Ihumatao Is a Watershed Agreement: Legal Owners of the Land Are Returning 1/4 of That Land to Maori

From Facebook

A reader drew my attention to an interesting point of view about Ihumatao that she read on a Facebook page yesterday.

It had the headline: Two sides to every story.

I whakapapa to the Whenua at Ihumatao. I have whanau living in the papakainga, and whanau buried in the urupa. My grandfather’s photo and those of many more tupuna hang in Makarau Marae.

I do not support SOUL.

I support the kaumatua who have spent decades fighting for iwi rights to that land and those waterways and fighting to protect wahi tapu. Kaumatua who have done so tirelessly, not through garnering limelight in social & other media, but through the court and post treaty negotiations framework and through clear and measurable opposition to foreshore and seabed issues. Who when after being knocked back again and again by the legal system in this country in their opposition to urban development on the Wallace Block, have achieved an absolute watershed agreement where the legal owners of the land are returning 1/4 of that land to Maori, along with houses within the other 3/4 that will allow iwi to live on that land, to own homes at a value preferential to purchasing elsewhere on the Auckland market, whanau who have never had the opportunity to own homes before let alone the opportunity to live in the local papakainga where the home sites are available to the lucky few.

So please read that again people, LAND THAT WAS HISTORICALLY CONFISCATED FROM MANA WHENUA BY THE CROWN IN THE 1860s IS GOING TO BE RETURNED TO MANA WHENUA. And yes – a quarter is not ALL the land. But under the legal framework that like it or not has been agreed to, anyone who has ever been involved in any post treaty settlement will tell you, we are not going to get everything back.

There has to be a point at which we as a people stop perpetuating the victim mentalityand instead put our energies & focus into doing what we can with what is NOW in our power.

I do not support those that have been putting their energies into perpetuating Maori as continuing to be oppressed on that Whenua, who have presented a slick, emotive and captivating campaign, so alluring that people are blindly liking and sharing in their droves, changing their Facebook and Instagram profiles like moths to a flame, spurring people to seek petition support without seeking out all the information. A campaign so well woven visually and lyrically that it would have the untrained eye and ear think that houses are going to be built on w?hi tapu sites on land that is now council-owned, rather than the actual site on neighbouring farmland that is flanked by factories.

A campaign so misleading that it has left my babies, tamariki who whakapapa to that whenua, confused and questioning why their 13 and 15-year-old friends are changing their social media profiles like it’s some cool group to be a part of. A campaign so fashionable that it’s trending on Twitter, spoon-feeding people misinformation.

A campaign so click-baitable that various groups and political parties are using it as a soap-box to promote their own agendas. What have these people been doing in the last 150 years whilst the whenua has been farmland and the kaumatua have been neck-deep in struggle with the legal system and post treaty negotiations reality?

Then there are those motivated to go to the land to support the cause, to “stand”. But I challenge those people to truly question, what are they standing for? And yes, people have a right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but the problem is when a one-sided message goes out to the misinformed masses, there’s always a risk a renegade person or subgroup of supporters will push the boundaries of peace. To me that’s deliberately running the risk of innocent people getting hurt. And it puts at risk whanau who live in that papakainga that don’t subscribe to SOUL’s campaign.

And yes, those whanau do exist. And honestly, if I see another selfie of someone posing with a line of police behind them doing their jobs, well… talk about turning this into utter modern era self-promotion ridiculousness!

So contrary to what the majority of mass media to this point, widespread social media and the SOUL group would have people believe, this isn’t a generalised dispute open to the public. This isn’t something the Crown should get involved in. This is a dispute between two interested parties that have gone different ways about achieving ultimately the same thing. One who after turning over all other avenues has achieved legal return of confiscated lands in perpetuity, vs another who is pushing up against a legal brick wall… for what?

  • To have the land purchased for all New Zealand?
  • To be kept as farmland or to be turned into a tourism venture?
  • To try to establish a dangerous precedent enabling access and forcing sale on other pieces of privately owned land within New Zealand?
  • To derail the work and progress that has been put in place on treaty claims already settled and pending raupatu claims?

Seriously people, think about this very carefully. […]

  • Ihumatao is not Bastion Point
  • Ihumatao is not Standing Rock
  • Ihumatao is not Mauna Kea
  • Ihumatao is a whenua for transformation through compromise.

Yes, this will go down in history and I for one will be educating my children so they don’t carry myths into generations to come.

Guns off the Streets… Nek Minnit

Since the Christchurch terror attack, the media hand in glove with the government have done their very best to demonise gun owners. Now the Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Clement has gone one step further… he is demonising inanimate objects!

Guns cannot be “evil” in their nature, as he claims, any more than other inert pieces of wood, metal or plastic. The people holding the guns committing crimes are the evil ones. If guns are evil, then spoons cause obesity, and pencils, pens and keyboards cause spelling mistakes.

Police are hitting back at claims the gun buyback won’t make New Zealand safer, since bad guys won’t be the ones handing over their weapons.

[…] But Clement said it doesn’t matter who owns the guns now – as long as they exist, they’re a threat.
I can tell you that there are far too many guns that are evil in their nature in this country…

[…] “If we take tens of thousands of firearms off the streets during the next six months, then I absolutely think New Zealand has to be a safer place.”
[…] He added that police are working on how to take newly illegal guns off gang members and others who don’t give them up.
“Of course we’re not going to have people walking up to a collection point if you’re a gang member… and handing it across to police.”

When presented with evidence from Australia that a gun buyback will not make New Zealand safer, Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Clement disagreed and became overbearing in the TV interview.

[…] ACT leader David Seymour […] told Newshub […] it wouldn’t make New Zealanders any safer.

“People who are prepared to line up in the full public glare and hand in their firearms at below-market rates are not the people we should be worried about,” […]
His view is backed up by Australian homicide researcher Samara McPhedran. She told Magic Talk in June that gun buyback schemes don’t really achieve what officials think they will.
“Based on the Australian experience and international evidence, there is very little evidence to suggest the path New Zealand is taking, and the path that Australia took in the 1990s, has any real impact on public health and safety,” she said.

“That the people that tend to hand in guns aren’t the high risk people who tend to be involved with firearm violence.”

But Clement said it doesn’t matter who owns the guns now – as long as they exist, they’re a threat.


Clement is living in cloud cuckoo land. The kinds of people currently handing in their guns are not criminals so handing in their guns does not equal getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Clement tries to say that good guys with their guns securely locked away are part of the problem because sometimes criminals break into their homes and steal their firearms. It is a very weak argument indeed.

The vast majority of firearms in the hands of criminals are diverted from the legitimate fleet – in other words, they are stolen in burglaries.
“I’m not blaming gun owners for that – they have security, we have more determined criminals who are prepared to break in… and steal those guns. That’s the vast majority of guns that we find in the hands of criminals.”

Imagine if I said that because certain types of cars are often stolen and used for boy racing that the law-abiding owners should hand them in to ensure that they don’t end up in the hands of criminals.

I can tell you right now that every person handing in a gun to the police will take their nice fat wad of government cash down to the local gun store to buy a replacement gun or two.

Meanwhile, the bad guys who are the real danger to police and the public won’t hand them in at all.

Dear Aussies, Please Accept Our Apologies

I will never forget the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011. None of us will, of course. But one of the things that stands out in my mind was how quickly the USAR crew arrived from Australia. They were here by late afternoon, after the earthquake had struck just before 1.00pm. All I could think of that day was Thank You, Australia. You truly are, as always, our friends when we are in need.

That was over 8 years ago though, and it seems a lot has changed.

Australia’s policy to deport people who commit crimes to New Zealand – even when they’ve spent most of their lives living overseas – is “corrosive” to the relationship between the two nations, Jacinda Ardern said today, warning that it’s not an issue she’s intending to let go.

Once again, I am embarrassed by our naive prime minister. She has absolutely no rights here. Among the large number of Kiwis living in Australia, there are a significant number who are being or have been deported because they have committed serious crimes. I have heard all the sob stories about them not having a support network in New Zealand, but it makes no difference. Kiwis in Australia will always be deported if they commit crimes. A really good idea would be for them not to commit the crimes in the first place, but that doesn’t seem to occur to anyone, especially Jacinda Ardern.

“New Zealand absolutely accepts Australia is within its rights to deport those who engage in criminal activity in Australia,” she told media today.

Well, that is it then. Even Jacinda acknowledges that Australia is acting completely within its rights. If only she had left it there, then maybe the relationship would still be safe.

But no.

“However, there are examples on the more extreme end, where individuals have little to no connection at all to New Zealand, have grown up in Australia, and those are the cases we continue to raise with Australia at every level.”

She said Mr Morrison “knows I consider it to be corrosive to the relationship”. 

And you know what, Jacinda? Scott Morrison doesn’t give a damn if you think this is ‘corrosive’ to the relationship. You know why? Because nobody in New Zealand votes for him… and those people who do vote for him don’t want our criminals on their shores. Fair enough too.

The thing is that being the minnow in the relationship (or as is often said, being the ‘kid brother’), Jacinda is both stupid and naive to speak as arrogantly as she does. It puts our relationship with Australia in serious jeopardy. Australia can change the rules regarding residency to the detriment of thousands of Kiwis at the drop of a hat. Australia also does not have to constantly come to our aid as soon as we call. The fact that they do, every time, is a measure of the close ties between the countries. I don’t think we can take that attitude for granted though, as Jacinda so arrogantly does.

Ms Ardern added that many New Zealanders consider the policy “not fair dinkum”.


I have not met one single Kiwi that agrees with this statement, but I think that is probably because most of us respect Australia’s right to apply its own laws. Jacinda has no right to tell another sovereign country how they should treat foreign nationals who commit crimes in their country.

Nothing will stop her though. Punch drunk on her positive international image after the Christchurch massacre, she seems to think she has some divine right to tell everyone what to do. She doesn’t.

The good thing about this is that her true colours have been shown to the Australians, who, until now, have treated her with great reverence and respect. Reports coming out of Australia this weekend are not all complimentary to our dear leader.

So to all Australians (and I know there are a few who read this blog), please accept our apologies for our prime minister’s complete lack of international diplomacy and her self aggrandisement that lets her think that she can tell your country what to do. She may well completely wreck our close relationship, just like David Lange did to relations with the USA, and we will be out in the cold for decades. We really don’t want that.

I just hope that next time we have a major disaster where we need you guys to drop everything and come to our aid, that we have a proper prime minister by then… one that respects the sovereignty of your country and tries to work together with you, rather than split us apart.

For many of us in New Zealand, who have not fallen for the fairy dust she sprinkles around, that day cannot come soon enough. A few Australians can probably understand that now.

Female Athletes ‘Sent to the Back of the Bus’

The Pacific Games were held in Samoa this month. A biological man stood above two Pacific Island women on the podium. “With their silver and bronze medals, they were stony-faced. Feagaiga Stowers and Iuniarra Sipaia should have worn gold and silver.” Missing from the photo was Charisma Amoa Tarrant. Rightfully the third-place medal belonged to her but as blogger Daphna Whitmore has written, female athletes have been sent to the back of the bus and told to stop complaining.

For over two years voices have been raised about the unfairness to womenweightlifters competing against Laurel Hubbard, a former competitive male weightlifter.  Those voices have been ignored and shouted over. Women are told to stop being nasty and get to the back of the bus. 

[…] Gender ideology teaches that Hubbard’s win was a brave and wonderful thing. To the non-believers, Hubbard is a male-bodied athlete who should not compete against females.

Daniel Leo, a top NZ-born Samoan international rugby player, witnessing the travesty, has spoken up:

Daniel Leo


Our generation has allowed this to happen on our watch… is this what we want to be remembered for?

We must right this wrong before one of our daughters or sisters gets seriously hurt.

Come on Rugby… time to show we really care about our ladies! https://www.rugbypass.com/news/dan-leo-smashes-head-long-into-transgender-athlete-debate-on-twitter 

Dan Leo smashes head long into transgender athlete debate on Twitter

One of sport’s most hotly debated topics currently is transgender athletes competing in women’s sport. This subject was brought into sharp relief recently with former Wimbledon champion Martina…


696 people are talking about this

Leo cannot unsee the injustice and clearly will not be muzzled by the gender ideology clergy:

Daniel Leo


Please don’t patronise me with that “bigotry” BS. I have many friends and family who identify as Faafafine -among the most respected people in our Samoan & Pacific societies- who I love & who I stand up for in their struggle for equality.

This is not equality though. https://twitter.com/curatorbob/status/1151809492084056064 

120 people are talking about this

Indeed,  Samoa fa’afafine (third gender) people compete in sports but they are in the male divisions. Fa’afafine don’t muscle into female divisions.

[…] Samoa’s prime minister has spoken up too: This fa’afafine or man should have never been allowed by the Pacific Games Council President to lift with the women,” he said. “I was shocked when I first heard about it.”

Is this just being cruel to transgender people who want to compete as women? Where does the line get drawn?  Should sportswomen turn the other cheek to accommodate the needs of transwomen? Is it a rare event? There are eight transgender players on Iran’s women’s national football team. There is your answer.

The rules which currently allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s divisions need to be changed. Samoa, a tiny Pacific island, is leading the conversation.

The PM’s Strange Aussie Trip

The first thing strange about Jacinda Ardern’s trip was that she flew to Australia in an Air Force plane instead of taking a commercial flight.

We were told it was because in her opinion it was more economical and left a better carbon footprint. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the fact that she had invited the media along for the ride so that they could give her a glowing report card or with the fact that she needed a fast turn around so she could get home quickly to her baby daughter.

The second strange thing about her trip was that on her arrival she was warmly met on the tarmac, not by the Aussie PM, but by the woman she ousted from the deputy leader’s role back in 2017, who now is one of her closest advisors, New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia Dame Annette King.

New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia Dame Annette King meets PM Jacinda Ardern on the tarmac in Melbourne. Photo / Jason Walls

Once in Australia, she gave a lecture to 2000 fellow socialists on good governance. That must have seemed like a big success compared to the days when she was president of the IUSY and was urging her comrades to rebel.
She then staged a media conference in front of the NZ media she brought along for the trip. Aussie media were left out in the cold.

She met the Australian PM on the second day, took a couple of selfies with their partners, did another media standup and then proceeded to slag off Australian politicians over one of their policies. A policy designed to keep their citizens safe from criminals.

In the meantime, the PM’s partner was creating his own diplomatic incident over the ownership of the pavlova.

The trip then went from the ridiculous to the bizarre when her Air Force plane broke down for the second time in a week on Australian soil. I am sure the Air Force would have preferred the plane was back in NZ under repair and maintenance, not acting as a broken-down taxi.

Keen to get back in time to put Neve to bed, Ardern then hopped on a commercial flight leaving the media stranded on the tarmac. They were last seen hitchhiking their way over the Tasman.

Next time, forget the circus, fly to Sydney, meet the Aussie PM and fly back home at the end of the day on a commercial airline

More Bad News for Landlords

If you thought compulsory insulation, compulsory kitchen and bathroom fans and compulsory fixed heaters were enough, you are going to be disappointed. More than a year ago, the government announced that rental losses were going to be ringfenced. This has now passed into law… not that you would know about it. I have looked everywhere and, unless you are used to reading legislation, or IRD policy (and the website has not yet been updated, even though the ringfence is already law), you wouldn’t know about it. Seriously. We are being kept in the dark.

The Allocation of Deductions for Excess Rental Land Expenditure was passed into law last week and applies to all rental properties with effect from 1st April 2019. Section 51C New Subpart EL deals with this. (Here is the reference if you want to read the legislation)

Here is what is happening. Owners of rental properties will not be able to claim rental losses in the year in which they are incurred. Instead, they will be carried forward (ringfenced) to be offset against future rental profits. You will not lose the rental losses altogether, but you will not be able to offset rental losses against other income,including tax paid salaries.

This is what they are getting at, of course. If you are a landlord, your rental losses cannot now give you a personal tax refund. This rule applies from this tax year -the year to 31 March 2020. Your losses will be carried forward to be offset against future rental profits… for as long as it takes.

While this rule has been in the pipeline since March 2018, it has only just passed into law, presumably last week, when the government was about to go on holiday. I can find nothing about this in the media, who obviously think that it is fair enough to beat landlords with yet another big stick. Nothing new there.

Here is what is really wrong about this legislation.

If you have a small business, on the side to your day job, you can claim any losses against your personal income. So let’s say you have a small digger business, which you operate in your spare time, mainly because you love driving your digger. You can claim all expenses on the digger, including maintenance and depreciation, and if you end up with a loss, as a result of excess expenses, you get a tax refund, no questions asked.

If you own a rental property, however, this is also viewed as a business by IRD… just like the digger business. However, landlords are not allowed to claim depreciation on their buildings, even though it is mostly the land that increases in value. Landlords are required to install loft and underfloor insulation, but the cost is not deductible… sorry, guys, but that is considered to be expenditure of a ‘capital’ nature, even though you are required by the government to do it.

Next year, landlords will be required by the government to fit kitchen and bathroom fans, and fixed heaters and these will also have to be capitalised unless you can get each one done for less than $500. (Don’t do them all at once either, otherwise, the ‘pooling’ rules regarding capital assets will apply.)

Just so you know, digger drivers are not required to install any insulation or extractor fans, but any maintenance they do is tax-deductible, including replacing the rock bucket or buying new tyres.

So landlords, who provide accommodation to people that the government simply cannot house, are beaten with yet another stick, and now are the only group of business owners who are not allowed to claim losses against other income, even though those losses are mostly revenue losses, and so should be subject to normal expenditure rules.

If you are a landlord and are hoping for a personal tax refund next year, be warned. If your property is owned in an LTC, you are still okay. Otherwise, you might want to consider selling up. Even though you are providing a social service, you are not wanted. The government would rather have people on the street than allow you to claim a tax refund. It really is that bad.

Sell up, landlords. At some point, the government is going to realise that subsidising private landlords is the only way to solve the short term housing problem. For those of you making rental profits, increase your rents. There are going to be fewer and fewer rentals available, and your properties are going to be like gold. You can thank this stupid, shortsighted government for giving you an income you would never have dreamed about.

An E-mail that Made Me Go Hmm

Dear Readers

yesterday an e-mail was sent to Whaleoil, it read…

Dear Whale Oil,

It’s Whaleoil duh…

My name is Kieran Ford, and alongside Prof. Kevin Clements at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago, we’re currently working on a research project exploring the role and significance of right-wing politics in 21st century New Zealand.

Hmm… the same university that contains a Professor who is currently waging a legal war conflict against Cameron Slater.

Sounds totally legit.

We’re writing to see whether you would be interested in taking part in the project. The project aims to explore the contributions right-wing politics and political activists make to political discourse and behaviour. Among other things we wish to explore right-wing political narratives, key issues, and the kind of New Zealand those on the right would like to see in the future.
We feel that your participation would make a fantastic contribution to the project.

Yeah, I just bet you both would be wetting your white Y fronts with excitement at the chance to unscrupulously ask leading questions while keeping your true agenda hidden until it came time to publish your “findings.”

While at some point, our research will involve interviewing participants, and learning about their experiences with politics, at this stage, we are keen to simply get an idea of whether you would be interested in participating in this project. With best wishes and thanks in advance,

Yours sincerely,
Kieran Ford

Awww how sweet and respectful. I am sure that the team at Whaleoil will totally be taken in… but wait… their research team AKA Sally has found something interesting… whatever could it be?

Exhibit A

But wait… there’s more.

Kieran Ford Doctoral Candidate National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa/NZ: Exhibit B

[…] From the manifesto of one of the attackers, it is clear that this attack was politically motivated […]
Countries such as the UK or France have focused their responses on security, actively ignoring the wider political issues that allow for political violence to occur.

[…] What this attack does demonstrate is the need for greater gun control in New Zealand, and in particular, of semi-automatic weapons, reducing the ability of potential attackers to carry out their plans.
Moreover, we must acknowledge that Islamophobia is rife within global society.
Racially motivated hate crimes, in New Zealand as well as further afield, are far more common than we would like to admit.

[…] In the UK, the Conservative Party is now embroiled in a scandal regarding the level of Islamophobia within the party. The vote for Brexit was motivated by anti-immigration rhetoric, with fear swept up regarding refugees from the Middle East. After the Brexit vote, hate crimes skyrocketed overnight. Yet, the UK Government continues to play down the threat of the far Right, focusing instead on the threat from militant Islamists.

In the US, Donald Trump recently drastically reduced the country’s counter-extremism programme, removing its responsibility to counter far-right extremism entirely. The programme now solely focuses on militant Islamism, with no measures in place to protect the country from the Right.

In Australia, the controversial politician Pauline Hanson ridicules Islamic dress in Parliament, while refugees suffer in barbaric conditions in island detention centres.

This accommodation of Islamophobia must stop. Here, too, New Zealand must acknowledge the ways in which Islamophobia and far-right extremism exist in our society. Search briefly online, and you will find an alarming number of online Kiwi extremists.

[…] Alongside policing approaches to identify far-right activists,

[…] The Government could also increase the refugee quota.

Kieran Ford is a PhD student at the University of Otago. His research concerns extremism and counter-extremism strategies.


Hmm… Kieran neglected to mention that little bit of information. He is looking for right-wing “extremists” to help prove his theory that New Zealand has a right-wing extremist problem.

Maybe he should interview Patrick Gower. He has been unsuccessfully hunting for some all year.

I’m hunting for far-right Kiwi extremists be vewy vewy quiet…

Oh and one other thing…Kieran Ford thinks Islamophobia is terrible but he is quite comfortable spreading lies about Jews.

The Otago Daily Times published his opinion piece for free but he is most unhappy that the same newspaper published an ad that the Jewish Council paid for.


So yeah Kieran and Kevin, that is a no thanks from us.

Is the Great Replacement a Conspiracy Theory?

By Maria

In general terms, the Great Replacement theory relies on demographics to show that native populations in Europe are being replaced by migrants and minorities. It was the focus of a recent article in Stuff which reported that the Great Replacement was supported by the Christchurch terrorist in his banned manifesto. The article raised lots of connected ideas, but I will limit myself to its description of the Great Replacement as ‘an extreme-right genocide conspiracy theory’.

I don’t know about the ‘extreme-right genocide’ part, but I would like to take a closer look at the conspiracy theory part.

Is the Great Replacement idea a conspiracy theory? A good place to start is its disputed origins, some of which have French connections.

Firstly, around 2013, French Identitarian philosopher Renaud Camus coined the term, ‘The Great Replacement’ in his eulogy of Dominque Venner at Notre Dame Cathedral. Venner had shot himself at the Cathedral altar in rebellion against the crime of the replacement of the French people.

Secondly, promoters of the Great Replacement make a prophetic connection with Jean Raspail’s dystopian novel, The Camp of the Saints, written in 1973. It eerily recounts that Europe would be swamped by third-world migrants in the not too distant future.

So much for the French origins.

There is another view, that the idea of the Great Replacement has its origin in the United Nations and was considered by it to be a necessary reality.

In 2018, the academic Jose Zuquete writes in The Identitarians: The Movement Against Globalism and Islam in Europe, that the Identitarians find the Great Replacement to be a reality of UN policy. He writes:

“Throughout the years the UN series of reports about the need to facilitate human mobility and enhanced international cooperation for safe, orderly, and regular migration, and even a 2000 report by the UN Population Division about ‘replacement migration’ as a possible way to offset the population decline and aging in developed countries, have been taken as proof of such a UN-driven agenda.”

A commentary on the UN Report on Replacement Migration, 2000, will have to suffice for the original is not available online.

Issued by the UN population division, the commentary opens with:

“The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.”

Further, “Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000.”

If I make a quick calculation, based on Germany’s 2000 population of 82 million people, replacement would necessitate just under 500,000 immigrants per year. That figure is unwieldy for the UN, for the commentary states:

“Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.”


But note that since the beginning of the migrant crisis until 2018, 1.4 million refugees have arrived in Germany, which means that replacement levels are close to being met. Regardless, the Great Replacement idea for the media is just a conspiracy theory.

Consider further that media denial of replacement migration as a reality is challenged by Angela Merkle’s own justification for permitting the mass influx of migrants into Europe, a justification made on replacement grounds. According to Oliver Friendship, writing for the Australian Spectator in 2018:

 “Merkle’s German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, said, “We need people. We need young people. We need immigrants… All of you know that because we have too few children”.

Others also took replacement to be the reason for such unprecedented migration. Firstly, Oliver Friendship quotes Hans Kundani, a journalist working for a German American NGO.

“You can look at this as Germany pursuing a national interest in the sense that Germany has a long-term demographic problem”. Secondly, he writes that Douglas Murray called out Merkle’s failed immigration policy which she utilised in order to solve Germany’s demographic problem. Murray thinks Merkle incompetent for believing “mass immigration to be the solution to her demographic headaches.”


Finally, it’s up to you to decide. Is the Great Replacement a conspiracy theory or an idea with at least some basis in fact? If replacement migration has a real origin in the United Nations, how reasonable is it to describe it as ‘an extreme-right genocide conspiracy theory’?

A Little Bit Racist?

I watched the first part of TVNZ’s series ‘That’s a Bit Racist’, and it was the most biased, one-sided and in itself racist programme that I had ever seen. It was brought about, of course, by the dreadful Christchurch massacre, but that was the first mistake. The mosque shootings were perpetrated by a non-New Zealander, who identified as an ‘eco-fascist’ and targeted Muslims because of their birth rate. Islam is a religion, not a race, and so the attacks, dreadful as they were, were not racially motivated.

The programme missed the point altogether that inherently, everyone is racist. I lived in Hong Kong for a while and the local Chinese, 98% of the population, clearly thought that they were the superior race. I didn’t blame them for thinking that because I thought I belonged to the superior race too. None of us is right or wrong. It is all just a matter of personal opinion.

This programme detailed a number of incidents where people felt they had been racially profiled, and they might be right, but they might equally be wrong.

Columnist and comedian Oscar Kightley – who, if we’re honest, is a national treasure – revealed the reason why his comedy troupe The Naked Samoans don’t go to Christchurch. You guessed it, racism.
Despite being a group of household names and national icons, Kightley says they were subjected to not one but two shocking instances of racist prejudice when performing there. They arrived to perform and the stage security wouldn’t let them into the dressing room in case they stole something, he recalls. After the show, a bartender refused to serve them unless they could prove they had money.


Oscar Kightley’s comedy troupe is called The Naked Samoans. He brings attention to their race right there, so can hardly then expect everyone to ignore it. If he really was treated the way he says, then that is a disgrace, but was this really true? Did the barman actually demand to see their money before he agreed to give them drinks? Most bar staff don’t hand over drinks until they are paid for, no matter what colour you are.

I know a very successful businessman who is a Maori. He told me once that he is often ignored in restaurants, as the waiting staff don’t want to serve him. This man is attractive, presentable and well dressed, so I believed that he was being racially profiled and was duly horrified.

A couple of weeks later, however, I had a similar experience in a restaurant. Nothing we did seemed to get the wait staff to take our order. The waitress was European, and so am I. Instead of thinking that she was racist, I just assumed she was inefficient. And then I wondered… are such things interpreted as racism sometimes when really it is just staff overwork or inefficiency? Maybe sometimes people are a little too sensitive?

Oscar Kightley may be right that the barman was being racist, but I have had a similar attitude to white people at times. Sometimes, you just know someone is not going to pay or behave in an acceptable way, and race has nothing to do with it.

If anything, I think most Kiwis have become much more multicultural in the last decade or so, and it is happening naturally. The professional office where I worked in the 1990s had less than 10% non-Europeans. That office now has over 30% non-Europeans. No one bats an eyelid, and nor should they.

I was in my local dairy a couple of weeks ago. It is run by an Indian family. The man behind the counter was watching the cricket. I made a racial assumption and commented that the Black Caps had dodged a bullet by having their game against India rained off. He was having none of it. “Nah,” he said. “We can beat India no trouble”. The British born woman hi-fived the man of Indian descent in a show of national support for ‘our’ cricket team. We are both New Zealanders and proud of it.

I liked that.

Hone Harawira is a racist. He said he would not allow his daughter to date a ‘mo fo’ white man. That wasn’t mentioned in TVNZ’s programme.

We are all racist, to some extent, because it is human nature. Upbraiding people constantly for being racist does nothing for racial harmony. It just reminds you that people are different from you when you might not have thought about it before. Programmes like this make racism worse, not better. Those of us who interact perfectly harmoniously with those of other races on a daily basis feel insulted by this patronising attitude.

It is like we are being told – you can judge white people by their manners, their attitudes and their honesty, but do that to a non-white person and you are a racist. Non-white people cannot be judged by the same standards as you judge other white people, and that is just wrong.

And yet, as I watched the Cricket World Cup final (yes… let’s not go there), I was struck by how multicultural we really have become. From Trent Boult of Ngati Tahu descent, to Ross Taylor who is part Samoan, to Ish Shodi who was born in India, to Colin de Grandhomme, who was born in Zimbabwe… to Jofra Archer, born in Barbados, Adil Raschid of Pakistani descent, to former England captain Nassar Hussein in the commentary box, and all those children of Indian descent in the Lord’s crowd with the English flag painted on their faces (not to mention those waving New Zealand flags)… it seems to me were are doing okay in the racial stakes. Not perfectly, maybe, but still okay.

If only these supposed do-gooders would just let us treat people with the respect they deserve… whatever colour they are.

The world is already a melting pot. Let’s let it melt naturally, without forcing anyone to behave in a way that they don’t like and won’t accept.

She has More Cheek Than a Fat Ladies Bottom

by SB on July 2, 2019 at 9:00am

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been pointing the finger at Simon Bridges and the National party for their stance over the UN Migration pact. Considering “Comrade” Ardern’s personal background as the president of the Far-left International Union of Socialist Youth she has a hell of a cheek.

Someone who said “Comrade” 15 times in just 7 minutes has no business berating Simon Bridges because someone somewhere decided that people who are against the UN Migration pact are far-right politically.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has slammed the National Party over its stance on the UN migration compact […]
And while she wouldn’t say whether she thought National was trying to court far-right voters, she did not dispute Winston Peters’ description of the movement opposing the compact as neo-Nazi.

Instead of debating the issues, she is smearing her opponents. It is like the sheep in the political fable Animal Farm. ” Four legs gooood…two legs baaaad,” except in her case it is Far-left gooood…far-right baaaad or more to the point For Pact gooood, Against Pact baaaad.

The Government signed up to the compact at the end of last year despite claims from the National Party that it would restrict the ability of future governments to decide on which migrants were welcome and which weren’t.
Legal advice from Crown Law and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed that the compact was not legally binding, nor did it restrict New Zealand from setting its own migration policies.
But National leader Simon Bridges stood by his earlier stance, saying in a statement that New Zealand should decide its immigration settings, not the United Nations.
He noted that the US and Australia have not signed the compact.
“This Government has become more concerned with impressing the UN, rather than what matter to New Zealanders – and that’s immigration being decided by us.”

Simon was quite right and, as we pointed out at a later date on the blog, New Zealand had been lied to.

In a frank exchange with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Hebner of the AfD drew out an admission that it is, in fact, legally binding. As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted.


Winston Peters disagrees with this view and said that…

[…] misinformation around the migration pact, particularly the incorrect view that it would be binding on signatories, was based on propaganda from Austrian neo-Nazis, in particular far-right movement leader Martin Sellner.

Watch the video for yourselves and hear the words out of Merkel’s own mouth. Oh, Wait….I can’t. The video evidence has been removed from both our article and the article written by the Voice of Europe. Youtube has flushed it down the memory hole.

Draw your own conclusions as to why that is. One thing is for certain. With the truth censored, Jacinda Ardern is free to make statements like these.

[…] she said National’s position on the compact was irresponsible.
“I did hold concerns because we weren’t having a debate that was anchored in the facts.
“They claimed that we wouldn’t hold sovereignty over our own borders – that was totally factually incorrect and remains incorrect. We would never sign away the sovereignty of the maintenance of our own immigration policy.