Should Our Country be Named Aotearoa

By Kerry Butler

There has been a movement in recent times to push a name change for our country to “Aotearoa” by way of creeping normalcy. This subversive agenda is brazenly orchestrated by ideologically biased Media … especially via News Presenters.

Before this woke crusade is allowed to go too far, people need to be enlightened as to all aspects of a name change … especially considering what is at stake, i.e. the financial cost as regards our hard-earned Internationally recognised “NZ” marketing brand.

There should also be consideration for our soldiers who died fighting in two World Wars … 30,000 of whom are interred in overseas countries, where their gravestones are proudly inscribed with the name of their homeland as being “New Zealand”.

Of course, to counter these aspects, it will be argued that the New Zealand name will always remain combined with Aotearoa. Rubbish. We already see and hear numerous examples of where it is not.

Of real significance concerning this whole matter is that despite what has been our country’s name under various spellings since 1643 (which is quite a stretch of history) the desire to now change it to Aotearoa is based solely on the belief that it’s the original Māori name. But the truth is, Māori had no name for the country as a whole. The North Island was Te Ika ā Māui and the South Island Te Waka ā Māui.

It is said that the word Aotearoa described white cloud. And “Aotea” was used by some to name the North Island. Although, the area now known as the King Country was referred to as Aotearoa during the 1870’s.

In 1890 the author, William Reeves popularized the usage of “Aotearoa” to describe the entirety of New Zealand through romanticized literary narratives rather than traditional precedent.

The first Māori dictionary, published in 1844, had no entry for Aotearoa. And the Te Reo Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 makes no mention of it.

In 1835 when chiefs were establishing the Declaration of Independence (which failed due to intertribal fighting) they didn’t know what name to give their country, so called it Nu Tireni which expressed their pronunciation of the English wording for “New Zealand”.

This not only proves that Aotearoa was never the traditionally accepted name, but also that Maori were happy with the name New Zealand. So much so, they made up Te Reo words to match it.

Socialism Within NZ Politics

By Kerry Butler

We are facing a very frightening scenario, whereby the four likely Partners in a Labour led coalition are all of a Socialist persuasion.

Firstly, take a look at Labour’s present leader, Chris Hipkins, who knows no other way than to follow in the footsteps of Comrade Jacinda.

And the next likely Labour leader, and thus maybe a future Prime Minister of our country, Kieran McAnulty, openly admitted in the Parliamentary debating chamber that, quote: “I am a Socialist … and I’m proud of it”.

Several other Labour politicians have also ‘come out’ and admitted that they are too. So, it seems these types no longer even try to hide their true aspirations.

Then add into the mix Comrade Chloe of the Green Communist Party.

Plus, the Opportunity Party wannabes who have conned a lot of gullible (ignorant) fools into believing that they are a “centrist” Party.

Come on. Take a look at their communist policy of wanting to make ALL of us beneficiaries of the State. With the true intent being the opportunity to have us under their “power”.

Then the final nail in the left leaning coffin is the Maori “Terrorist” Party whose goal is to attain co-governance, including power of veto … which in effect, means our prospects in life will be under the ‘control’ of a Maori “Dictatorship”.

What you’ll notice about every one of those aspiring Parties is that their policy centres on tax, tax, tax, and more tax.

Which of course, shows their true colours, i.e. a commitment to taking from the “achievers” so as to redistribute to the masses … in order to make us all more equal. Which is classic Socialism in the form of Communism.

In other words, due to lack of real-world experience, those ignorant dreamers can’t see the downside of their socialist agenda.

So … the real danger of that lot being in power, is that we’ll never, as individuals, or as the country as a whole, be able to get ahead. Because as fast as we make it, they’ll take it.

Which means we’ll be stuffed … because free enterprise would be stifled due to the shortsighted ideology of those in power making it not worthwhile for businesses or individuals to take the risk of investing too much, due to being punished by having their hard-earned prosperity taken off them. Success is a dirty word to Socialists.

With the end result being that economic growth will collapse, because the go-getters either move their business to another country … or just drift along in survival mode, by cutting back expansion, and thus employment.

And the tragedy is that Lefties are unable to grasp the fact that high achievers give others an incentive to emulate them. This is a human characteristic … where the same thing happens in sport. People need someone to look up to, as their incentive to try hard.

Whereas, these Socialists with their “attitude” problem (envy) i.e. chip on shoulder, would really like us all on an equal footing … which of course, will only lead to general mediocracy. Which is not the way for a country to prosper.

The irony is that socialist agendas invariably lead to failure because the supply of other people’s money eventually runs out.

The real problem we’re facing as regards preventing this crusade from coming about, is that Luxon and his tight five, who we rely on our “saviours”, are all closet “Wokesters” which subconsciously encourages Leftist tendencies.

So, with matters such as taking from us, the National Caucus members may as well be called Socialists also, because they’re willing to unjustifiably hand billions of dollars (by one means or another) to Maori.

All because of that old socialist policy of trying to bring Maori up to a so-called equitable standing in society (not that much, if any, ever trickles past the elite Gangsters, down to ordinary Maori). Which is not the answer anyway, because if taking money from us to share with them, i.e. when handing out money unearned, you end up with a class of people who, in a concerning number of cases, become useless.

And in the process of this futile benevolence, our country is crippled. All due to an unrecognised (or hidden) socialist mentality.

The crux of the matter is, our only hope lies in NZ First and ACT, of which the latter seems to be more committed to free enterprise.

Multi-Culturalism Undermines Free Speech

By John McLean

It is a well-known but sordid fact that Labour governments will always seize on a particular outrage committed by one or two persons as an excuse to clamp down on the rights of everybody, e.g. the Christchurch mosques’ massacre and the Bondi shooting in Sydney, both of which led to a frenzy of State authoritarianism in respect of gun ownership and free speech.

Within 72 hours of the Christchurch massacre the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced a ban on military style automatic firearms, some of their related parts and all high capacity magazines – exactly what farmers need to control pests in the countryside. This was policy on the hoof purely for public perception – to use the excitement and horror of the massacres to “justify” such an attack on the age-old right of farmers and others to have an effective gun.

Ardern allowed only two days for Parliament to hear submissions on this important restriction and then the Bill was passed with the help of a frightened and, as usual, worthless National Party. David Seymour, ACT’s sole M.P., was the only one to keep his head and vote against it.

Ardern tried to justify this and her clampdown on “hate speech” by telling yet another of her many lies – “It would make New Zealand safer”. To any would-be gunman the law of the land is irrelevant; there are always ways to purchase what is illegal, e.g. drugs. Although virtually ineffective, Ardern’s law did manage to achieve one object: it did inconvenience farmers who, like employers, landlords, evangelical Christians and self-employed business people, were very high on her “hate list” and are still very high on the Labour Party’s hate list.

Her government also tried to use the massacre to limit the individual’s right to free speech – a form of censorship that Ardern has devoted herself to ever since she was hounded out of office by the power of the anti-vaccine movement. In the words of her Justice Minister, Andrew Little, “In New Zealand our political and social culture has been very defensive of the rights of free speech. We err on the side of letting people say stuff”. And so we damned well should.

Speech did not cause the Christchurch massacre; an evil man with a gun did – and he wasn’t even a New Zealander. Speech does not kill and there is no justification in using a single criminal act as an excuse to limit the right of the free speech of everybody. Our centuries old right of free speech belongs to the people and not to some passing jacks-in-office such as Ardern and Andrew Little. If we’re not free to say what we think, we no longer live in a free society.

Labour politicians in Australia hate free speech every bit as much as their New Zealand counterparts as they showed in the aftermath of the Bondi shootings of fifteen people in 2025. In Canberra the Albanese government rushed in and passed within a matter of weeks an ill-thought out statute called The Combatting Anti-Semitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026. As in the Christchurch case it has nothing to do with making Australia safer since the two gunmen were Islamic immigrants whose ingrained hatred of Israel and Jews did not need to be further advanced by any “anti-Semitic” tract or booklet.

The real purpose of the Act seems to be to ban certain political parties which, by telling certain truths outside the Establishment lies, might take voters away from the two main parties (just as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is doing at present). Part IV of this sinister Act allows the government to prohibit certain organisations as “hate groups”. In other words, the law is being weaponised against any party whose arguments can’t be met by the Establishment. Just like in Germany where there are moves to ban the popular AFD party which is, in fact, the largest opposition group in Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, where it holds 151 seats and is poised for greater things.

So, what sort of organisation in Australia is being targeted as a “hate” group so dangerous that it has to be destroyed by the law? The first target of the new statute is a party called the White Australia Party, described as “a right wing political party”. Oh dear! Can’t have that.

This party wants to limit immigration from the Third World so as to preserve Australia’s European population and heritage. Nothing wrong with that – a policy with enormous potential for disenchanted Australians who see every day – especially in Melbourne – more and more of their streets being taken over by Indians and other Asians. Furthermore, this “white Australia” policy was the very policy that Australia followed very rigidly for the first 187 years of its 238 year history (1788 to 1975). So, a policy that was acceptable to Australians for several generations and widely supported by them is now considered so dangerous by Albanese and his mafia that any groups advocating it must be BANNED.

On the other hand they have not used the legislation to ban any radical Islamic group of the type that provides background to certain violent Islamic criminals. As I said, the legislation is not about making Australia safer but about preventing potentially popular ideas from taking root and developing. The rise in popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has frightened the Establishment (both Labour and Liberals) so much that they cannot risk anything like the White Australia party developing in a similar way. Just like when One Nation was taking off and so they imprisoned Pauline Hanson on false charges for ten weeks.

So much for the government in Canberra but the New South Wales state government was no less opportunistic in pushing through rushed laws to protect the Jewish community and put many thousands of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Jewish groups. It should be noted that the Labour Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Chris Minns, has long been groomed by Israel to do its dirty work abroad. In 2003 Israel gave him an all expenses paid trip to Israel on the Israel Ramham junket programme which aims to capture young Western politicians at an early stage and groom them to be a reliable asset for Israel and Jews in general.

In the immediate aftermath of the Bondi shootings Minns repaid all this care and attention by pushing through rushed laws, restricting the right of protest. This was aimed primarily at Palestinians who were periodically protesting against Israel’s genocide of the Arabs in the Gaza Strip. These rushed laws – in the name, of course, of “community safety” – were later struck down unanimously by the judges of the Court of Appeal as “unconstitutional”.

In defence of his war against free speech Chris Minns bleated: “We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multi-cultural country”. This is a most revealing comment as it admits that what flows from a multi-cultural society is a restriction on free speech in order to accommodate such an unnatural and dangerous phenomenon as “multi-culturalism”.

In the words of former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, “We always knew it; the idea of a multi-cultural society cannot succeed. It is doomed to failure from the start.” And the distinguished Canadian psychologist and author, Jordan Peterson, “Multi-culturalism is unlikely to succeed due to differing characteristics of different cultures. If you think you can import a multitude of cultures without a unifying rubric and not import the problem of interpersonal and social conflict, you’re either blind or stupid or both.”

Not one voter in Australia or New Zealand has ever been asked whether we want to share these two great countries that were built by British settlers with all sorts of riff raff from the Third World. Instead, this important decision to destroy traditional demographics was taken by arrogant and treasonable political parties such as Labour and National in New Zealand and Labour and the Liberals in Australia.

It is time for the ordinary people of Australia and New Zealand to take back control of our destinies once and for all by quitting the parties that have been responsible for this terrible treason. No wonder parties like the White Australia party have to be banned; it’s all part of the price of the unnatural and destructive multi-culturalism that has been forced on us by the permanent political elite.

1 2 3 … 8