemy.

Or, to the extent that these people do think, their thinking is placed entirely at the disposal of their undisciplined emotional life. The radicals have simply cast European New Zealanders as an enemy tribe which must be conquered by whatever means possible. There is no more justification or reason for this than there ever was in tribal conflict. It is simply an expression of warrior consciousness. The radicals have nowadays fallen back to the misuse of the treaty, of European jurisprudence, highly paid lawyers and Left-wing politicians because it has proved to be the most successful strategy. The psychology of supremacy has not changed and the old anachronistic warrior mentality persists, or has been resurrected. If this type of person were to achieve total dominance they would certainly wish to enslave those whom they regard (wrongly) as their enemies. This is clearly implied in their rhetoric. These things need to be understood in New Zealand today.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy" - Abraham Lincoln.

It is a common human failing, usually during youth, to seek to blame others for ones own shortcomings. With the slightest insight the similarities between Maori radicalism and the worst characteristics of adolescence are inescapable. Everything about the radicals speaks of spoilt adolescence: - The self-centred emotionalism, the arrogance, the lack of respect and consideration for others. The indifference to any social problem, national or international, which does not effect them personally. The lack of appreciation, even awareness, of all they have been given. The resentment, surliness, threats and aggression. The insults, the constant pushing of boundaries, the violence, and vandalism. The "I am unique - you cannot possibly understand me" attitude. The lack of depth, perspective and humour, the inability to laugh at themselves and the inflated sense of self importance. All these characteristics are easily recognisable traits of rebellious immaturity. Under different circumstances it would be possible, and even desirable, to take a benign view of such attitudes, but to take them seriously is evidence of immaturity in itself. That such immaturity is endemic in society today is proven by the very existence of political correctness, without which the grievance industry could never have become a mass movement. The all too human capacity to believe absolutely whatever is to ones advantage is developed to perfection in the radicals. Having noted the spectacular effectiveness of the grievance strategy, the grievances expand in scale and alleged wickedness to the measure of the desired objective. Thus we see the relatively minor Taranaki land conflict and the Parihaka eviction, (in which no one was killed), described as a "holocaust". Even the inter tribal slaughter among Maori of that same area can hardly qualify as a "holocaust".

Many radicalised Maori now totally believe that their difficulties in life are always somehow the fault, of "the pakeha". It is only a question of thinking long enough to see how the pakeha is to blame. This has been truly turned into an art in recent years, and is another good reason to identify oneself as Maori. All this is a part of the social cost of indoctrination and poor education, and I refer to education in the widest sense. The state education system, as poor as it is, cannot take the blame for everything. Parental failure, poor child rearing must take a large share of any blame. I suspect that some of the radicals are nothing but their conditioning, their real self having been submerged. Despite a lot of evidence to suggest that European New Zealanders are probably the least racist people in the world, (towards non "white" and indigenous people at least), I suspect that many radicals sincerely believe that nothing that might befall a European/Pakeha could be more than they deserve. This is another fruit of indoctrination, and may be the source of much Maori violence. For the same reason many radicals are so profoundly ignorant of true New Zealand and world history that with regard to social issues involving such matters, their ideas are quite deranged. Clearly they do not have the faintest idea of what they actually owe to colonisation. As the brave and outspoken Martin Te Heu Heu has said. "they would not have a pig nor a pot to cook it in". Such true but unduly provocative statements could have been avoided if radicalism and political correctness had not created the present unrealistic and racially charged social climate.

"Give me the boy until the age of seven, and I'll give you the man" - say the Jesuits, (who know a thing or two). The hatred, (and it's not too strong a word), of some radicals for things European/Pakeha, has no foundation in reality. It's foundation, as is always the case with fanaticism, is indoctrination and propaganda. We are dealing with pure warrior psychology - tribal consciousness in action - whipping up the troops for the battle! Other expressions of the same militant instincts are the Haka war dances, the ritual challenge to visitors and the warrior "art" of treachery etc. Only the very strongest, mentally autonomous, freethinking individualities can hope to fight their way through such indoctrination applied, (knowingly or instinctively) from an early age. With a little discernment, the state of affairs today stands as testimony to this fact. Of course, in light of this it is clear that the radicals are themselves victims, but are no less destructive on this account, and should be dealt with firmly. In the simplest possible terms, the nation, and more particularly the government, is allowing itself to very successfully bullied. There can be no meeting of minds between the regressive radicals, their overt and covert supporters, and free thinking democratic New Zealanders. Their respective world views, and arguments are separated by vast chasms of time, culture, and experience, and pass each other by unheeded. Generally speaking, and more so since the rise of radicalism, Maori radical thought is dominated by emotion, with facts and logic playing no great part, which is why factual, logical arguments with radical Maori are so spectacularly ineffectual. Nor, as history and current events show, does endless largesse and compromise help the situation, because from the Maori standpoint - everything is about pride - Mana! Charity is very acceptable in the moment, but there is no Mana in it. Only in retrospect do they realise that it only adds to their dependency and humiliation. Thus for a warrior people it turns to ashes in the mouth. Again, - all racial/treaty problems since the time of colonisation can, in large measure be attributed to the great gulf separating democratic European consciousness from tribal Maori consciousness. As previously mentioned, if the British had understood this they would never have entertained the idea of a treaty with Maori. For they would have known that regardless of whether they themselves might misuse it, it would be used by Maori, (generally speaking), for as long as tribal mentality persists, as a means to gain the advantage. This is precisely what has been happening since the day it was signed, as far as the radicals are concerned. The only thing that has changed (since the 1960's) to allow this aspect of tribalism to break through into outer events, is the final rejection by many New Zealanders of "old fashioned" morality and values. This weakening of moral fibre undermined a democratic social ideal which was forged over millennia out of a demand of the human spirit for freedom and equality. These, so-called, "old" values, in fact, are imperishable and should not be discarded in favour of racial privilege and separatism for they are the only foundation upon which a civilised social future can be built. Whether through apathy, ignorance, or whatever, the ramparts of democracy have not been adequately defended, and tribal mentality is flooding the breaches. The only choice New Zealanders will finally be left with, is whether to surrender to tribalism, or overrule it. (By "New Zealanders" I mean all people who place this status above all other distinctions of race, tribe, country of origin etc).

The so called "negotiations" with Maori activists over recent years have been nothing more than a series of craven capitulation's. The best that can be achieved through negotiations with the regressive radicals is racial privilege (for them) and separatism; a process which is already well underway. A continuation of this appeasement policy will prove socially disastrous, and the foreshadowing of such a totally unnecessary turn of events is now clearly discernible. As already averred, the Maori radicals and their supporters are prosecuting a new form of tribal warfare against the "Pakeha tribe". Their weapons include all the crafty intrigues and psychological tactics of their old warrior culture, together with the endless devices of modern western society and law placed at their disposal by virtue of their British/New Zealand citizenship.

The socially lethal doctrine of so called "moral relativism" is the latest insanity of secular Western liberal intellectualism to be placed at the disposal of the radicals. How convenient that such aberrant thinking arises just at the right time to serve the interests of the "treaty process". Necessity is indeed the mother of invention! Already there is talk of Maori being possessed of a "separate moral universe". Indeed, a different and contradictory "morality" from that which has underpinned all worthwhile human aspiration and achievement since the dawn of time, would be necessary to justify recent Maori attitudes and claims. The escalation in racial and general social chaos that "moral relativism" cannot fail to cause in this country is only the merest hint of what it will precipitate throughout the entire world if it proliferates as the rest of political correctness has to date. Such an ideology could only have arisen out of totally atheistic world view. Therefore nothing more needs to be said regarding the professed "spirituality" of anyone, Maori or European, who can entertain it.


For those whom accept the current sanitised, revisionist version of pre colonial Maori traits, it is worth including the following extract from E.J. Wakefield's "Adventures in New Zealand" as quoted in the book by W.T.L Travers and the Reverend J.W.Stack - "Te Rauparaha and the Sacking of Kaiapohia", (published 1872) : -- "Innumerable accounts have been related to me of Te Rauparaha's unbounded treachery. No sacrifice of honour or feeling seems to have been too great for him, if conducive to his own aggrandisement or security" ...... "in his intercourse with white whalers and traders and the shipping in the Strait, he had universally distinguished himself by the same qualities. By dint of cringing and fawning upon those who showed power and inclination to resist his constant exhortations, and the most determined insolence and bullying towards those whom he knew to be at his mercy, he succeeded in obtaining a large revenue from the white population, whether transient or permanent, which he invariably applied to the extension of his power among the natives".. ....."Master as he was of all the treacherous arts practised by the Maori warrior, and ruthless as his designs were carried out, and fearful as the results might have been, it must be remembered that he was doing no more than his great countrymen, E. Hongi, Waharoa, Te Whero Whero, and other leading chiefs who, during the same period, carried out wars in various parts of the islands. Those who knew Te Whero Whero Potatau will recall the peculiar dignity of his manner, and certainly no one would have supposed that the tall graceful looking man in the full dress of an English gentleman, who conversed with quite ease with those whom he met in the drawing rooms of Government House at Auckland, was the same person as the savage who sat naked on the ground at Pukerangiora smashing the skulls of hundreds of defenceless prisoners, until he was almost smothered with blood and brains".

I do not quote this bloodcurdling passage for sensationalism but as an illustration of the deceptive and unconscionable ease with which tribal mentality can change to exploit differing circumstances. It is naive in the extreme to believe that a good measure of these same traits are not alive and well in the radicals of today.


Again, the old Maori consciousness was still at the tribal stage, and to the extent that it still persists, it remains so. It is nowhere near the stage of the democratic impulse which in European civilisation was inaugurated in the Greeko/Roman epoch. Therefore it should not be surprising that Maori concerns do not generally extend beyond their own interests, and indeed, often not beyond their own tribal interests. In saying this there are clearly many individual Maoris who have attained to a more cosmopolitan point of view, but as far as the treaty industry is concerned the old tribal attitude is obviously the dominant factor. Therefore it is utterly naive to expect the majority of treaty claimants to give anything more than lip service to the concept of "responsibility for society as a whole". I again emphasise that in speaking of racial matters one is forced into generalisations which do not hold true in every individual case, and I know that there are some Maori who share some of the concerns addressed in this essay. However, this particular generalisation does, unfortunately, appear to hold true with regard to treaty claims. It could be argued, with some validity, that Maori cannot yet be expected to truly grasp or embrace the democratic spirit. After all, they have only relatively recently been removed from a wholly tribal, pre-democratic state of being. Euro New Zealanders however, have no such excuse. The ever present difficulty with comments such as - "Maori cannot yet be expected to truly grasp the democratic spirit" is, of course, that we are not dealing with true Maori, but with people of mixed race. Therefore, to the degree that some mixed race "Maori" radicals can indeed understand democracy, then to that same degree their attitude and actions can only be attributed to cynical opportunism.

Failing the highly unlikely event of a general social awakening in the immediate future, it now seems inevitable that humanity will yet again have to gather the
remnants of another social disaster, and start again. In this eventuality it is to be hoped that we will finally learn to raise our children to be free from our own sympathies and antipathies, and pet theories ; as free from all conditioning and indoctrination as is possible, so that, out of themselves they are able to impart purpose and direction to their lives, and thus build a social future better than we have been proven capable of. Without propaganda/indoctrination/conditioning, the world-wide conflicts resulting from sectarianism, nationalism, racism etcetera would be impossible. To indoctrinate children is one of the worst crimes inasmuch as it attempts chain the mentality of the future to the mentality of the past.

"The chief cause of human errors is to be found in the prejudices picked up in childhood". - Ren'e Descartes (1596 - 1650)

The great wave of antipathy for all things Western did not originate in the first instance from either the so called proletariat nor from undeveloped peoples such as the Maori, but from the rise of ultra Left wing ideology in the privileged intelligentsia of the West itself. The Maori radical movement, with typical pragmatic opportunism, and not a little astonished disbelief, is simply riding the wave as far as it will take them. Unfortunately it will take them, and the rest of us to social ruin and misery. It is quite devastating to realise that through a fatal combination of ignorance, confusion, and apathy New Zealanders are allowing bedrock social principals of democracy and justice, won through thousands of years of sacrifice and striving, to simply slip away. The true gravity of the situation only dawns upon one when it is further realised that all hope of a civilised future also turns upon the question of whether or not these same all-embracing social principals are cherished and upheld or finally discarded. In matters involving the question of race, and in all other potential areas of division, this country is allowing its social fabric to be destroyed by people who regardless of their race and chronological age, are emotional and intellectual juveniles.

The basic cause of much of the sense of resentment and" injustice" among both Maori and some deluded Pakeha regarding Maori issues, is the convenient and incongruous belief that the colonists had no right to come to this country in the first place; that colonisation should not, or need not, have happened. The error of this view has already been shown and is irreconcilable with the fact that Maori too colonised this country with a ruthlessness which surpassed anything that the British ever did. (I realise that it is politically incorrect these days to refer to the Mori Ori/Waitaha). The sheer hypocrisy and inconsistency of this is something which repeatedly strikes one anew. The best construction which can be put upon this attitude is that many people are genuinely ignorant of the history of the Maori in New Zealand. The worst construction is very ominous. The life blood of the treaty/grievance industry is disinformation and ignorance, and it is the responsibility of each individual to dispel ignorance. I am acutely aware that this is the very argument used by those who would oppose my views. Such is the world we live in at the end of the twentieth century.

It must surely be acknowledged that the old time Maori had no concept of land ownership as understood by both Maori and European these days. Land was held, or lost, by Maori in the precolonial tribal days only by force of arms, not by any established and universally accepted legal system. The old time Maori, by means of the old visionary consciousness, understood the truth of the matter i.e, that they belonged to the land as much as the land belonged to them. This, taken together with some of the points already covered, and the fact that vast areas of the country were not occupied by Maori, makes it impossible to accept that New Zealand was "owned" in its entirety by Maori in any sense. In the fullness of time I believe that the attitude of all ancient peoples to land, (that it cannot be "owned") will be seen to be correct. In the meantime such considerations as these should be well noted with regard to scandalous claims for vast areas of land and property that are presently utilised and enjoyed by all New Zealanders, including Maori, and for land which for generations has known the blood, sweat and tears of non Maori people.

The New Zealand of the genuine old time Maori, like the the old time Maoris themselves, no longer exists. That past New Zealand was a splendid, but unmodified and uncivilised wilderness, and it was the courage, sacrifice, Herculean labours, and skill of Europeans who transformed it into the modern, independent nation of New Zealand of today. As a result of the civilising effects of education and exposure to the great wide world, Maoris were eventually in a position to join in this task, but could have done nothing without the colonists and the civilisation they introduced.

While I believe that the terms of the treaty of Waitangi, honestly interpreted, should, as far as is reasonable be honoured, it should be remembered that the treaty itself is hardly a comprehensive document. It is a document of its time and therefore could not address many of the complex issues that have arisen since 1840 as a result of evolving consciousness and the consequent progress in civil rights and technology. Therefore this simple document is wide open to misinterpretation by those whose ideology and agenda bears no relation to truth, justice, and historical fact. Different circumstances demand different approaches, and in no other time in history have social circumstances changed so enormously as over the 150 years since the treaty was signed. To believe that the treaty intended to enshrine forever rights, (including special political rights), and privileges upon the basis of race is either a cynical contrivance or a delusion born of self interest. Today most people regard racial discrimination whatever its source or form as offensive, but in any event, racial discrimination is no less offensive for being embalmed in old documents.

So called "positive discrimination" is discrimination still, and means negative discrimination to others. Having said this, there is not a trace of racial discrimination in the treaty of Waitangi. On the contrary, one of its clear intentions was to put an end to racial discrimination. As has been pointed out, human consciousness evolves, progresses. There was a time in the cultures of all peoples when slavery was considered to be a normal and acceptable part of life. In this regard, the only unique thing about Europeans is that they were the first people in the world to outlaw slavery. We cannot allow ourselves to be forever bound by the attitudes of past generations. Therefore, if any treaty is no longer applicable to present circumstances, or contravenes the natural justice of the moment, it should be overruled. Commonsense and goodwill is the issue here. Failing these no human dispute is ever satisfactorily resolved.

Having made these points, I still believe that where past injustices can be absolutely verified by rigorous and impartial investigation, and where it can be shown that such injustices have led to present Maori being disadvantaged relative to other people, then they should be rectified. However, I agree with the Crown that its wider social responsibilities should prohibit it from granting any kind of compensation to any person, tribe or race, if such compensation in turn creates injustices to other individuals or to society generally. Here, the Crown/government has already contravened its own ruling.

Settlements should be full and final, (I leave aside the fact that in some cases several "full and final" settlements have already been made and agreed to in the past). Ongoing claims by successive generations of Maori into the indefinite future should be out of the question. This is necessary to provide the long term stability and assurance in land and asset control which is so necessary to future business confidence and healthy economic development. Again, the never ending grievances and claims are a characteristic of tribal consciousness. Even if the habit of never finally relinquishing something that one has given or sold is a genuine custom of tribalism and not the opportunism of the moment, why should Europeans abandon their own hard won social tenets and values and defer to such a socially impossible absurdity?

As I understand them the Crown proposals seem not only more than generous to Maori, but extravagant to the point of complete social irresponsibility. With regard to claims made against the conservation estate all existing rights of public access should be maintained unconditionally. It would be all too easy for new Maori owners to exclude the public for professed cultural or spiritual reasons which are impossible to either validate or deny. Maori should have no special rights to natural resources which were unknown or unused by them prior to colonisation, and no special rights above others to any resources existing on any public land or waters, including the sea.

These measures are necessary in the cause of real justice and to avert backlash resentments which regrettably but understandably are already growing among non Maori New Zealanders.

Surely the ultimate goal of civilisation must be absolute equality of rights in all things for all people?

At this point I feel compelled to address once again the question of Maori resentment, because while this remains there can never be any final reconciliation and resolution. Furthermore, if I am correct in my conviction that this resentment is by no means wholly explained by land or resource grievances, then of course, land settlements etcetera, will not resolve the problem. Little or nothing will have been achieved and resentment towards Maori will escalate. Therefore, I reiterate, Maori should make sincere and strenuous efforts to be crystal clear about all the sources of their grievance and irrevocably lay them to rest together with the treaty settlements. Only they can do this because this grievance, this grief, (insofar as it is justified ), is associated with their particular relationship to the iron necessity of world evolution which has nothing to do with anyone but themselves and lies too deep for any dispute over land to possibly reach. Whatever made it the destiny of Maori to live so long on these islands, in such complete isolation, and in such an ancient lifestyle, Europeans had no hand in it. It was simply the destiny and task of Europeans, i.e. the British, to gather New Zealand and the Maori into the modern world. To do this they had to live here, and to live here they had to have land. In many of the former British/European colonies the task of integrating indigenous peoples into the greater world has, to varying degrees, been completed. In New Zealand today the mixed race descendants of the old stone age Maori have been equipped with the education, language, skills, technology, and legal right, to stand in the modern world on an equal basis with anyone.

If Maori can find the strength and wisdom to put tribalism behind them, they will be able to see the traumatic events of colonisation from a higher and less parochial point of view. Then seeds of goodwill could be sown with which we can travel together into the future. They can only achieve this by bravely turning their faces to the future and by consigning tribal attitudes to where they belong - the past. Maori will have no (honourable) future until they let go of the past; just as the indigenous people of Britain were once obliged to let go of their primitive past in the face of the numerous invasions they experienced.

As a result of the rich mix of cultures that melded together to finally become the British people, these people were imbued with the qualities and faculties which enabled them to fulfil their destiny of creating the worlds greatest empire. Once the principal mission of this empire was more or less fulfilled, it began to wane. (However, as stated above, the current steep moral decline of the international West, together with its attendant global decline, is not a timely part of this natural evolutionary sunset.)

It is lack of ethical individualism, wisdom, and discernment, combined with indoctrination and a lamentable lack of knowledge of world and human history, which leaves people vulnerable to the retrogressive forces of divisiveness.

Such anachronistic forces lie at the root of the Maori radical movement which, in its turn is having its malevolent influence upon far too many other people. Inasmuch as the radicals have, in their weakness, allowed themselves to be repossessed by the old tribal mentality, they have been drawn back into a past atavistic consciousness of grievance and revenge, (Utu). No amount of land and resource settlements, or monetary "compensation" can ever resolve the grievance psychology of those who have allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by these backward influences; because, being possessed by them, they then nurse them and revel in them. They cannot, or will not, muster the strength to let them go. Out of these facts has arisen "the grievance industry" Surely there can be no greater contrast between the attitudes of modern, mixed race "Maori" radicals, and those of Western pseudo liberal intellectuals. The former perpetually nurses and embellishes ancient grievances while never giving a moments thought to the past crimes of their own race, while self condemning white liberals will go to the extent of grossly exaggerating historical misdemeanours with which to berate themselves and their forebears. The social consequences of this psychological/intellectual aberration are self evident, and stand before us at every turn nowadays.

Surely the case is proven by the fact that in some instances of Maori claims over the years there have apparently been as many as four "final" settlements involving land and money, with no perceptible decrease in resentment. Even the most recent enormous "settlements", (Tainui, Ngai Tahu etcetera) are accompanied by typically vague and ambiguous statements regarding finality. The moral corruption of those who repeatedly break past solemn agreements is equalled only by that of those who assent to such behaviour. Indeed, very recently it has been baldly stated by radicals that as far as they are concerned, there will never be an end to the grievances and claims. Such statements and attitudes is of course pure provocation - a challenge. Such challenges are characteristic of warrior tribalism, and racial problems in this country will never be resolved until such challenges are met. The entire radical/treaty/grievance industry should be seen as just such a challenge. As still very much a warrior culture Maori respect nothing so much as courage and strength, and it is precisely these qualities which, in these politically correct times, they see lacking in the "Pakeha". This was not always the case. Prior to the early 1900's, Maori had good reason to respect the determination, will, and courage of the early British settlers and soldiers. As the saying goes:- "The white man makes a much better friend than an enemy".

If European New Zealanders are ever to re-establish racial harmony they must first win back the respect of Maori, and to do this they must first meet the Maori challenge. The inability, or unwillingness of the radicals to see the endless expressions of European goodwill towards Maori (notwithstanding individual exceptions to this generalisation), as anything but a weakness to be exploited speaks volumes of the tribal mentality they cling to, and clearly shows that harmonious inter-racial co-existence is no part of their plans. To the radicals, all the demands, all the claims, the insistence upon apologies, demands for sovereignty etc, the whole grievance industry in its entirety is an ongoing war. Wars are about conquest, and conquest is all about Mana and supremacy - and nothing less will ever satisfy the radical movement. European New Zealanders are losing this war hands down because they refuse to see it for what it is.

However, the loser in the long run, will be the nation as a whole. Effeminate politically correctness has no understanding of such things. It makes the worst possible mistake in this regard - it seeks to appease. It indulges itself in a variant of the "Stockholm Syndrom" - wherein the hostage adopts a contemptible subservient empathy towards his persecutor. It is precisely this obsequious attitude which has earned Europeans the contempt of the Maori radical warriors. Maori, like all warriors will use turncoats and fifth columnists to their purposes, but quite rightly, despise them. In the old days the lives of such people were worthless These comments should not be seen as sabre rattling but as a hope that this country shall not dissolve into a welter of racial and tribal factionalism. It should be realised that even in the impossible event of Maori finally being appeased by means of the present policies, we shall then be left with a much greater, and fully justified legacy of growing moral outrage on the part of the great many Euro/New Zealanders who know the real meaning of human rights, justice, and democracy. Tribalism, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of it knows, is the very exemplification and embodiment of elitism. Very clear and rigidly enforced demarcation of rank and privilege existed within tribes. Conquered tribes sometimes became slave hapu's in their entirety. Such was the terrible fate of the so called Morioris of the Chatham islands. The survivors of the massacre were at the constant beck and call of their masters, and were sometimes killed, and probably eaten, at a whim. One hardly needs to read between the lines to see the same elitist impulse at work in radicalism, and there is anecdotal evidence that a Maori elite, served by "the rest" is on the agenda of the radical movement. Again, the question is not whether or not such an ambition could succeed, but how much social disruption will be caused in the attempt?

Whether or not the transference to Maori of so much of New Zealand's wealth and resources, together with the social and political influence which such economic power carries, is a wise course of action, is by no means a simple question to huge numbers of New Zealanders. Certainly, any improvement in race relations - with regard to the radical movement - has yet to be seen. If anything, in keeping with the above comments arrogance, and aggression is increasing. In the past any reference to these currently epidemic retrograde forces, to which some Maori are showing themselves to be susceptible, has been met with scepticism and the usual barrage of "red neck", "right-wing" accusations. However, in more recent times the problem is increasingly referred to. In May 1996, the Governor - general Sir Michael Hardy Boys addressing a large audience in Rotorua warned about the phenomenon of which I speak. He spoke of "forces of disunity" at work in New Zealand, and "separatism leads to civil strife and civil war". He also spoke of an "atmosphere" of racial divisiveness, confrontation, and antagonism.

It is not my wish to be controversial or provocative. It is the present dire social circumstances themselves, brought about by extremely ill advised policies, which are provoking controversy. If some covert revolutionary organisation were to set about to destabilise this country by the means of inciting racial antagonisms, they could do no better than pursue the present government policies with regard to Maori issues and the treaty of Waitangi.

When we are witness to members of the judiciary itself succumbing to the same delirium, (the Maori trout fishing case etc), then one wonders just where we can put our trust these days - and what hope there is for the future? The increasing incidence of judges reinterpreting long standing and widely accepted interpretations of law, is a "modus operandi" of the deconstructionist ideology. The practice is now common enough to have earned itself the name "judicial activism". This trend would appear to derive from the greatest possible arrogance, inasmuch as the individuals concerned obviously believe that their personal subjective opinions are so infallible that the established and time honoured law making function of parliament, together with the normal democratic participation of the entire national electorate can safely be ignored! In their own judgement, the only required justification for such blatant social engineeing is simply that "they know best"; in which case the only thing that remains is for them to somehow have their way - ("The end justifies the means).

I have already quoted Plato on public opinion, nevertheless in our times the people cannot be simply ignored. Rather they should be informed by a real education system, the highest ideal of which would not be geared according to economic criteria, but to develop free thinking individuals, capable of true ethical self-direction and purpose. On the matter of arrogance I have the impression that the youngest of the present socialist oriented generation currently taking the reins of power have less respect for their ancestors than did previous generations, (this is a mistake that true tribal peoples do not make). Many of this generation show every sign of believing that history has come to its end, that there is nothing left to learn, and that nothing of the past, even of the very recent past, is of any worth. Thus everything must be changed, ("rationalised"/"restructured".) Often it is a case of the wheel being repeatedly reinvented - and very badly. Constant change for the sake of change - out of a seemingly invincible ignorance and its offspring - gross egoism.

Regarding the stance and partiality of the Waitangi Tribunal, its irresponsible description of the Taranaki conflict as "the holocaust of Taranaki history" should require no further comment. However, considering the infamous evil with which the word "holocaust" has become inseparably associated, its use by this supposedly impartial tribunal was obviously calculated to portray the British colonials in the worst possible light. Such inflammatory rhetoric makes a mockery of what has been described by the office of the Governor-General as "the overriding Treaty principal", i.e. "the reciprocal obligations of the Crown and Maori to act towards each other reasonably and with the utmost good faith".

It also reinforces a point made earlier regarding the employment by radicalism of outlandish exaggeration and propaganda. In this connection it is worth noting that James Cowan, (1870-1943), the respected (and pre-revisionist), New Zealand historian and fluent in the Maori tongue, estimates that less than five hundred Europeans and two hundred and fifty friendly Maoris perished in the entire Maori war. It was not possible to be so definite about rebel Maori casualities but Cowan suggests approximately two thousand. Tragic, and as unnecessary as such a loss of life may have been, this is not a great toll by the yardstick of warfare thoughout human history. Furthermore, these wars, or series of greater and smaller skirmishes, were not, as popularly imagined, a clear cut matter of British or "Pakeha" against Maori. The war was fought between the British and their loyal Maori allies on the one hand, and a minority of rebel tribes - who had broken the treaty of Waitangi and taken up arms against the Queen on the other. It should not be necessary to mention such facts of history, but due to revisionist "history" and propaganda, it is. Finally, as Charles Heaphy makes clear, it was not the tribes who had sold significant acreage of their land to the government for settlement who first commenced hostilities: - "The Taranaki and Ngatiruanui tribes were, by the murder and of the unarmed settlers and boys, the first to commence hostilities. They were entirely unconnected with Kingi's land dispute, and had openly discussed a plan for "driving the white people into the sea" and occupying their cultivations. These tribes inhabit the fertile and almost plain country extending southward from the New Plymouth settlement along about ninety seven miles of coast from the Hauranga stream to within a few miles of Wanganui. Their population is about 2,049; and of a territory which comprises 1,236,480 acres, they have sold 152,320 acres, leaving them 1,034,160, or rather more than 529 acres to each person". ("Papers Relative To The Native Insurrection", (1861.)

(The Ngatiruanui tribe recently (2006, I believe), received a large monetary "compensation" for past "injustices" from the government/taxpayer, and an apology.)

With the recent death of Sir Charles Bennet we have lost a Maori figure of real prestige and prominence (Mana). Here was a scholar, soldier, administrator and diplomat, born and raised prior to the rise of political correctness and widespread anti Pakeha propaganda. Consequently from an early age he could recognise the value of so much in European civilisation, particularly education. Finally he went to study at one of the great centres of European scholarship and culture - Oxford university in England. He knew that the progress of Maori was entirely up to Maori: - "Everywhere they have opportunities and in many cases, as in education, the bias is in their favour". This he said forty years ago and since then advantages for Maori, quite apart from the enormous treaty settlements, have greatly increased. There is no excuse.

My ancestry is entirely European. To be either proud or ashamed of this would be contrary to everything I believe in. It is simply a fact to be acknowledged. Racial pride is racism pure and simple, and racial shame is ridiculous. Both deny individualism which is the essence of being human. I have lived in New Zealand for the past forty six years, and have had a number of Maori friends, and a business partner for four years who was more Maori then most of the radicals and their patrons. I valued those relationships and I am extremely saddened about the further deterioration in Maori/European relations which will be the inevitable result of nonsensical attitudes among certain sections of the public, and of present government policies concerning treaty matters and Maori matters generally.

Conclusion follows HERE