About the Author

Avatar photo

Dr John Robinson

Living under tribal rule

Print Friendly and PDF
Posted on

No longer our country

Sadly, New Zealand is racist.  A belief in race is recognised in law; whenever information is collected this includes race; the two identified racial groups are treated separately, with vastly different rights.  The last few years have seen a considerable increase in special powers to the Maori minority, as an apartheid system is being constructed.

A language that the great majority do not understand is being spoken on radio and television, written in the media and in government documents.  A tribal culture has been introduced into law without consideration by parliament or the people.  The name of the country is being changed, without the consent of the people.  We have no control over this, no say, and the meaning of the language and the imposed culture is, explicitly, defined differently across the country, by tribes.

A foreign world is being built around us.  The majority of New Zealanders no longer belong to our country.  The insistence on the superiority of one culture and the subservience of others, stripped of their rights and dignity, is the greatest wrong done to our society.  There is no respect, no aroha, no belonging together; we are not one people. 

An insistence on tribal rule is made clear in the guiding document for co-governance, the He Puapua report.  Thus: “Iwi and hapu will have agreed and established their governance structures, with their authority recognised.” 

What is being taken from us – the sense of that each of us belongs in our country, on our lands and seas – is precious, yet elected governments, local and national, allow that theft to happen.  Here is a brief overview of where we are today and where we are heading as tribal rule is strengthened and bedded in.

The situation today 

There are many aspects of division in New Zealand that are merely taken for granted, not questioned by most people, as if these were satisfactory features of a modern society.  Despite running counter to the generally accepted idea of an equal, democratic nation, aspects of racial separation have become normalised, now a familiar part of the country’s fabric.  It has even been a matter for criticism and condemnation should any question be raised: we must accept the status quo and to be controversial is unacceptable.  This is a conservative people, lacking depth and refusing a close perusal of the new ideology, largely asleep to the takeover of the country.

One claim is that the Treaty of Waitangi is accepted myth, a sacred text, a spiritual authority over us all, for ever.  Yet just what is the Treaty and what it means is highly disputed; the official version is now that in English it is a rewrite by Hobson’s secretary James Freeman, and that Maori words have newly minted meanings.  What must now be obeyed is that twisted interpretation of an old document, which was initially translated from a clear English text into Maori with a careful wording doing the best possible to express concepts that had been absent from tribal Maori culture.  Words have changed meaning and government has evolved in an extensively changed world but the resulting mess is written into law.  A fundamentally distorted vision of history is leading to disaster.

The consequences are considerable.  A brief overview uncovers a considerable array of laws and organisations that now divide us by race, most of which have been introduced by stealth, free from public input.

  • Unfamiliar, and often unclear language, for the most part newly invented (te aka is a dictionary, te kete a library, even though Maori were illiterate), has been introduced in legislation, law and by media (most markedly by Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand which must “reflect Maori perspectives”.).
  • A report commissioned by New Zealand on Air, “Te Tiriti framework for news media” asks for biased and incorrect reporting, with the insistence that “Maori never ceded sovereignty”, and the requirement that: “Reporting on Maori and Maori issues reflects the ongoing colonial constitution of society.” Thus, the public is brainwashed.
  • The country name is being changed, even in official documents: the New Zealand passport cover has an identification as “Uruwhenua Aotearoa”; a current $10 note has “Reserve Bank of New Zealand Te Putea Matua” on one side and “New Zealand Aotearoa on the other”. A change of the national flag requires a referendum (which was carried out, and failed); so, too, any change of the name of the country only has validity if the majority of citizens agree.  We are never asked.
  • Changes have been made in the names for towns, and of streets and parks (such as Von Tempsky St to Putikitiki St, Dawson Park to Te Wehenga Park in Hamilton) so that key figures are being written out of history.

These are the features most evident to members of the public who are angered as such significant changes are made without any reference to public opinion and wishes.  They are, however, just the tip of a very large iceberg, of developments that are altering the makeup and ethos of New Zealand.  Separation is a fundamental feature of New Zealand democracy, of the legal and social framework.

  • There is separate, and unequal, representation in government, both local or national, giving Maori an extra power in setting laws and governing, including directing public services.
  • Tribal law, tikanga, has been introduced by the courts as a fundamental element of the legal system.
  • The ancient tribal culture, matauranga Maori, guides universities and science.
  • History has been rewritten (revisionist history, counter-factual history, clouded by retrospective recrimination), and the newly minted version is insisted upon and must be taught in schools.
  • The Treaty of Waitangi has been comprehensively rewritten and brought into legislation, as a directive to thought and actions.
  • An extensive Treaty industry has built up over 47 years, seeking grievance and providing considerable settlements to tribes (money, lands, special rights and powers).
  • Quotas have been introduced for many courses, so that a less capable Maori will obtain a place ahead of a hard-working non-Maori (the Auckland University Medical School sets apart 30% of entries for Maori and Pacifica students). Criteria have been introduced in many job specifications which favour Maori (including familiarity with tikanga, and the mantra of “by Maori for Maori”).
  • There is a separate education curriculum for Maori (including to be “proud to be Maori”, while pride in our country is absent in either curriculum), and the revised history is to be taught to all children.
  • There is a separate health system.
  • Sovereignty over New Zealand has been claimed by organisations (which is treason), without any action by authorities. The Waitangi Tribunal has advanced ideas of dual sovereignty, so that hapu and iwi can exert their own separate sovereignty, and has falsely ruled that many Maori never accepted the sovereignty of the government.
  • Maori have become active in international affairs, including calling for a United Nations rapporteur to demand a rewrite of the Foreshore and Seabed Act2004, a Maori body, Nga Toki Whakarururanga to enable effective Maori influence on trade negotiations (2020), and a national conference on Maori perspectives on the great international issues of our time (“Navigating a stormy world; Te ao Maori perspectives; Anchoring Maori values in foreign policy”, 2022).
  • After iwi consultation on changes needed to bring the Department of Conservation’s policies in line with the Treaty of Waitangi, much of the conservation estate is managed by iwi.

There is a deep-seated belief among those who make decisions on our behalf that New Zealanders are two people.  Multiple actions, far too many to continue to list here, follow that imperative, so that any person following the stripping apart of the society soon becomes overwhelmed by the continual process providing rule over our lives to Maori and become reduced to despair that this should happen without public outcry. 

During apartheid, South Africans were defined as belonging to one of three races: White, Black or Coloured.  A white person was one whose parents were both white and possessed the “habits, speech, education, deportment and demeanour” of a white person.  Blacks belonged to an African race or tribe.  The apartheid bureaucracy devised complex (and often arbitrary) criteria to determine who was coloured.  It is simpler here: a bit of ancestry and a person is Maori.

Once in Nazi Germany any person who was one-quarter Jewish was defined a Jew.  Now here in New Zealand any person who is one-eighth Maori, or one-sixteenth, or has any past Maori ancestor, is defined a Maori and in the count is not permitted to decide that they are simply a New Zealander – they must be Maori, and plans are that any such person must be on the Maori roll for voting.

Nothing is exactly the same in differing times and places.  However, one key characteristic defining these systems, shared by New Zealand, is domination by a race, of a race, and marginalisation by race.  Racism is embedded and tribes are gaining control of the country – that is nothing other than a fact.

Many Maori have followed the aggressive old ways, as witnessed several times at Waitangi, by outbursts at public meetings, by noisy marches and by occupation of land that they claim and wish to take.  These actions are labelled non-violent, which they are so long as the demonstrators are left to achieve their unlawful purposes; whenever there is action to protect the rights of others, there is pushing and shoving, resulting in loud claims of anti-Maori behaviour, usually supported by the media.  Since police have been instructed to hold back, such tactics succeed.  This destroys many legitimate business activities including land sales; no-one wants to buy into a conflict and it is wise to sell at a reduced price and get out of it, to leave the district or the country, and many people draw back from open debate, fearing that meetings will be disrupted by shouting demonstrators.

There have been many particular cases of individual harm.  The most shocking of the human tragedies resulting from these divisive decrees and attitudes has been the total destruction of Northland farmer Alan Titford following his purchase of a property at Maunganui Bluff in 1986, where he intended to sell a number of half-acre beachfront sections, on land that was rezoned for rural residential development by the Hobson County Council, with no objection. (Described in “24 years: the trials of Alan Titford” by Mike Butler.) 

The “for sale signs” disappeared and were replaced by other signs claiming that this was “Maori land”.  Disruption then continued for years: protestors moved on to the land (and police did nothing to remove the squatters), a vacant cottage burned down, bulldozers were sabotaged several times, in two months Titford lost 300 lambs and sheep (missing or dead), a fence was pulled down and (in 1992) he returned from a restaurant meal to find the family home burning.  From the time of the first disruptions, potential buyers of beachfront properties turned away and Titford’s financial problems mushroomed.

Titford’s solicitor had checked the titles of the land and confirmed that they could be traced back to the 1876 sale of the Maunganui block.  Confirmation came from the Minister of Maori Affairs, Koro Wetere (quoting a 1942 recommendation by the Maori Land Court chief judge) and from Prime Minister David Lange, who wrote that the Minister of Justice, Geoffrey Palmer, had done a search through the Lands and Deeds office and confirmed that the land in dispute was indisputably owned by Titford in fee simple title.  Lange had made it clear that “not one single inch of private land is under threat from the Waitangi Tribunal”.  Yet in 1992 the Waitangi Tribunal recommended the return of land, including Maunganui Bluff, to the Te Roroa iwi.  Alan Titford was forced to sell to the government, who thus gave the tribe all that they wanted; the campaign of intimidation was a success.

After being hounded for years, trying to hold on to property that he had properly purchased and to develop a small farming business, Titford was struggling with family and mental health issues as well as financial woes (most of us would have been knocked sideways by the attacks and the lack of protection from the police).  The final act was a court case in which he was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a range of claimed acts within the family, including alleged rapes against his wife.  The conviction was cumulative, giving an extraordinary time in prison; the sentence for murder is less, life imprisonment with a non-parole period of at least 10 years.  Titford is a broken man.

No one wants to buy a property subject to a Treaty claim; several Kauri Coast farmers wanted to get out (one farm put up for tender received no offers and its value sank by two-thirds) and wrote to their MP and the Minister of Justice asking that they be bought out at fair market value), and a 1992 newspaper report referred to 292 claims affecting farms in Northland at the time.  Others are listed by Mike Butler (page 66), and claims of wahi tapu now threaten farm development across the country. 

Each of us may ask: but does that affect me, should I take note, be concerned?  It could if there is a dispute over property or a business arrangement*, other legal issues, a question of employment*, limits on writing* or public speaking*, limits on access to parks and beaches, concern with our place in society and the organisation of government and democracy (an asterisk denotes a situation that I have experienced).  It is well to keep in mind the 1946 confessional of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, reflecting on his passivity during the Nazi regime: 

First they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist,

Then they came for the Socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist,

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist,

Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew,

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The future is bleak for us all unless positive action is taken.

Features of tribal life

Before the coming of Europeans, Maori lived in tribes.  As members of a related unit, they were largely isolated from all others by territorial animosity, and welded together by territorial defence.  All too often the stranger was hated, the fellow tribesman protected.  In that system, for the foreigner there must exist no measure of tolerance or charity or peace; for the countryman one must feel at least rudimentary loyalty and devotion.  The individual must protect the group; the group, the individual.

That lifestyle, with a multiplicity of tribes scattered across the country, provided conditions that readily give rise to war: the separation of men into groups, the alliance of men and territory, and the latent capacity for the enmity code to dominate man in his relation to a hostile neighbour.

The resultant insecurity and the readiness to go to war was once evident in New Zealand, where the first Europeans observed the prevalence of existing tribal warfare – to be followed by a considerable upsurge in fighting during the first four decades of the nineteenth century when the increase in the killings, in battle and after, together with cannibalism, slavery and social disruption, resulted in the halving of the population in just 40 years.

That was primitive society.  Over the preceding several millennia other peoples had developed better ways to live together, no longer in many tribes but under the shield of the nation state.  Conflict was moved to beyond the extended territorial borders, and citizens within each sovereign country could live together in peace, security and prosperity, under a rule of law.  That civilisation came to New Zealand.

Now that whole edifice is being pulled down.  Sovereignty is denied the nation and claimed for tribal units, as is loyalty and feelings of fellowship.  A fragmented society is being constructed, destroying democracy and re-introducing the conditions for inequality and conflict.  It is as if the government is itself initiating civil war, by setting down the conditions for tribal conflict, among Maori tribes and against the remainder of New Zealanders, in a repeat of the many nineteenth century wars.

Gangs: reversion to tribal culture

Many features of tribalism are evident in the situation and organisation of gangs.  They have strong bonds to other members of the gang, which is their community or tribe, and consider the surrounding society as a world apart, so do not respect or follow the laws of the nation.  They are not accepted by that surrounding society, being considered and treated as unacceptable, living ‘beyond the pale’. 

Elder gang members who wish for a better way of life for their children are caught in the same trap as were early tribal elders.  Those chiefs of the early nineteenth century found a way out, when they called upon Britain for help and then escaped the incessant wars of tribalism by welcoming British colonisation with a national governments and laws.  Gang leaders, including one who described to me in the 1990s his difficulties in raising finance to set up gang enterprises in order to provide meaningful employment to young members, find no such support.  Too many young people are thus left to gain a feeling of belonging by adhering to the practices, often lawless, of their outlaw peer group, a gang.

The prophets of tribal development must take note of the results of such division and face the probable consequences of the disintegration of society, with the destruction of a common culture and a lack of acceptance of a common set of laws.

The future: further extension of division

What the future will bring if we continue down the path of separation toward tribal dominance is described in the He Puapua report, buttressed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with its insistence that ‘indigenous’ people must hold effective sovereignty and over all lands that their forefathers once held.  That path is no longer a secret, being now openly spoken of by leaders of the ongoing insurrection (often inheritors of nineteenth century rebellion) against the sovereign nation.

The UN Declaration demands that indigenous people have control over all aspects of the nation; as well as sovereignty, their list includes “control over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources”, “control over their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning”, “the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts” (an impressively comprehensive prescription, including science and literature that were absent in the old Maori culture).  They must have “their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”

He Puapua is explicit in demanding separate representative institutions with three chambers of parliament, with overall guidance from tikanga, a form of culture that is heavily reliant on pre-contact Maori life.  The general parliamentary institution (the one space for all New Zealanders) is called the “Kawanatanga Sphere” which too has Maori dominance: the discussion of kawanatanga includes the requirement that: “The nation will know and appreciate iwi tribal boundaries”.  Thus, Maori play a full, indeed dominant, part in the general parliament as well as having their own separate and powerful institution. 

The make-up of the Maori chamber (called the “Rangatiratanga Sphere”) and how members will be chosen is unspecified; it will certainly be organised by tribes.  He Puapua makes that clear.  A major aspect of rangatiratanga is that: “Iwi and hapu will have agreed and established their governance structures, with their authority recognised” and “Tikanga Maori will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa under Maori (national, iwi, hapu, whanau) authority”.

Once that step is taken, there will be no easy way back; the rebels will own the government.

  • The Westminster system will be gone. There will be no referendum; as with so many changes now, this will just happen, by stealth.
  • Government by the people (all the people), for the people, will be a thing of the past.
  • Law will be no longer be set down by the people’s representatives, comprehensible to all.
  • The concept of equality will be (indeed, has been) replaced by a belief in past wrongs of colonisation that must be put right by giving power to ‘indigenous’ people while (supposed) inheritors of past sins accept submission and an inferior position.

Citizenship for other than Maori will be stripped of any meaning.  Any sense of belonging to our land, which is now seriously undermined, will be gone completely.  Non-Maori will be ‘the other’ in a land that was once ours.

Full accomplishment of the project is nothing less than the takeover of the country, a rebellion against our one universal government, following the pattern of previous calls for tribal control, as set up by the king movement and as proposed by supporters of kotahitanga.  Actions once recognised as treason are now assisted by a compliant government in a dwindling, and soon to disappear, democracy.

Much will change in this overthrow of a civilisation.  Recent actions give a clear idea of what it will be like.  Consider what has followed the handing over of control of the Urewera National Park to Tuhoe (who were paid $2 million yearly to manage this once famous area renowned for fishing, tramping and family holidays).  While access roads and boat ramps were blocked with tractors, trucks and broken-down cars, to bar all others from the area, that iwi burned down all the tramping, hunting and rescue huts across the Ureweras.  Those welcome, essential huts, built in the wilderness, largely with considerable hard work by volunteers over decades, are dear to the hearts of many who have come to appreciate shelter after a hard day in the forest.  These were the people’s huts.  Visitors to that area are now greeted by a prominent sign: “You are now within the boundaries of TUHOE NATION”.  There is infighting among tribal members, many of whom disapprove of that wanton destruction of property.

A glimpse of the future under complete tribal rule, can be found in a list of some of the highly likely outcomes – additional to the fundamental changes noted above – if this (an effective coup by descendants of former rebels, remaining loyal to that separatist cause) is not stopped.

  • New Zealand is no longer a unified sovereign state. Aotearoa is a collection of sovereign, tribal mini-states.
  • The proposed multiple government structure will be set up, first by de facto steps such as ‘co-governance’ and then by decree. Who knows how that will work in practice?  The key will lie in the resulting power struggle, and which tribal groups will dominate.  The certainly is for subservience of the majority and quarrelling among the many iwi.
  • Local councils, like central government will be organised in ‘partnership’ with power shared between the dominant local iwi (mana whenua, not all Maori) and others. Ratepayers will have no say in these changes.
  • All European town, city, street and land-mark names will be replaced by Maori names chosen by iwi, without allowing any other expression of opinion. The country will be Aotearoa, again without any referendum.
  • National sovereignty will disappear as the country moves to multiple forms of government, each claiming sovereignty.
  • Racial categorisation will be enforced; all Maori must be on the Maori roll, no matter what the proportion of Maori ancestry. Those who establish an appropriate iwi connection will gain position and power, depending on the strength and locality of their tribe.
  • Laws recognising tikanga and tribal rights will be firmly established. There will be a dual system of justice, as with governance, with two sets of laws and Maori judges whose appointment will be influenced by tribal authorities.  Just where the boundary will be set in cases involving both race-defined groups in anybody’s guess.
  • Iwi will police local decisions to place tribal tolls on or ban swimming, boating and fishing along the foreshore on beaches, as well as rivers and lakes. Some places will be off limits for a variety of reasons, with signs of foreign sovereign territories.  There will be tribal tolls to use national parks.
  • Iwi will declare and police a multiplicity of sacred sites, wahi tapu preventing land owners from any development and often forcing a sale at less that market value. Since Maori fought and killed one another across so much of the country, there will be no shortage of such claims, and more can readily be invented: proof of authentic historical value or sacredness is not required.  Such claims helped to destroy Alan Titford, including a story that his pohutukawa trees had bodies buried under each, which was disproved ten years later when it was shown that the bodies had been previously removed to a cemetery.
  • Certainly the freedom to write and publish this article, or anything similar (including books exploring the reality of New Zealand history, particularly with reference to the Treaty of Waitangi), will be banned. There will be tighter restrictions on free speech and publications.  This will be backed by legislation banning ‘hate speech’ (a concept introduced by the current government) and anything deemed to be anti-Maori.  

We pause this list here to note that this is today’s reality, with the call to ban Tross books (including my own) and government requirements which threaten a loss of funding to organisations which permit criticism of official policy. One recent refusal of hire of a hall to speak against co-governance was clear on this point.  “As mentioned yesterday, Sport Northland have recently adjusted their trust deed to recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi and have changed their board structure to that of co-governance.  Due to these factors and after viewing your website and the information you sent, we have unfortunately have made the decision to decline your facility booking.  I hope this is understandable.”  We do indeed understand: government decree prevents freedom of gathering, breaking with a universal belief that: “Freedom of association is one of the most basic rights enjoyed by humans. It ensures that every individual is free to organise and to form and participate in groups, either formally or informally.”  There would be all hell to play if there were similar restrictions on Maori gatherings.

  • Health, like education is divided into two race-based systems. The emphasis on special assistance to Maori will reduce the finances available to others.  There will be further decline due to inefficiency and the extra layer of bureaucracy to control compliance with requirements for tikanga, and the corruption when key positions are given by iwi appointments (across all social services) and not competence will raise costs and reduce service delivery.
  • Inequalities will increase, and many Maori will be among those who suffer.
  • Tribal administration charges and tolls will be introduced on water going in and out of houses and businesses, and for use of Waikato River flow (including for electricity generation).
  • Development costs will skyrocket, since tribal involvement will add another layer of bureaucracy, and tribes will have to be bought off to remove the restrictions of wahi tapu. Developers will pass these costs on to home owners and house prices will rise.
  • The military and the police will be more loyal to tribal tikanga than to the country.
  • With Maori control of foreign affairs, New Zealand will form strong ties with ‘indigenous’ people elsewhere and will be aligned with anti-colonial forces, largely in former colonies, across the world rather than the current western group.
  • Foreign investors will be required to co-ordinate with, and support, iwi authorities while following kotahitanga
  • Education in separate school systems provides the condition for brainwashing. This has been happening for many years now (with kohanga reo since 1982 and kura kaupapa since 1985), so that a generation has been raised in a culture of exceptionalism, expecting – and getting – special treatment, and resulting in the arrogance typical of any class system.
  • Bullying behaviour typical of Maori claims, land occupations, noisy marches and rude interruptions to meetings will increase.

Tribalism and a lack of unity will lead to conflict

There is danger here, in addition to the destruction of democracy and the end of free speech and equality.  Maori society has always been fractious, traditionally with savage warfare among the tribes – which was murderous in the early decades of the nineteenth century when one-third of Maori perished directly in the tribal wars and the full impact was a population decline of half.  The arguments and disruption that are evident now may soon spread throughout all of New Zealand.

One possible scenario for the future is civil war among tribes, a return to pre-colonisation Maori society in a failing state.  As well as conflict between tribes, there will also be differences within each tribe, keeping in mind that most disagreement will be settled under the dictates of tikanga and only appealing to national law in extreme cases. 

Tribal loyalty is based on whanau, on family.  This leads to a lack of fair play in tribal affairs.  A colleague has provided the following note, which paints a picture that has long been evident.

“I was talking to a forensic accountant, a Maori in his 50’s, and he told me he was inundated with requests from Maori who wanted him to investigate their tribe’s financial affairs. He said the basic problem was that their tribes were receiving pay-outs from the government, settlements, but that families at the top of the tribal tree were hoarding the cash and that misappropriation of funds was running at epidemic levels.”  

Not only can tribalism provide a situation where corruption and conflict are likely, also the division from the rest of society evident with separate Maori schooling leads to a reduction in feelings of common humanity among young and in the coming generation.  The resultant lack of empathy in any such isolated community has long been recognised, as in the following from a mystery novel, “The inside darkness” by Jorn Lier Horst, where the author is considering the origins of evil.

“It was a matter of apportioning responsibility.  It was easier to take part in something when you did not have to take the punishment on your own.  Then your sense of responsibility disintegrated, since you did not have to bear the burden of responsibility alone.  Moral objections were eroded.  A psychological experiment was shown in which a group of students was asked to play the roles of prisoners and prison guards in a jail.  The experiment had to be aborted before the end of the first week, when it was found that the ‘guards’ were so blinded by their power and the punitive regime that they humiliated the ‘prisoners’ to such an extent that several of them broke down completely.  It was a case of ‘us and them’.  ‘The others’ were regarded as untrustworthy, dangerous and bad people who threatened our way of life.

The abuse of authority, subjugation and control, and domination of the will of others provided evil with fertile soil in which to flourish, and at the same time both blind obedience and uncritical loyalty to absolute rules were what could transform peaceful democracies into fascist dictatorships.

Here is the darkest part of possible scenarios of what the future may bring; the nightmare that apartheid lite will morph into a full-scale version of apartheid and authoritarian racial dictatorship – and no-one can pretend that tikanga was a peaceful culture.  Many aspects of fascism exist today (such as controls over speech and meetings) and (as noted above) tribal societies provide ready conditions for conflict.  The moral compass of tradition and professionalism within a secure national cultural framework is being disassembled, to the replaced by tribalism where loyalty and empathy are within the tribe and refused to ‘the others’.  That path has been followed before by other countries, with disastrous consequences. 

Then we will be strangers in our own country, ruled over by a strange, alien culture, all arguing amongst themselves.  Others will be held captive as tribal authorities will have control of the police and army, largely Maori with loyalty to kotahitanga and the Maori king.  To accept that is to accept the demanded subservience, to hand over power and to live as second-class citizens.  This cannot be allowed to happen.

Tribal rule or freedom – that is the choice we face today.

The way forward is equality

Tribal rule is intolerable, unacceptable.  A key recognition expounded throughout these articles is that we can step free from the binds of the past, set aside the re-invented stories of the past and the complete overturn of the Treaty of Waitangi, to instead ask what we want now, to together decide what society we want to live in, to make the choice to follow rather than divisive tribal tikanga.

There is no need to be ruled by the past, if we assert our freedom, to decide now for ourselves, our generation in our time.  History retains its interest and may provide a guide but is no longer a cage within we are trapped.  The stories of the past must no longer be accepted as mythical, magic, the ultimate guide for all policies (as the Bible once was).  Once all that is set aside, we become free to think and decide for ourselves.  We, the living, are not ruled from beyond the grave by those who lived before us in different times.  It is for us to decide our way of life, our culture, our government, our laws.

The Treaty of Waitangi has been shredded and lost its meaning, to now present a variety of divergent ideas; it must no longer be treated as a sacred document, and it must be set aside, no longer a controversial and contradictory blueprint for the future.  Free of that roadblock, we can gather, debate and decide as equals – to determine our own future together.

This is not true of today.  The proclaimed culture, tikanga, is tribal, inward-looking, harking back to a time of savagery, warfare and social collapse.

The culture of most New Zealanders, including me, is global, recognising that we are all part of a common humanity, building on the best of guidance from centuries, indeed millennia, of searching for a better way to live together in fellowship and peace.

They want all power in a few hands, theirs.  I want to regain my belonging in my country, as a free and equal citizen – not superior and not subservient, neither master nor slave, just one of the whole team, all proud to belong here.

They reach out to the angry defiance of nineteenth century rebels, following some of their forefathers.  I listen to, and learn from, wisdom from across the globe – including those chiefs who saw the destruction of tribal wars and sought help from the British.  The recognition of common humanity is the very opposite of the tribalism of ancient peoples, as the peaceful life within a system of law differs from the love of warfare and cannibalism that it has replaced.

Deep in that culture which we have inherited, which has been steadily becoming universal, the first guiding principle and goal to strive for is equality among all citizens.  Major advances have continued in that direction, including equality of votes, no longer dependant on wealth or gender.  Only a fool would go back.  

That desire for togetherness has been expressed many times in poetry and song, philosophy and science.  All belong in our lands; in the words of Woody Guthrie, “this land belongs to you and me” – each and every one of us.  The links that bind us together have been expressed by English poet and cleric John Donne: “No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main.”  The call for equality comes from fighters against racism, including Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

The message, that no man is alone, as all belong to humanity, is echoed in many great pronouncements.  It was chosen as the first principle of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,

and has been further emphasised in the contradictory and otherwise divisive United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples where the Introduction makes an unmistakable call for equality:

All doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.

This is indeed universal, as in Islam, where Muhammad is quoted as saying:

Every infant is born in the natural state.  It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a heathen.

Here we are, each of us having been born, all with ancestors and most with descendants.  What can we make of this world, how can we live together in harmony so each of us can have a good life?  We can choose to be guided by the best from the past, or to follow paths into division and inequality in rights.  Now rebellions of the past have reappeared, to drive New Zealand towards racial division and apartheid. 

A different path was set down when Christianity and British civilisation first came to these shores, with the message of Rev. Marsden when he preached the first sermon in the country at the Bay of Islands on Christmas Day, 1814, starting with: “Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy” – talking of a better way of life than the warfare and cannibalism that he saw all around him.  When Samuel Marsden proclaimed these words at the first Christmas service in New Zealand 209 years ago, he felt his “soul melt” as he looked out at his congregation on the green hillside overlooking the sea.  Maori and European stood together for the Christian ceremony, and no doubt this was how Marsden envisaged the future for the two races in New Zealand. 

I, as an atheist, would happily march behind that banner raised by Marsden, for the message is for all people of all faiths and beliefs.  Based on philosophy, culture, past experience and an understanding of what works, my choice of basic principles underpinning a preferred society are of equality (of every one of us, undivided by race) and democracy.  This is the very opposite to tribalism, which demands priority to tribes above all others, and chiefly rule, providing the condition for future conflict.

With equality there would be no Maori roll, no Maori seats in parliament, no Maori wards in local government, no Waitangi Tribunal, no Treaty settlements, no separate schools and hospitals, no co-governance, no Three Waters.  We could simply settle down and live together.

The sovereignty of New Zealand is in the hands of the people of New Zealand.

In the hands of ALL the people of New Zealand.

All New Zealanders are born equal and must live as equals.

Equal in rights and duties.

Equal in selecting every level of government.

Equal in all legislation.

Equal before the law.


That is my culture.  It requires a steadfast counter-revolution to remove the many divisive laws of today that have embedded racial difference in all aspects of the New Zealand way of life.

The motto of my old school, Avondale College, is Kohia Nga Taikaka, to “collect the heartwood”, to strive after the best things in life, and to work, play and act in a manner that will bring credit to each individual and to the College.  The decision for New Zealand depends on a judgement, the choice of what amongst us is the heartwood, of most value.  For this, we must demand the freedom to think for ourselves.

Reaction to putting it right

The tribal forces for kotahitanga, along with their national organisations, are determined to achieve their full goals, and 2022 has showed how far the agenda can advance under a compliant government.  The few checks have been insignificant compared to their gains.

Should there be a return to a nation of one people, with equal rights, they would be extremely unhappy, and angry, given their conviction of the rightness of their cause.  After so much of the tribal revolution and the coup against democratic government has been achieved, the tribal leadership (‘tribal elite’) will not be prepared to back down and take their place as equals in a country that they claim for themselves.

There will be immediate and forceful action by people used to getting their own way, often by bullying tactics.  Action to bring back a rule of law will be resisted.  Then, all bets are off.  It is all too easy to review recent aggressive actions and see the possibility of violence, take-over by tribal militia, and racial civil war.

While the aim must be to join together as one people in a united nation, that possibility must not be ignored.  A proper resolution requires that the newly empowered majority should be resolute in a united determination to bring equality and a decent society.  Any such rebellion must be met with firm resolve, with a prompt reaction.

Those attacking an equal democracy with racial separation and co-government have shown determination; what is now needed is an equal resolve to bring back respect and empathy among us all, for us all.

Let’s imagine it’s all going away

In early 2023 the government has decided to put co-governance on the back burner, perhaps to go slow on Three Waters.  National Party policy is two-faced, vacuous: National is “committed to repealing and replacing Three Waters”, not getting rid of the whole idea.  Who knows what they will do?

The expectation is that most people will think that the challenge of Maori exceptionalism has gone away.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The great brainwashing campaign remains, along with the education of the present and future generations of Maori in a belief of past wrongs and indigenous rights, as well as the many steps taken, across the years and more particularly through 2022, to strengthen racial division.

The drive to tribalism is deep-rooted and firmly established.  It can only be overcome with firm and comprehensive action, which is not on the cards from either major party in this election year, 2023.  Co-governance, whether it is spoken of or not, is firmly established now as a feature of New Zealand life.

The country risks a retreat into wishy-washy ignorance while the forces of kotahitanga ready themselves for their next major push towards their goals.

Summing up

This is the sixth, and last, article in a series which have explored issues related to one central theme: where are we going?  This series has been guided by a desire to face the reality of what is happening to New Zealand, and to explore the best way to deal with the challenges that we face – to recognise that we are losing a fight for the soul of the nation as a coup is heading steadily closer to tribal take-over.

It is recognised here that we must not just argue against what we do not want.  We must, from the very first, make it clear that we are fighting for something that we treasure, something essential – equality and democracy.  A struggle is won by attacking, and we have a very good point here, the equality that is being destroyed.  Otherwise we end up fighting defensive battles as they throw nonsense at us, and they continue to win the war – which has been going on for decades.

All too much of the extensive scholarship has been focussed on dealing with their claims, of the rewritten history and Treaty, of the stealth and deception (the battles).  And to date, the fight (the war) has been lost.  It is important to move the focus to what we want, on what is precious in modern civilisation, which is being torn apart and which we will fight for.  We should choose the ground we fight on and the aim we fight for, not just carry on the struggle where they have chosen the field of battle.

The following is a summary of the thinking guiding these articles

New Zealand is in big trouble, a divided country.

Many arguments have been put forward to divide us, based on documents from the past, with the meaning of each hotly debated.  We need not be directed by any of that.  Rather we should be guided by basic principles that we can all agree on when we meet to debate our choice for our society, no longer held hostage to the shackles of the past.  The question for today, as always, is what sort of society and what sort of country do we want?   In answering that question, we must be free to think for ourselves, and consider what is best for us, now, in today’s world.  What guides us in a search for a decent and prosperous nation?

This core principle is for equality.  We must be one, with government by us all, working together as equal citizens – equal before the law, with equal rights, each with an equal vote in a true democracy.

That basic condition is not met today.  Co-governance, shared rule by two separate peoples, is only possible when we are divided into two race-based groups, Maori and the other, where one’s position in society is defined by ancestry, determined by accident of birth.

When the choice is for equality, co-governance and all the considerable apparatus of separation must be decisively rejected.

Previous articles

The first proposed that the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been ripped apart and reinvented to convey a considerable diversity of conflicting messages, should no longer be taken as a sacred text, a virtual spiritual authority.  This is on Breaking Views HERE.

The second focussed on current affairs, describing an effort to formulate a racially divided constitution.  It is online at Breaking Views HERE

The third denied the claims that Maori are fundamentally different, a race apart as ‘indigenous’ people.  It is online at Breaking Views HERE.

The fourth dealt with the question of who really broke the Treaty, reaching the conclusion that the Crown, the several Governors, and the government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas a number of Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion, in contradiction of the Treaty of Waitangi.  That sets us all free from the guilt trap, which calls for recompense today for supposed wrongs committed long ago by a previous people.  It is online at Breaking Views HERE.  

The fifth followed the road to New Zealand apartheid, bringing us to the present day, pointing out that: When one chosen few, one group, are dominant and take control and power, others are reduced, to become lesser citizens.  There is no respect, no aroha, no belonging together; we are not one people.  New Zealand is moving through co-governance to Apartheid and tribal rule.  It is online at at Breaking Views HERE.  

This is the sixth and final article in the series.