SEYMOUR’S BILL. CREATING RACIAL DIVISION OR RACIAL UNITY?
The Truth? Accusing David Seymour Of Causing Racial Division Is OHensive.
Luxon says it.
Activists say it.
Church leaders have recently come out and said it.
David Seymour ’s Treaty Principles Bill creates division.
But how true is this? It is factual?
Is David Seymour really creating division?
The answer is an emphatic “no!”
Absolutely “no!”
The exact opposite is true. It’s going to restore racial harmony and unity.
Let me explain.
In the 1940,50s, and 60’s NZ was, generally speaking, the most racially harmonious country in the world. Our economy was booming. Then in the late 1960s and early 1970s Maori activists began to fire up. Not all Maori. I am talking about activist Maori. In 1974, via the Maori Purposes Act, the definition of what a Maori was changed. It used to be that to be deemed a Maori one needed to have 50% of more Maori blood. Suddenly, all that was necessary to be a Maori was to say you were one. This change was made because the number of Maori in NZ determines how many Maori seats in Parliament are allocated, and what government funding goes to Maori.
Non-Maori watching on could see what was happening (that activists were angling to get more seats in Parliament, which it itself if an example of racism and apartheid), and where this law change was leading (activist Maori were manipulating ‘the system’ so as to get their hands on as much free cash as possible), and the corruption, and so the seeds of resentment against Maori were sown.
Nothing upsets people as much as when they realise that they are being shafted and that those doing the shafting are getting away with it.
Every time non-Maori perceived that they were being shafted, it felt like they were being stabbed in the back.
With each stab, racial division got worse.
Non-Maori began to deeply resent Maori activists, and by association, all Maori. Non-Maori tried to separate “activist Maori” from “good hard-working Maori”, but it was not easy to do. Most could do it, but many others could not.
Most thinking people could see that Maori seats were undemocratic.
In a democracy, all citizens are to be treated equally.
They could see that the Maori race was being treated with favour over all the other races in NZ was undemocratic and unfair.
Racial division intensified.
One year later, 1975, came the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
This act put racial division on turbo. It was another stab in the back for non-Maori.
For example, only tribunal members could interpret the meaning of the Treaty. Their interpretations were unchallengeable.
To outsiders looking in, this seemed (and was) unfair and wrong. But it didn’t stop there.
The wrong version of the Treaty in English (the rogue James Freeman version of the Treaty) was deliberately chosen as the oaicial Treaty in English. This version of the Treaty diaers markedly from the genuine Treaty, the Treaty in Maori. In this way, activists were able to say “The translators in 1840 did a bad job.
You’ll need Maori translators to tell you what the Treaty in English in really saying.”
Again, non-Maori watching on could see this was another ruse by activists so that they could make the Treaty say what they wanted it to say instead of what it did say.
And what did the activists want the Treaty to say ?
Things like Maori did not cede sovereignty.
Things like the crown promised to protect and promote anything Maori consider to be a treasure.
Things like Maori owned all the forest and fisheries.
Things like Maori have the right to self- determination.
Things like Maori have the right to set up their own parliament
Things like Maori have the right to entitlement and privilege not aaorded other citizens, and so on.
Things like the name of NZ needs to be changed to Aotearoa.
Things like the Maori language must be given priority and prominence in NZ society.
Once again, non – Maori watching on were horrified.
More stabs in the back.
But it did not end there.
The first talk of ‘the principles of the Treaty were introduced in 1975.
Once again, principles allowed activists to make the Treaty say what it did not say.
Resentment against Maori activists flourished, and with-it racial division.
The work of the Maori activists was giving good hard-working Maori a bad name.
Next, in 1984, The Treaty of Waitangi act was amended to allow claims back to 1840.
This was in spite of full and final settlements for all tribes being reached by 1960.
Non-Maori watching on were infuriated.
The Waitangi Tribunal and the whole settlement process had turned into a gigantic racket.
This is how non-Maori perceived it.
They saw their hard- earned taxes being squandered on corrupt and specious settlement claims, recommended by a Waitangi Tribunal which had been hijacked by activists.
More and more Kiwis were waking up to this fact, to the unfairness of it all, to what they saw as the rise of apartheid, separatism, treaty fraud, the plunder of NZ, corruption, and the destruction of democracy.
They were angry.
Non-Maori could see that Foxes had got into the hen house.
Racial division went onto turbo.
In the 1980s and 90s, Maori activists and woke white liberals upped their rhetoric. More corruption followed.
In 1986 Hugh Kawharu completed his fraudulent interpretation of the Treaty.
The floodgates opened
Maori activism morphed into a full- on attack on democracy and a challenge to government itself.
Between 1986 and 2020, Maori activists continued to grind away with their goal to take over New Zealand.
No one really believed they had this goal - until 2020 that is.
In 2020, the now famous documents He Pua Pua and Matike Mai Aotearoa surfaced in Parliament.
These documents advertised for all to see that Maori, oaicially, in writing, stated that they wanted to be in control of New Zealand by 2040.
Non-Maori were shocked to the core.
They asked, “How could this have happened?”
“Who allowed this?”
Maori activists were blamed.
Politicians were blamed.
But nothing changed.
Meanwhile racial division got worse and worse.
Maori activism chugged on, and so did the gravy train.
Year by year, more and more carriages were added to this train.
Every new carriage represented another stab in the back.
Racial division was fueled by other factors too, like the rise of the Maori party, the Maori caucus, and Maori MPs like willy Jackson and ex MPs like Tuku Morgan.
Then there has been the poison injected into NZ society by so called Maori academics like Margaret Mutu. White academics like Anne Salmond joined in too.
The media sided with the activists.
The media were bribed to promote all things Maori, the fraud, through the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
Finding out about this fund was a huge stab in the back for non-Maori.
History ignorant MPs made things a lot worse by appeasing the activists, pandering to their demands, not reading the room, and accepting the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations without question, scrutiny, or fact checking.
Luxon is one of those MPs, leading the charge.
Incredibly, he thinks David’s Bill will create division.
Non-Maori watching all this unfold could see things were out of control.
The big six – the Maori Party, Maori ‘academics’ and their white fellow travelers, Maori MPs, the media, and white woke bureaucrats and academics, and history ignorant MPsthese people - these parties, these groups, these entities, these people, fed the general population of NZ at ground level with Treaty lies and misinformation.
- Like all the ills suaered by Maori are caused by colonialism.
- Like Maori were not performing in society because they are victims of racism by white people.
- Like New Zealand belongs to Maori, and they want it back.
- Like all Maori land was stolen.
- Like Maori have been robbed by colonialists.
- Like all non-Maori are racists.
- Like hospitals and schools are racist.
- Like Maori die younger than other ethnicities because NZ is a racist country and so on.
The big six set out to make non-Maori feel guilty and ashamed of being white. They took over the education system, brainwashing children from kindergarten to the end of University.
Nurses and doctors, real estate agents, police, DOC staa, all government departments – no one was oa limits - all were targeted for Maorification.
Non-Maori resented this deeply, which fueled further racial division More stabs in the back.
The big six pitted Maori against non-Maori (Non-Maori being the other 159 cultures who now live in New Zealand)
They pitted Maori against Maori.
The rhetoric of the big six literally threw petrol on the fires of racial division.
The result? Many Maori (and many white woke people) have ended up hating non-Maori for what they perceive non-Maori have done to Maori.
On the other hand, many non-Maori have ended up hating the big six for what they perceive they are doing to NZ.
Boom! Racial division has rocketed to new heights.
So, is David Seymour causing racial division?
No.
Absolutely no.
It’s the big six who have caused the racial division we are experiencing today. And they have been at it for 50 years, at least, including MPs.
How are MPs complicit?
MPs have had 50 years to stop this racial division, but they haven’t. They could have stopped it starting but they didn’t.
Over and over, MPs have caved into the demands of activists, appeasing them. Each time MPs appeased them, their fueled the resolve of the activists to push for more.
David is wanting to bring this division, this dreadful cycle, this awful downward slide, to an end with a massive correction.
Accusing David of causing racial division would be a bit like Winston Churchill in 1940 saying to the British people “I don’t want to bring division and conflict into this world, so I think we should simply let Germany take over our Britain
Don’t worry about the end of democracy, free speech, equality, and one law for all. These are not important.
Don’t worry about corruption and fraud. It will all work out in the end If we all become Germans and bow down and serve Hitler.
It’s the quickest route to harmony and peace. So, let’s just do that.”
It's a ridiculous thought isn’t it.
In the same way, it’s a bit like David Seymour saying to the NZ people “I don’t want to bring division and conflict into NZ, so I think we should simply let radical Maori take over our country.
Don’t worry about the end of democracy, free speech, equality, and one law for all. These are not important.
Just ignore the Treaty corruption and fraud. It will all work out in the end if we all become Maori and bow down and serve radical Maori and their goals for NZ.
It’s the quickest route to harmony and peace.
So, let’s just do that.”
So why didn’t Churchill just cave in to Hitler and German ambition?
That would have brought peace and harmony, wouldn’t it?
Because something much greater was driving Britian and Churchill What was that?
Higher values.
What were those higher values?
Ultimately, it boiled down to a fight between good and evil.
A fight between right and wrong.
A fight between democracy and dictatorship.
A fight between freedom and bondage.
A fight for honesty against fraud and corruption.
A fight for justice against injustice.
Seymour is like that.
He is like Churchill fighting for what is fundamentally right, against what is fundamentally wrong.
David sees NZ like Churchill saw England, so he is prepared to stand up and go to war with the big six, just like Churchill went to war with activist Nazis and Hitler.
David is going to fight the big six to bring back what is right and jettison what is wrong. Thankfully, David does not have to use planes, and tanks, guns and bullets like Churchill did.
David is doing it with legislation.
But in every other respect, David and Churchill are the same. And what is David fighting for ?
Democracy, equality, one law for all, and racial harmony. He is fighting against Treaty fraud and corruption.
He is fighting against Maori activist spin, lies, deceit, bullying, and intimidation. By going to war with Germany, Churchill was not the instigator of division and disharmony.
The opposite was true.
It was really Germany that was bringing division and disharmony.
Ironically, Churchill went to war to restore peace and harmony. Sometimes war precedes peace and harmony. Ironically, David Seymour illustrates this principle.
By going to war with the big six, Seymour is not the instigator of division and disharmony.
He is going to restore peace and harmony in New Zealand by restoring democracy and by putting Treaty corruption and fraud to the sword, along with apartheid, racism, and separatism.
Those who say David and Act are creating division are not just ignorant, but they are oaensive.
Deeply oaensive. They are as oaensive as criticizing Churchill for going to war with Germany.
Hitler declared war on the world. Churchill responded. The big six have declared war on NZ. Seymour has responded. That is all.
I don’t often agree with John Stuart Mill, but there are a few things he absolutely nails, and this is one of them.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. (too many Kiwis think nothing is worth a war which is why they are about to lose their country to radical Maori) When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ( What Mill is saying is that too many Kiwis have nothing they are willing to fight for, other than their personal safety, which makes them miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless someone better than them does the fighting for them). As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the aaairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.” ( What Mill is saying is that when a person goes to war for justice fighting
against injustice, he leaves his status of being a miserable creature, and becomes a more noble man or woman. That’s Seymour. The same is true for all those who have put aside their personal safety in favour of entered the fight against Maori activism and the destruction of New Zealand)
J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy
John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 – 7 May 1873) was an English philosopher, political economist, politician and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century" by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he conceived of liberty as justifying the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control.