Exposing the covert deal between Labour and radical “Maori”
What’s going on with the sudden push to establish a separate “Maori” state and culture in New Zealand? The answer to this question can only be a pre-election deal between Labour and radical Maori. A deal that was kept secret from NZ voters, but is roughly in line with the strategy outlined in the He Puapua report. (see attachment below)
Would 52% of NZ have voted for Labour if they’d known of this agreement? Highly doubtful anyone would wish the kind of decline witnessed in Zimbabwe or South Africa upon this country. Yet under Jacinda’s leadership, we’re apparently well on the way down that slippery slope.
What we’re seeing today is the culmination of something that has been planned for a couple of decades. Without going into too much detail, there has always been a core of radical Maori Marxists. Its hard to say exactly how many. Perhaps 10,000 to a maximum of 40,000.
Under normal circumstances, not enough to take the country. However if they can form a mutually beneficial agreement (or partnership) with one of the largest political parties, it then becomes more than a possibility. As we’re witnessing right now.
Over the last four or five decades, Maori far left radicals have gone to university and been educated. Usually choosing educational options that increase their political influence as well as training them in further activism.
They have graduated university and quietly infiltrated the public service, the academic sector and the media. By means of the positions they hold today, they are able to bring far greater political pressure to bear than if they were outside the system and in greater numbers.
With this part of the plan complete, the next step was to arrange a covert “partnership” with a major political party and of course that was always going to be Labour. There are already 15 members of the Maori Caucus.
That’s why Jacinda is funneling all the money into so called “Maori” causes. She is using taxpayer money to buy crucial political support that will be delivered by means of the influential positions radical Marxist Maori now hold in their local communities, the bureaucracy, academia and media.
Labour are happy to share power. They don’t care about anything except their Marxist objectives, and radical Maori have already agreed to assist them in this goal.
Its all tied in with other recent changes in society, such as forcing a new name for the country. Before it became Zimbabwe, Rhodesia was frequently referred to as “Zimbabwe Rhodesia”? (see pic)
Other strategies are the suppression of free speech. The public shaming of dissenters, often resulting in job losses. Pushing “Maori’ culture in the education system, including compulsory Maori language. (its coming) The myth of “white supremacy”. Changing the names of cities and landmarks. Distorting the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi and demanding it be seen as NZ’s “founding document”. Excessive funding of “Maori” media. The need for separate health/ govt services. The list is endless.
All of these items are designed to hasten the arrival of a new country governed jointly by separatist radical Maori and Marxist Labour. Look for pressure for New Zealand to break with the UK and become a republic, for this is basically how it was done in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
The end of commonwealth rule provided the opportunity for the establishment of a new system of govt, and in each case it was a mix of the old govt and a separate race based partnership.
Its what they’re aiming for in New Zealand. All the radicals need to complete their plan is that the usual misguided and uninformed fools keep voting for Jacinda Ardern.
Posssibly an important difference is that Maori in NZ are a much smaller proportion than black Africans in Zimbabwe and South Africa
Yes true, but its no great obstacle if the radicals hold positions of power in the country. Media, bureaucracy, academia and they do. They practically have the media fully under control now and that is a big step. The Voyager awards on Friday were totally dominated by Maori culture.
You are right about the Marxist roots of NZ identity poliutics.
THE NATURE AND ORIGINS OF IDENTITY POLITICS
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) is now cited in tandem with the misconstrued Treaty of Waitangi to support the endless expansion of group rights to New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent.
New Zealand’s adoption of UNDRIP is not binding and lacks an enforcement mechanism. Nonetheless, this document is far from harmless. The Declaration’s lofty phrases on the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, to maintain their own languages and cultures, to protect their natural and cultural heritage, and manage their own affairs, has further emboldened the Maori Sovereignty movement.
In endorsing this edict of the Mother of World Socialism, the United Nations, the last National Government buckled to its coalition partner, the Maori Party; further validating the Maori Party’s race-separatist agenda; and opening the door to the Maori sovereignty agenda.
All ideas have a pedigree, and if our universities and media were doing their job, the matters set out below would be far more widely known.
After you have read this material, ask yourself whether Communists care more about part-Maori or about revolution?
Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto: “[T]he Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things … The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
Communists are expert at identifying groups with a grievance against the status quo, then promising to work alongside them to help them to get what they want, in order to glove-puppet them into helping the Communists to white-ant our existing social, economic, and political order.
The ideological underpinning of both UNDRIP and the Maori Sovereignty movement traces back to the early 20th Century writings of Communist revolutionaries Lenin and Stalin on a topic they called “The National Question.”
Around 1905, Lenin and Stalin noted that Tsarist Russia consisted not just of ethnic Russians, but upwards of 80 formerly tribal subject peoples, conquered by the Tsars over the preceding 500 years and forcibly Russified.
To expand the Bolshevik support base these peoples were promised: “the right to self-determination,” “the right to manage their own affairs,” and “the right to speak, read, write, use, and be taught in their own language.” It is this more than 100 year-old Communist cant that resurfaces in the UNDRIP and in the demands of “indigenous peoples” movements all over the world.
After World War I the multi-ethnic empires of Austro-Hungary and Tsarist Russia to which the National Question was first applied to stir up revolution were no more. Lenin and Stalin then directed the National Question towards undermining the hold of European nations over their colonial possessions.
Starting in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Communists all over the world were instructed to encourage the independence aspirations of minority groups and indigenous peoples so as to bring them into conflict with the status quo.
In promoting decolonisation, the Communists were looking to weaken capitalism economically by depriving the colonial powers of sources of cheap labour, raw materials, and markets for finished goods. Post-colonial power would go to the politically organised, meaning Communist-led and supported puppet governments were expected to bring newly independent states firmly into the Soviet orbit.
Following the creation of the UN in 1945, Communists on its various committees and workgroups began to drip-feed National Question ideology into the fabric of that organisation. By 1960, the UN General Assembly had adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This stated that all peoples have “a right to self-determination” and proclaimed that “colonialism should be brought to a speedy and unconditional end.”
Locally, the Communist Party of New Zealand (“CPNZ”) soon identified a minority strand of Maori opinion centred on the Tainui, Tuwharetoa and Tuhoe tribes that had never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. These groups had gone to war against the Crown in the mid-19th Century and been appropriately brought to heel. They’d been punished with land confiscations and nursed a sense of grievance because of this. Their impetus was towards reversion to tribalism, not engagement with the modern world.
The CPNZ ran in the 1935 General Election on a platform that included “self-determination for the Maoris [sic] to the point of complete separation.” In the 1930s, the CPNZ had little success with this line. Maori were a predominately rural people and had little contact with Communists, mostly found in urban areas with universities and a substantial manufacturing base. This was soon to change.
Between 1945 – 1975, Maori underwent one of the most rapid urbanisations of any group of people, anywhere. This brought Maori flooding into the universities and trade unions, the CPNZ’s main recruiting grounds. Many who’d moved away from traditional tribal connections lost them. And if they didn’t, these were often loosened by distance.
Communist “entrepreneurs of ethnicity” could now peddle a message of collective “Maori” disadvantage to people whose primary socio-cultural affiliation before moving to town had been to a tribal kin group. They could also make a race issue out of the problems many Maori experienced in adjusting to urban life.
The Communists who’d begun colonising our universities in the 1930s to use them as political indoctrination factories had by the 1970s achieved critical mass in many departments, especially those specialising in the study of society. Their growing dominance on faculty hiring committees allowed them to systematically exclude anyone holding alternative views. It was now possible in many disciplines to go all the way from Undergraduate to PhD. level without having been lectured by a single Conservative or Libertarian professor.
Controlling the universities was based on the writings of Antonio Gramsci, one of the many disreputable Communists held up as intellectual icons by the academic Left. The theoretician of Italian Communism, Gramsci had been imprisoned by Mussolini in the 1920s. He’d used his jail time to think long and hard about why violent Communist revolutions hadn’t occurred in the advanced capitalist countries where Marx had predicted they would first occur.
Gramsci’s answer was that the capitalist ruling class controlled the West’s social discourse. Its stranglehold on intellectual life made it impossible for the “subordinate classes” (workers, women, ethnic minorities, and alternative sexualities) to discover the truth about their institutionalised oppression at the hands of capitalist society. Unless this situation could somehow be changed, these groups would never develop a revolutionary class consciousness.
Revolution must therefore first take place on the level of consciousness. Like throwing a stone into a pool, this would start with the formation of a body of Communist intellectuals who would take over the academy to use it as an indoctrination factory. As their students graduated and moved into opinion-shaping roles, the Communist world view would progressively achieve “Cultural Hegemony,” or control of the West’s social discourse.
Naturally, recruits from the “subordinate classes” were needed as a revolutionary spearhead to spread the good word. But the wider Communist goal was to capture the largest possible cohort from the “dominant classes” who could be induced by propaganda to switch sides. This would be achieved by teaching that Capitalist society can be divided into groups that oppress and groups that are oppressed.
Gramsci’s academic adherents helped their students to understand that the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology, were not neutral and impartial. They were instead instruments of race, gender and class oppression. And the only moral position for someone born into a Communist-designated oppressor group was that of totally supine and penitent victimiser, desperate to make it up to those whom they’d learned their group had historically victimised.
These views are now considered “mainstream” in the Western academy. Students were told they were learning “progressive” new ideas about race, gender and class, not Communism. They were programmed with all the principles of Communism without the label then flattered for their cleverness in accepting the programming. If you told them they were Marxists or Communists, they’d respond with a pitying smile, roll their eyes, and accuse you of “seeing Reds under the bed.”
US political columnist Joe Sobran uses the metaphor of a hive of bees, united by a kind of “group mind,” to describe the largely informal body of Leftist Groupthink to which these people belong. There’s no central direction as such, but the bees can sense an enemy, and know when to attack.
Sobran says: “To become a bee in this hive is to surrender, voluntarily and eagerly, your own personality: to submerge the self in a collectivity; to prefer the buzzing cliché of the group to individual thought and expression; to take satisfaction in belonging and conforming to a powerful mass while punishing others for failure to conform … The similarity to an insect colony – where the individual exists only functionally, being both indistinguishable from and interchangeable with its fellows – is not superficial, it is of the essence. To be an insect is to be relieved of the burden of having a soul of your own.”
Most of the Bees are “Pinks,” not “Reds.” A small hard core of Communists derives a sense of superiority from knowing that they are manipulating the situation. But the vast mass of the Hive’s inhabitants consists of the Left-leaning approval seekers whom Lenin once referred to as “useful idiots.” These are people who have adopted a value system that originated with Communists after being helped to see this as their badge of membership to “Club Virtue.”
Having internalised the readymade system of values upon which their “Club Virtue” membership depends, most university graduates over the last forty years display a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. If you disagree with them you are racist, sexist, fascist, misogynistic, homophobic or just plain stupid. Since a label is not an argument, rational discourse with Lenin’s useful idiots is impossible.
After completing their studies, the Bees sallied forth into the media, education system, trade unions, legal profession, judiciary, central and local government, entertainment industry, churches and other institutions that shape society’s governing ideas. There they embarked, with little conscious awareness, upon their pre-programmed transformational project.
Over the last 40 years or so, these largely unwitting “agents of social change” have completely altered the way our society sees itself. And over time, the views and values of our existing society have been quietly supplanted by the views and values of the Leftist counterculture.
Our universities thus served as a transmission belt into wider society for a raft of Communist narratives, including that of Maori as an “oppressed” people. As a result, the political centre of gravity has moved steadily leftward over several generations.
A few short decades ago anyone peddling ethnic nationalism would have been regarded as dangerously deluded. Now, through the Communist tactic of “pressure from above” by the UN and “pressure from below” by ethnic nationalists and their useful idiot enablers within member states, the topic has been successfully mainstreamed.
The presumption that some groups are entitled on the basis of racial and/or cultural identity to separate, different, or superior rights because some of their ancestors happened to have been someplace first, now stands revealed for what it is. A long-running Communist subversion strategy designed to substitute divisive group rights for the individual equality in citizenship that guarantees national unity and a free society.
Yes, Lenin always said that communists must create the illusion of popular support, and that communism must be built with non-communist hands. Almost every strategy you outline in your comment is an extension of this directive.
Is it too late?
An old acquaintance of mine used to say:
“After all is done and said
there’s always more said than done.”
What – if anything – can be done to turn the tide?
Just as in ‘Animal Farm,’ the real communists are a clique who want to be at the top; who want to be among the ‘some are more equal than others’ elite group.
Do the ‘useful idiots’ not look around and see that the Utopia – the workers’ Paradise – is such a desirable thing that communism requires not just subservience, but also:
1) Walls of one sort or another – not to repel immigrants keen to be a part of the ‘dream’ – but to stop people fleeing from communism’s delights;
2) A military and secret police force of gigantic proportions – again, not to repel people trying to get in – but as a ‘human wall’ to keep the workers from fleeing the promised land splendour of communism.