Maori Wards; the Churches have Lost the Plot.

August 22, 2025
, , Democracy, Maori, Maori Wards, NZ Local Government

Like all modern  democracies 21st century New Zealand contains people of many ethnicities and viewpoints. At election time they are all able to cast their votes equally to determine the type of government that we want. That is the essence of democracy for which our forebears fought for – and died for – in the two world wars.

However, in New Zealand, despite there being no full-blood Maoris or even half bloods (just a group who have a minority of Maori blood in their predominant European make-up) certain power manipulators have pushed for race-based “Maori wards” in local government in violation of the democratic principle of an equal and universal vote.

It is quite remarkable that, for a group of people who have been detribalised for more than a century and who don’t even have a preponderance of Maori blood in them, it is only now – in the 21st century – that we are told that they must suddenly have separate representation in the form of “Maori wards”. It is yet another power grab by the tribal elite against the rest of us.

Those part-Maoris elected to a “Maori ward” cannot be expected to make decisions for the public good as other councillors have to – but only for the benefit of their tribe. They have no reason to care about the rights or welfare of the general public to whom they are not accountable. They are accountable only to those part-Maoris who choose to be on the “Maori roll”, so why should they worry about the rest of us? Maori wards are the utmost in racial exclusiveness as, by their definition, they exclude the rest of society. It is hard to think of a more debilitating measure in respect of the common good.

In the coming local body elections those voters in municipalities that have already brought in Maori wards pursuant to the Ardern government’s allowance and promotion of such without ratepayer input, have a chance to get rid of these racist and undemocratic seats on councils, and anyone who believes in an inclusive democracy has only one option and that is to vote them out.

However, a group pf churchmen have spoken out and encouraged their ever dwindling congregations to vote for these racist measures. These include Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and Baptists but not, to their credit, Presbyterians.

Ever since the 1970s and 1980s when the World Council of Churches (Protestant) and the Vatican sent money to murdering terrorist groups in southern Africa there has been a steady desertion of good people from the increasingly political and Left Wing established churches, and this latest promotion of apartheid by loud mouthed clerics will only hasten the process. People like to make up their own minds on non-spiritual things such as Maori wards and do not like to be dictated to by clergy who lead comfortable, often lazy and rather parasitical lives.

Probably the most ridiculous statement of this self-appointed group of politicians in dog-collars came from the Catholic Bishop Emeritus, Bishop Peter Cullinane, who said, “Jesus didn’t exclude people”. No, but these Maori wards do – they exclude all people other than those part-Maori who are on the Maori roll.

Like all New Zealanders part-Maoris are already represented – as is every citizen – by the councillors of general wards whom they can elect. If they wish, part-Maoris can also stand for council in a general ward – nothing to stop them and indeed many of them have been elected in this way. So, what is Cullinane up to by talking about “excluding” people? No Maoris have been excluded from voting for councillors for well over a century.

It seems that in his twisted mind he is trying to propagate the lie that part-Maoris are excluded from voting for councils. In fact, he seems to be implying that to “exclude” is something very bad – a sin. If so, he’s the one committing the sin by promoting race-based wards that exclude by far the majority of the ratepaying public.

Race based Maori wards are backward, exclusive to part-Maoris and detrimental to the public good. In every municipality where the vote is about to be taken on Maori wards the only option for anyone who believes in genuine democracy and a non-racist society is to vote them OUT.

SOME TRUTHS ABOUT THE RUSSIA/UKRAINE ISSUE

August 21, 2025
, , , , Russia, Ukraine

by John McLean.

Ukrainians are not Russians. It is not possible to understand Russia’s invasion of Ukraine without knowing something of the historical background. At their meeting in Alaska in August, 2025, Putin told the gullible and unintelligent Donald Trump that Ukraine is Russia’s “brotherly nation”. Not so.

Ukraine came into the Russian empire not by the will of its people but by force; by the late 18th century the last remnants of Ukraine’s autonomy were abolished. In 1783 Russia annexed Crimea and began settling it with Russian people. In the 19th century a Ukraine nationalist movement began but it faced political repression as well as restrictions on the use of the Ukraine language. Its expansive fields became the breadbasket of the Tsar’s empire and its farms were the most modern and efficient in that rather ramshackle empire.

After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 the new authorities in Moscow set up a “Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic”, which was strongly opposed by the people of Ukraine. The problem was Moscow’s demand for the “collectivisation” of Ukraine’s agriculture. Because Ukraine had been such a bountiful source of supply for grain, sugar and other agricultural products the Communist Party in Moscow made very heavy demands on Ukraine’s farmers – higher than for other areas – to provide food for the rest of the nation. To have met these quotas would have condemned thousands of villagers to certain starvation.

Since tens of thousands of Ukrainians had become militarised in the First World War against Austria and Germany it is not surprising to record that they formed themselves into guerrilla forces to resist Moscow’s “food requisitioning teams”. By 1919 these forces numbered more than 100,000 well-armed peasants and they captured many towns in southern Ukraine. In April, 1919, they set up an interim independent government.

In retaliation Moscow’s new and brutal Red Army burned hundreds of Ukraine’s villages and executed without trial thousands of people whom they deemed as “bandits” or “deserters”. This war between the Red Army and the Ukraine peasants lasted from 1920 to 1922 and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands on both sides.

In Kharkov, Ukraine’s second largest city, the Russians carried out between 2,000 and 3,000 executions of “the possessing classes” between February and June, 1919. When the town was retaken in December of the same year another 1,000 to 2,000 were executed. Between mid November and the end of December, 1920, more than 50,000 people were shot or hanged by the Soviet authorities in Crimea.

Ukraine’s so-called “bourgeois” (middle class) were put into concentration camps while their property was looted, the loot going into the pockets of the local agents of the CHEKA, the early Soviet secret police and the forerunner to the KGB which later produced the “nice” Mr. Putin. To humiliate them further, middle class women were forced to clean toilets in Red Army barracks and many of them were raped by the Red Army, especially during Moscow’s recapture of the Ukraine in 1920.

One of the reasons why Ukrainians in the 21st century are so resistant to having Russian control of any part of their “brotherly nation” is because the Russian Army has a long tradition of raping those in areas that it occupies. Russia has always been a barbaric country (and still is) and never more so than in raping women – and sometimes men – in newly acquired territories.

In the Second World War Russian soldiers raped large numbers of women in Rumania and Budapest as its army rolled westward. Between 70,000 and 100,000 Austrian women were raped in Vienna alone. However, this was only the “curtain-raiser” for what happened when Soviet armies entered German territory. There the Russians raped thousands of women from 8 years old to 80 – especially in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Some women, especially young, attractive ones, were raped 60 or 70 times.

In the words of the eminent Second World War historian, Antony Beevor, it was “the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history”. In total it has been estimated that some two million German women were raped by the invading Soviet troops. The rapes continued in Soviet controlled East Germany until the winter of 1947-8.

And the reaction of the Russians? Stalin, their supreme warlord, declared, “One should understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle”. In the present war in the Ukraine there have been reports of several rapes by Russian forces of both men and women, – hardly surprising in view of the entrenched tradition of rape in Russia’s armies.

By 1922 the Russians had prevailed in their military conquest of Ukraine and so Mr. Putin’s “brotherly nation” was incorporated into the Soviet Union by force and against the wishes of its people, thereby creating a long term and justified grievance.

In the 1920s the rule of the Communist Party was as brutal in Ukraine as it was in other parts of the Soviet Union under the “iron rule” of the party-state – a new form of slavery. In 1920 the State embarked on a campaign of assaults against Ukraine’s intelligentsia, who were accused of “nationalist deviations” from the Party line.

In the newly collectivised of the confiscated and now nationalised farms the State began to take an ever increasing share of the collective harvest, thus threatening the peasants’ very survival. In 1930 the State took 30% of Ukraine’s agricultural productions but then, in 1931 when the harvest was smaller, it took 41.5%, leaving an inadequate amount for the peasants themselves, for the cattle to eat, for sowing next season and for selling to the local area.

On 7th August, 1932, the party issued an edict executing or imprisoning in labour camps anyone whom they alleged had “committed theft or damage of socialist property” (holding back some grain to feed one’s hungry family). Between this date and December, 1933, more than 125,000 people throughout the Soviet Union were convicted under this law, including 5,400 sentenced to death.

Molotov, the thug sent by Moscow to enforce its will in Ukraine, blacklisted all districts in which the demanded quotas were not met. Of course, this did not increase production and so Stalin decided on a war against Ukraine’s peasants/farmers to starve them out. This particular form of genocide began with the Party’s demand for ALL the grain of a district, including reserves that were being kept back for sowing in the following year. Thus did he deliberately create a man-made famine.

Starved of food, rural people flocked to Ukraine’s cities. However, to combat this and to ensure that they would starve to death, the party introduced new and compulsory identity papers plus the obligatory registration of all citizens. This was a death sentence for millions as they were escorted back to their farms and villages to die. They were tortured to hand over any remaining supplies in this carefully planned genocide.

To underline the man-made nature of this famine one only needs to record that in 1933, while millions were dying of starvation in Ukraine, the Soviet Union continued to export grain in order to get foreign exchange.

The whole of Ukraine was a hunger zone and the total death toll from this man-made famine has been estimated at four million by the multi-authored and well researched Black Book of Communism while other estimates have put it at five million. Is it any wonder that the people of Ukraine to-day do not want a bar of any Russian occupation of their territory? The historical background of this issue between Russia and its “brotherly nation” of Ukraine makes all the more odious Donald Trump’s efforts to paint the Ukrainians as “”wrongdoers” and even “aggressors” and his Russian friends as much deserving invaders.

Exposing intended apartheid: the He Puapua ‘Vision 2040’

July 23, 2025
, , , , , He Puapua, Maori, Treaty of Waitangi

By John Robinson

The Big Lie of colonial oppression, with the rewriting of history and the Treaty of Waitangi, is well established and has the support of an extensive ‘Treaty industry’. The final aim is the overthrow of democratic government and its replacement by a system of two governments and two laws, with the dominant Maori government organised by tribal tikanga.

Extreme Maori objectives, formerly kept secret, have now been set down clearly within the He Puapua Report to Government1, which proposes “the breaking of the usual political and societal norms and approaches … The vision is that, should Maori have the ability to exercise full authority over our lands, waters and natural resources, uphold our responsibilities as kaitiaki and implement indigenous solutions with resources and support to do so, Aotearoa will be a thriving country for all.” The words insist that supreme power, “full authority”, must go to Maori.

Not all Maori agree with those ideas. The visions and the claims calling for separation by race into ‘indigenous’ Maori and others (often labelled ‘pakeha’) are by no means universal among those who identify, or are identified, as Maori (most, probably all, being of mixed ancestry). References here to those calling for separation by race apply to the tribal elite, rangatira, and their followers, not all Maori.

He Puapua presents their “Vision 2040”, a totally transformed system of government by the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, just 15 years from 2025. This is a repeat of the policy set down in the 2016 Matike Mai report to the Iwi Chairs’ Forum2. The hope is for “a breakthrough where Aotearoa’s constitution is rooted in te Tiriti o Waitangi [the revised concept, not the original] and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Their vision is that by 2040, “the government will have implemented the relevant instruments to share power more fairly with Maori in our constitutional arrangements”. To ‘share fairly’ is not government by, and for, an equal and united people. It is a race-defined minority holding separate power over the whole people of New Zealand, and there is nothing fair in such an arrangement.

New Zealand is to be broken apart with three government entities; there is no pretence of inclusiveness or unity. “The [separated] Rangatiratanga sphere reflects Maori governance over people and places”, where Maori have complete control and autonomy. “The Kawangatanga sphere represents Crown governance” – meaning, of course, the elected government, the place for all New Zealanders, including Maori – as they insist, “Maori must be able to participate in Crown governance” and Maori seats must remain. “There is a large ‘joint sphere’ where Maori and the Crown share governance over issues of mutual concern”; that is the two parties in this divided nation, this proposed apartheid system, meet to negotiate, with an effective Maori veto. The proposed overturn of an egalitarian way of life and form of government to Maori-dominated apartheid has been made explicit.

These changes would be accompanied by an upsurge of propaganda calling for a new indigenous concept of patriotism and nationalism. The rebuttal of the Westminster system of government includes a desire to cut all ties with Britain, including the monarchy – which is likely to be replaced by a native monarch, provided by the Maori king movement which has been waiting in the wings and steadily building public acceptance. This would be the completion of tribal sovereignty.

There is international support for such special rights to ‘indigenous’ people, from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and many regional indigenous movements, not recognising their very different experiences of colonisation. Once the world was united against separation and different rights by race; apartheid ended in South Africa after a long and intense international campaign. There is now the very opposite: strong support for such separation on grounds of race, which no longer meets with condemnation. Current indigenous apartheid has widespread international support, so this will be accepted by other nations, welcomed as a particular New Zealand ‘Pacific’ way.

There has been a strong push towards the goals of Vision 2040 with the co-governance policy of the Jacinda Ardern Labour government, strongly supported by the Green and Maori parties, against strong resistance from the ACT and New Zealand First parties. The attitude of the National Party is ambiguous, refusing to take a firm stand: the party “is opposed to co-governance and believes that New Zealand’s public service should be governed under one system. However, they also believe that co-governance of natural assets involving iwi working with central and local government in the context of Treaty settlements is long-standing and they continue to support it.”3

Activist expectations are of comprehensive apartheid created by the insistence of separatist activists with a determined, long-term goal, to be achieved by the hoped-for date of 2040. Any interruption will bring the threat of violence, already expressed dramatically in the opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill. That Bill drew criticism from opposition parties Labour, Green, and Te Pati Maori, Maori leaders and the Waitangi Tribunal. Some legal critics argued that the bill sought to undermine Maori rights and disrupt their ‘established’ interpretations of the Treaty. It was said that ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill would “undo the fundamental principle of partnership between the Crown and Maori, which would cause further mistrust, division and damage, leading to uncertainty and social disruption, which would then jeopardise New Zealand’s economic, social and cultural progress.”

Such claims that the Bill led to disruption are absurd; threats and mass rallies have come only because it laid a challenge of equality and this stirred up a hornets nest among those who had gained domination through apartheid policies. The Bill desired debate, while the disrupters acted to stifle debate – as they did in their efforts to stifle Julian Batchelor’s ‘Stop co-governance meetings.

This has been the success of years of brainwashing, a sustained and comprehensive propaganda campaign by the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty industry to seize control of the hearts and minds of the population – a combination of a directed narrative (putting out false stories of colonial wrongdoing, harm to Maori, and a need for compensation) and a play on feelings, where the impact of that misinformation has been bolstered by a campaign of symbolism and rhetoric, rallies, chants and haka aimed at the heart, not the brain. This has established a dictatorship of ideology as the only accepted beliefs are their own, all others being proscribed.

It would be unrealistic to expect a majority counter-revolution any time soon; rather another change in government (a recurring feature of fluctuating political fortunes) is likely to take the country back to a policy of co-governance, moving again towards the division of ‘Vision 2040’.

The country may then be well down the path to separate governments before any reaction gains traction, finally resulting from frequent experience in practical matters of the loss of freedom – such as limits on access to beaches and mountains, ever more unequal taxes and laws, and experiences of losing court battles or failure to get employment simply because the other party is Maori. Certainly, the Maori anger and probable conflict following any move to challenge their domination has been made more evident over the past few years.

While an eventual push-back against separation remains probable, the timeline has been substantially lengthened – it will be some time away yet, perhaps only after New Zealand has moved perilously close to the attainment of the Vision 2040 apartheid, suggesting a long period of struggle for those who support equality.

Calls for tikanga and tribal identity raise fears of a return to the past of widespread and vicious tribal conflict.4

“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. …

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.” 5

Maori are returning to the ways of a tribal people, holding together for now by feelings of collective unity against a common enemy – those who call for equality of citizens rather than equality between racial groups, Maori and the other. But tribal rivalries and disagreements continue, and should they win that struggle and gain power the need for unity will diminish, at which point the call of tikanga will re-establish tribal identity and tribal loyalty, destroying any loyalty and common feelings for others. Tribal squabbles may then lead to warfare, as in the past.

Young people in New Zealand have never been taught the value of the principles of equality and democracy, or the long history of the evolution of our form of government, correcting many mistakes along the way – some of which are being foolishly reintroduced, such as the handing over of supreme power to followers of one extreme ideology with all others required to follow and obey their dictates. As a result, the risk of cultural fragmentation is now real.

The ideology of indigenous people following the old tikanga has gained in membership, confidence and strength of purpose, to become a powerful crusade, while the movement provides struggling young Maori a place where they can feel that they belong.

A few are even vowing to reject the most basic rules of their societies, to voice sympathy for violent extremists, or even to engage in acts of homegrown terrorism. That possibility exists here with expressions of considerable anger and an intention ‘to fight on, forever, forever, forever’. A warning sign was in 2006, when “investigating potential breaches of the Terrorism Suppression Act, the New Zealand Police observed paramilitary training camps in the Urewera mountain range, with recruits practising bush warfare.”6

Leadership for equality has been lacking. Some have fought for the evils of racism and apartheid: Tariana Turia, Jacinda Ardern and Nanaia Mahuta. They have faced weak, pusillanimous, unprincipled Prime Ministers: John Key and Christohpher Luxon, both from the world of high finance where cash flows have priority, lacking any visible moral code, more willing to compromise and make pacts with the devil in order to hold power than to assert any moral code – fitting representatives of a nation that itself lacks any moral compass or moral fibre.

Together such politicians have constructed a country hell-bent on a path to separatism, where anyone calling for equality, sovereign unity, and security of property ownership (including those voted into Parliament by a concerned electorate in 2023) is met with angry mass demonstrations and ugly verbal attacks.

Such actions, and more importantly the frequent lack of action, have created a future rife with dangers of ongoing conflict or even war.

 

Doctor Robinson is the author of the book “He Puapua; Blueprint for Breaking up New Zealand”, available from: www.trosspublishing.com

1 Working Group 2019. He Puapua: report on the working group on a plan to realise UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand, https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf; Robinson J L 2021, He Puapua: Blueprint for breaking up New Zealand, Tross Publishing.

2 Matike Mai 2016. The report of Matike Mai Aotearoa – the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation. 125 pages. https://nwo.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16.pdf.

3 https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/where_the_parties_stand_on_co_governance

4 Robinson J L 2020. Unrestrained slaughter, the Maori musket wars 1800-1840. Tross Publishing.

5 Robinson J L 2023. Our choice for the future: equality or tribal rule. New Zealand Centre for Political Research https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/John-Robinson.pdf, Chapter 6

6 Robinson J L 2024a. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 12

 

 

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 17
Copyright © 2023 Tross Publishing. All rights reserved.