Those of you who follow this blog closely will see that regular contributors are ONENZ and their followers.
While on the one hand I want to pursue truth, on the other I don’t want to be distracted by going off topic.
I certainly don’t want to be hijacked.
Our single goal is to stop co-governance. Period.
However, I want to publish something ONENZ sent me and open a discussion.
My big question is this – why haven’t any reputable historians in New Zealand picked up on the claims made by ONENZ?
And pursued them?
Kiwis are usually very good at sniffing out corruption. So why has this not come to light? Why has it not become a headline front page media issue?
I know historian Claudia Orange and others like her are political puppets, and they and their works cannot be trusted to convey truth. So we can discount her and others like her.
However, not all historians are like her.
I don’t intend to dwell on this topic for more than this one blog, as anyone who is interested in more information can contact the organisation directly.
HERE is the piece I would like you to read and comment on please.
“The truth shall set you free “
That statement has been proved to be absolute bullshit in NZ. In NZ it is “ The truth shall be buried and forbidden”
We are the world centre for naivety as far as esp labour go and to a large degree national with the woke leader they have.
We will not unite and loudly proclaim that maori history shows a depth of cruelty and inhumanity to man that beggars belief. Hitler was a saint compared.
The proof by their own proven history and proven by them couldn’t show more clearly that they are not indigenous by arriving in canoes that fortunately for them drifted this way. Any claims of navigation skills are pure bullshit. How could they have navigated to a place they didn’t know existed?
No media outlet in this country will not publish the truth, the media in NZ is a vipers nest of of liars and terrified of being punished by the govt if they dare to tell the truth.
There is only one place on this planet that one could possibly be indigenous and god knows where that is. Everybody everywhere on this planet spread from that original place where man started his existence on this planet . No other palace on this planet has indigenous people we all came from somewhere. Or do I misunderstand the word indigenous
Alastair, this is powerful and truthful writing my friend. Absolutely love your contribution to this site. Keep it coming.
Julian, the aim is to stop cogovernance, great. but what is the plan?
National tour, build large data base, then finally a 100,000 people rally in Auckland domain. At the very least, put pressure on all parties to stop. co-governance.
Enter Parliament as an MP and begin to lobby from the inside.
Maoris are not indigenous to New Zealand Christopher Finlayson says no document exists The UN Nations does not have a definition of indigenous people. hon Pita (Peter) sharples says governments definition of the indigenous people. Peter Sharples has a white father of Britisn born parents.
David Rankin Ngapuhi Chief: Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand There were many races already living here before Kupe arrived I am his direct desendant I know from our history passed down.
They were not called Maori that term only came to be used in the 1850’s Before that they were called New Zealanders or natives.
The following definition of indigenous people is established and published in UN policy documents and websites deriving from José Martinez Cobo’s definition:
1) Self-identification as indigenous people at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member;
2) Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies;
3) Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources;
4) Distinct social, economic, or political systems;
5) Distinct language, culture, and beliefs;
6) Form non-dominant groups of society; and,
7) Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinct communities.
Clearly the above has been adopted to suit the UN’s agendas, entirely devoid of the main thrust of the plain English dictionary definition, of no known other origin.
The UN describe the characteristics of indigenous people (which do apply to Māori), whereas the dictionary (OED) merely defines it briefly as::
a. Born or originating in a particular place; spec. (now often with capital initial) designating a people or group inhabiting a place before the arrival of (European) settlers or colonizers.
Even the dictionary definitions vary. The earlier dictionaries do not include “a people or group inhabiting a place before the arrival of (European) settlers or colonizers”
Thi addition s is a corruption. .
To get the correct definition you have to go to very old printed dictionaries. Hard copies.
Virtually all on line versions are corrupt. i.e. they have been changed to suit the ‘indigenous’ agenda.
You are so absolutely right Alastair. I just wish the rest of New Zealand would wake up. Are they too ‘scared’ to mention the truth?I find it diabolical that our preached history is one great big lie.
ONENZ shows us the attempted Co-Governance from a different angle.
It is pretty full on, and many will not like this.
Steve
Excellent summation Ross of One New Zealand Foundation.
Clause 8 of The Royal Charter confirms guarantees made by Queen Victoria in the Tiriti o Waitangi to tangata maori.
At the first sitting of the Legislative Council on the 24th May 1841, Governor Hobson said, “I deem it proper to draw your attention, not only to the Royal Charter, but to the highly important instructions under the royal signet and sign manual which accompany it”.
(From the New Zealand Government Gazette)
A few comments on the article:
“Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People does not apply to them..”
Yes it does, under the UN’s (hijacked) definition of the term “indigenous”, which is the basis on which NZ (or at least Key et al) signed the declaration.
Most dangerous in this agreement is the right to self-determination, which is effectively a kind of sovereignty. Agreeing a sovereignty within a sovereignty is asking for trouble. Very stupid.
Note that UNDRIP has no legal standing in NZ law, nor is it a binding agreement, so cannot be “repealed” in a formal sense. Rather it would be sufficient to send an official declaration to the UN nullifying NZ’s agreement.
“Today’s Maori are not the people who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.”
The ToW is not with Maori as a race, despite that the language often expresses it that way, but with iwi, many perhaps most of which still exist today. It is possible that many of those iwi still exist only due to their value as potential ToW claimants, without which there would have been little incentive to keep them going.
“The Treaty of Waitangi made Maori British Subjects with the same rights as the people of England and a British Subject cannot be in Partnership or Co-governance with the Crown”
Correct.
“Maori were given the option to claim sovereignty over New Zealand in 1835 but were unable to form a united body due to the ever-present tension and fighting between the tribes.”
Have little doubt of the intent, i.e. to ward of the French, also that this was as similarly impossible as it was before Genghis Khan united the Mongol tribes. A large part of ongoing Maori disarray was undoubtedly because there was no written means of codifying such critical information as the concept of ownership, boundaries, and agreements generally.
“We can already see tribalism creeping into politics with the involvement of Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s family”
Most certainly.
” The Treaty of Waitangi dated 6 February 1840 made no mention of Maori being given special rights and privileges not enjoyed by all the people of New Zealand. They were given the same rights as the people of New Zealand under one flag and one law. No more, no less.”
The is nothing in my reading of the ToW that signifies any intent to give special rights to Maori, quite the opposite. Indeed, it is perfectly legal for anybody to establish their own tribe, or perhaps cult, with an organisation hierarchy and internal laws or perhaps rules, providing those internal rules are themselves lawful under NZ law, relevant taxes are paid etc.
” Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840 was our true Founding Document and made no mention of Maori being given special rights and privileges not enjoyed by all the people of New Zealand and none were given.”
It is clear that the Royal Charter/Letters are NZ’s true founding document. Why this isn’t widely recognised remains a mystery. Less of a mystery is why Ross Baker’s petition to have the Royal Charter so recognised, given what we now understand about the Government’s secret He Puapua plans.
In any case it seems to me that this is the key question to be answered. It might be enlightening to ask both ACT and National if they would support or better still draft a Bill to recognise the Royal Charter as NZ’s founding document, and if not why not?
Without Te Tiriti Waitangi the Royal Charter would never have come about , as to which is the ‘founding document’ is semantics. One followed the other and both are integral parts of our history.
On another note I wrote to Kaipara Mayor Craig Jepson with regard to the assaults upon his mana by racist Maori Supremacists and received a reply about the accepted resolution to the race based hate mongering by a [descendant of turekareka] councilor who just happened to have some Maori heritage.
It is sad that the council has to waste time dealing with secular and not business matters to the detriment of the public.
Alastair, never truer words written about the censorship and apathy of Kiwis. As to “There is only one place on this planet that one could possibly be indigenous and god knows where that is” I have no clue what you are talking about.
Man evolved in many different places over time. This is why we have different races. This is why sub Saharan Africans had no Neanderthal or Devonian DNA until admixture with Europeans and East Asians.
Britons are the indigenous peoples of Britain as they are the first known. Australian Aboriginals are indigenous to Australia for the same reason. Both developed separately and there is evidence as to how they arrived.
OoA and the modern sandland cults stories are both rubbish.
Barry T. The Treaty of Waitangi asked the Maori chiefs to give up their governments and in return, the Maori would have, “The same rights as the people of England”. They would become British Subjects. The Treaty did not refer to the people of England as they were already British Subjects. This was all achieved when New Zealand was under the dependency of New South Wales.
The document that referred to all the people living in New Zealand was Queen Victoria’s 1840 Royal Charter. It separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into a British Colony with a Governor and constitution under oneflag and one law,
irrespective of race, colour or creed – the important part!
There is no other document in New Zealand’s history that comes anywhere near to a true Founding Document than Queen Victoria’s 1840 Royal Charter.
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is our true Founding Document and First Constitution. and New Zealand Independence Day 3rd May Queen Victoria did not have the power or authority to give Maori any special rights in the Tiriti o Waitangi not already enjoyed by the people of England under English Law.
Ron Segal,
Very clearly all political parties in New Zealand are working under instruction from the U.N. This is the same as in every other Western country.
There is not a single politician in New Zealand that is working for the good of the country or the welfare of its citizens. None. Not a one.
Exactly Barry,
And let’s not forget all those other unelected NGO’s (non government organisations) that harbour these evil globalist controllers that want us either gone or slaves to their demands, like you will own nothing, eat bugs and be happy.
WEF, WHO, IMF, BIS, Rothchilds owned/controlled Central Banks ect.
Congratulations for an excellent summary of our history.
However, it is time to set the disputed and frequently distorted historical narrative to one side, to stop being ruled from beyond the grave and to stop accepting that we should be beholden to any particular view of the past. We should ask what we want now, and demand what is best for 21st century New Zealand. There needs to be a reassertion of a belief in equality, with all people born equal, having the same rights and powers within a genuine democracy.
A revolution, a coup, for separation based on race, has been planned and created over the past several decades; the focus must not be on any one particular, isolated issue but on that one overwhelming fact. The past is being used as a weapon and we must refuse to fight only on the ground that they have set out. Let’s be simple and direct, demand equality for ourselves, refusing to be caught up in a tangle of debate, on just what happened, and what people thought so many years ago.
So, good on you Ross, and let’s all together take the next self-assured step towards a preferred future in a modern and civilised New Zealand, free from racism. If only that could be achieved, the true story of our country could be told, free from political control.
Well said John most of us who are awake know what is going on and what has been happening for decades
I feel it is pointless just talking about it amongst ourselves and pointless also trying to debate with commonsense with those who are completely blinkered .
It has got beyond that and is almost too late now.
Joining a suitable political party and speaking up at every opportunity to try and influence its direction may be all that is left
My choice would be ACT I have no confidence that National under Luxon will change much at all
It doesn’t matter which you slice it, there can be no taxation without representation !
In regards to previous comments on being indigenous or not, well that is quite simple to clear up as follows,
1) Maori simply can’t by their own admission tell anyone where they came from or set off from in regards to their great migration. They claim to know the number of canoes and the captains thereof, but nothing of any fact concerning a homeland. So on that basis they are by their own admission simply migrants (refer to the Great Migration)
2) There are at this point in time 14 different sub species of human being which belong to 3 main categories;
a) Caucasoid – Europeans fair skinned peoples
b) Mongoloid – peoples of Asian appearance
c) Negroid – African peoples of dark skin colour.
To even the most casual observer these 3 main strains of human being are obvious and undeniable. Now take a close look at Maori and you will recognise immediately the differing genetics and characteristics found in a race of people, that could not possibly have come from one source, but are instead the by product of cross pollination.
So let’s cut to the chase and dismiss immediately the term INDIGENOUS and then cease and desist from claiming the treaty formed a partnership with a tribal race of violent and dysfunctional people on the basis that they were here first.
Left to their own devices Maori would have decimated their own race by use of the musket. They are now engaging in a political war aided and abetted by treacherous politicians who subscribe to and are brow beaten by the United Nations.
The UN has no jurisdiction within New Zealand’s democracy, so let us consign the treaty document to history, the Maori to their politically designated percentages and move forward.
There are only 2 problems and both can be eliminated with one quick and factual debate, followed by swift legislation returning New Zealand back to the control its 5 million or so people, not a rag tag mob of terrorists who somehow claim cultural superiority.
The madness has to end before there is nothing left to salvage.
The Royal Charter was on public display in the New Zealand Archives Constitution Room in Wellington, so historians should have stumbled upon them?
It was only in 2015 when ONZF brought it to the Governments attention that this was New Zealand’s Founding Document that the Constitution Room was immediately dismantled and the Royal Charter hidden in the Archives repository.
The Treaty of Waitangi was then placed in the $7.2 million He Tohu Exhibition at the National Library in Wellington and displayed as “An iconic constitutional document that shaped Aotearoa New Zealand”.
Wasn’t the 2015 PM the same one that sent Pita Sharples to the UN?
You can’t make this stuff up.
No you cannot make this stuff up Neil, but unfortunately, most of it has disapeared from our New Zealand Archives and has to be found in the Australian and American Archive or the British Partiamentary Papers, but it is still all there if you want to find it.
Yes , Prime Minister John Key did send Pita Sharples to sign the UNDRIP in 2010 after Prime Minister Helen Clark was advised not to sign it in 2007 because it was fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements and the New Zealand government does not have a definition of the tangata whenua or indigenous people of New Zealand, A fact admitted by Pita Sharples in 2012.
No, this is not made up Neil, it’s still fully document, just no longer in New Zealand’s Archives.
I have also asked myself, why our historian have not stumbled across the Royal Charters, but you would have to ask them as up until 2017, they were displayed in the Constitution Room at Archive New Zealand for all to see, well all except our historians it seems!
Hi Neil
Just a random observation – “: – – shaped Aotearoa New Zealand”. I have not been able to find “Aotearoa” on any reliable map!
Just saying – – !!
Me neither Mike. That was as quoted and it hurt me to write it.
That word would otherwise never pass my lips.
Another thing that is completely overlooked, while Maori asked Britain to be their guardian and protector, Britain very politely asked Maori to give up their governments to the Queen and in return, they would be given the same rights as the people of England before Britain layed a foot in New Zealand , This never happened in any other country Britain colonised and was because James Stephens who drafted the instructions for the Treaty of Waitangi, was a very strong supporter of the Clapham Sect. Google Clapham Sect.
Why a lot of our history is overlooked, we have thousands of historians who record our history but very few researchers who actually, research our history.
Ross and Julian seem very aligned in their views and vision. Why not join forces and become a more powerful force for change?
Two heads are better than one.
Appreciate the recommendation. Let me try it out.
Hello, after reading this remarkable article i am too cheerful to
share my know-how here with mates.
Keep this going please, great job!