In this presentation, Treaty of Waitangi expert, Andy Oakley, clearly shows the fraud carried out on New Zealanders by successive Labour and National governments.
Thank you for your video, this is knowledge known to the general public, however there's another level operating the unseen level of the Royals. Queen Victoria operating at Sovereign level put in place a mechanism that can be activated today if one knows the process, it is carried on today by Queen Elizabeth 11 and it protects all people in Aotearoa nz. Our government is unlawful, facts known to many people in this country. Also Nga Puhi chiefs have juristiction because the paramount chief are closely related. There are Maori of the nobility, families who hold the highest standards 4 the whole Maori kingdom, they are not known to the average person because they are very humble, kind compassionate gentle people. We love them, and most of us have Maori blood in our viens. I know what they've been through, the lying, land grabbing that went on was horrific. 😔This abuse by politians is on a global scale today. ☹️
I agree that on a global scale, politicians have been captured by corporations and global organisations seeking control. One of the reasons I have researched our history so thoroughly is that I have realised it is those people who have rewritten our history to make sure that the people of New Zealand remain divided. Look, all of the different tribes and entities that arrived in New Zealand, despite the wars, and despite what other countries they came from have been loving each other and having babies pretty much from the time the second group arrived here thousands of years ago, that's how humanity works. The fact there is a growing amount of people who really do believe that there is a different kind of human that exists in New Zealand, Maori, and that somehow they deserve more rights than others, just goes to show how successful the captured politicians and media are. We are better than that, wake up, or we will all lose everything.
Hi Brian The book of Maddison's is here www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/world_economy.pdf The chart I used was from here : eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-new-zealand-in-the-nineteenth-and-twentieth-centuries/ I added the 2016 result myself.
remembering all of your data is estimated, with regard to census. Maori oratory history puts famous Ngapuhi chief in the south island long before Ngati Tama came that way.
Yes, The flag was based in part on the St George's Cross that was already used by the Church Missionary Society, with a canton featuring a smaller red cross on a blue background fimbriated in black, and with a white eight-pointed star in each quarter of the canton. It was originally used so that unregistered ships from New Zealand could anchor in Sydney harbour. In March 1833 James Busby and Captain Williams offered three designs to 25 Nga Puhi chiefs and they voted on it. So you might say it was a Nga Puhi flag, but it was adopted as the National Flag of New Zealand. The association between the flag and the United Tribes of New Zealand happened later in 1835. James Busby attempted to stop the French annexing New Zealand by trying to establish a united group of chiefs (all but one Nga Puhi) to state that they were the sovereign chiefs of Nu Tirani. He got 25 of them to sign a document saying as much, not telling the rest of the 600 or so chiefs of New Zealand what they were doing. As it turned out it came to nothing anyway. There were never any meetings, the chiefs weren't united as they were constantly at war, and besides all of those chiefs signed Te Tiriti five years later, superseding whatever the united chiefs may or may not have achieved.
@@andyoakley7372 Gees why don't you tell the truth instead of feeding your trolls bs. You are one hateful little pakeha who has built a reputation on lies and manufactured excuses to diminish Maori! Shame on you!
If there is anything incorrect in what I have written, just post a link to the evidence that proves I have it incorrect. I don't mind admitting if I get something wrong. The fact that you don't do that, and instead, throw around insults, is an indication that you have no argument.
A Hobson's Pledge supporter calling yourself a Tiriti o Waitangi expert?? How so when clearly you have no real understanding of Te Ao Maori, Tino Rangatiratanga or He Whakaputanga and you write from a perspective designed purely to discredit Maori claims by not providing a truthful account of the events around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and by suggesting Maori ceded sovereignty?? This suggests you know what Maori were understanding and agreeing to when clearly you don't!! Give me a break!! Let's take a step back and examine your myths about Maori in general and Te Tiriti o Waitangi: When Sir William Gallagher called the copy of the Treaty of Waitangi a “fraud” in a speech he gave at a function for business people in Kirikiriroa (that's Hamilton in case you don't know this), he was repeating the same claims made by the advocates of the Littlewood document. Hobson's Pledge conspiracy theorists run amuck infecting the minds of it's supporters as Chuck Bird, a disillusioned member of Brash’s group points out. Bird read a report written about the racist material - odes to apartheid in southern Africa, derogatory jokes about Māori appearing on the Facebook page of Hobson’s Pledge. Bird said that he had been banned from the group’s Facebook page because he had stated that Allan Titford was a convicted rapist. He pointed out that two of the twelve official spokespeople of Hobson’s Pledge, Mike Butler and YOU Andy Oakley stated that you think Titford was the innocent victim of a conspiracy?? Good grief!! Are you freaking serious??? According to Skeleton's in the Closet's Martin Doutre and Ross Baker, Allan Titford’s downfall only showed the scope and power of the conspiracy to rewrite New Zealand history and One New Zealand's website calls Titfordt a “political prisoner” 😂 Also in 2013 the Northland District Court found Titford guilty of rape, arson, perjury, and child abuse. Titford’s wife gave evidence in court that Titford burned down his own home, then blamed it on Maori. He had kept her captive for years, raped her repeatedly, and beaten his children. Titford was sentenced to 24 years in prison. Titford’s lawyers appealed against his conviction. Titford, they explained, suffers from a “querulous paranoia” that makes him imagine sinister conspiracies. Titford had been too paranoid, his lawyers argued, to stand trial. The appeal was rejected, and Titford sits in Rimutaka prison. End of story!! In Doutre's production of SITC he relies heavily on the manufactured research of so called historians, academics and science persons by referring to their evidence in support of his video and he makes some of the most ridiculous claims despite no evidence of peer reviewed evidence or facts instead focussing on a litany of lies and conjecture We all know what Doutre was trying to achieve here and it backfired big time on his sorry arse 😂 Let's go even further by examining the 'evidence' your associate Doutre lays out and let's see how his credibility stacks up by unpacking his 'evidence' a little further shall we? Doutre's Claims from Skeleton's in the Closet: 1. Barry Fell, a zoologist, made the claim that Maui was an Egyptian explorer who discovered New Zealand. Response: He never sourced his claims so nobody else could explore or verify them. That's fact so that's the end of that. 2. Noel Hilliam, an amateur historian, claimed a pathologist from the University of Edinburgh carbon-dated skulls in Northland and found them to be 3,500 years old and of Welsh origin. Response: The University of Edinburgh have responded that they have no records of this person Hilliam ever existing, AND THEN Hilliam confessed to digging up skulls from Maori grave sites yet Hilliam's lies are still proclaimed as fact by the little englander Brash and your mates at Hobson's Sludge! 3. Peter Marsh, the director (SITK), claimed a digger driver uncovered skulls north of Auckland but was told by Auckland Museum to just ignore them because the local iwi wasn’t interested in anything that pre-dated its arrival. Response: Marsh admitted he never interviewed nor verified this with any of the three parties. 4. Martin Doutre and Kerry Bolton claimed that Polynesia was occupied by a Europoid race since ancient times. Response: Not only can they not source their claims but Doutre and Bolton have been linked as proud members of a far-right neo-Nazi group - did you mention their links to neo-nazi's? No? Thought not!! Doutre doesn't hide his anti-Maori views or his support of a disgruntled bunch of mostly ex pat little englanders, white South Afrikaans and generally people who detest Maori and Maori rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi so whatever!!! Hobson's Sludge are nothing more then posturing hateful little racists and I for one would prefer they piss off back to England or Uranus and stop attempting to rewrite Aotearoa's history to suit their nice little colonialist narrative. Like you Andy Oakley, those people are renown for twisting Maori historical facts with manufactured misinformation and interpreting Maori history in an effort to negate and disprove Tino Rangatiratanga and the meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi!! 5. Research mentioned in the video from Professors Richard Holdaway and Lisa Matisoo-Smith showed that rats may have arrived to New Zealand earlier than Maori and that they probably arrived with people. Response: Matisoo-Smith and Holdaway publicly stated they were never interviewed? Matisoo Smith told Mediawatch the documentaries had misused her data. "I have communicated with these people and have pointed out the errors in their interpretations but they do not want to hear the truth. She said it wasn't a good look for TVNZ to feature Skeleton's in the closet on its website. "It is a piece of fiction and misuse of real data. But sadly, conspiracy theories attract viewers." Further to this Matisoo-Smith stated she is angry about the misinterpretation of her data to push a false narrative. Holdaway said the claims were rubbish, and that there's only evidence of the Lapita people passing by prior to Maori arrival. 6. Dr Siân Halcrow, a bioarchaeologist at the University of Otago, said there's zero scientific evidence of a 'pre-Maori' race. Furthermore, that it would be ludicrous to try and interpret a blue-eyed, blonde Welsh woman by skeletal features. 7. Dr Ngarino Gabriel Ellis, senior lecturer at Auckland University, said it would be highly unlikely for the University of Edinburgh to allow someone to study the skulls without extensive checks, as the study and distribution of ancestral bones has strict guidelines under the Human Tissues Act UK, and sending ancient human remains overseas is illegal. HELLO!!! Your failed attempts to minimise Maori are an attestation to your racially motivated ignorance. One has to wonder why people like you run with these lies and rubbish and state them as truth yet when challenged about your interpretation and evidence have said very little about the responses calling out and discrediting information provided and supported by you and those vermin associates Hobson's Sludge. This is a shameful account which omits important vital information and dismisses Maori history passed down to all Māori from generation to generation and now you expect people to believe your version which by all accounts is just rubbish?? I hardly think your claims as tauiwi, a non-Maori stack up when it's clearly obvious you do not not understand, acknowledge or appreciate Te Ao Maori nor do you have any right to interpret this document from such a racially biased lens and particularly when one has been associated with liars, conspiracy theorists and racists!! Shame on you!!
Thank you for your comments You aren’t really addressing the historical evidence that I have presented in the video though. Instead, you are bringing up things that I was supposed to have said about Alan Titford. When really you are just repeating what other people said that I said, this is pretty childish. If I actually said something then find where I said it and post it, otherwise, you are just spreading childish lies. Why are you are going on about Martin Doutre, when I don’t think that I mentioned Martin Doutre at all. I never mentioned Noel Hilliam or Kerry Bolton either, so why is most of your response to my presentation about people and events that I never mentioned in my presentation? How about you comment on the following from the video. You didn’t address the 633 battles where up to a third of the population were killed prior to 1840. You didn’t address that these groups who were fighting to the death were separate groups, many whom arrived at separate times, lived separately, looked different to each other and that none were called Maori pre 1840. You didn’t address the letter sent by Nga Puhi chiefs asking King William to protect them. You haven’t commented on the fact that the DoI was written by Busby and was an attempt to stop the French Annexing New Zealand. You didn’t address the fact that Busby simply made up the United Tribes of New Zealand in the DoI. You didn’t address the fact that if anything the DoI was an attempt by Nga Puhi to gain sovereignty over the whole country. When the other 600 or so tribes would not, and never have, agreed to such nonsense. You didn’t address the draft of the treaty matches te tiriti perfectly word for word, is dated correctly, is written on the correct paper from Clendon’s house and is in the handwriting of James Busby who wrote the treaty. You didn’t address that no chief had the treaty read to him in English and subsequently signed it. Meaning the English treaty is irrelevant. You didn’t address the fact in the 1840 treaty documents none of them have the word Maori with a capital M. The word used in all the 1840 documents is maori, meaning normal as opposed to something higher. Maori are not even mentioned in te tiriti. You didn’t address the fact that in the 60 years after the treaty New Zealand became the most productive country in the world per capita. You didn’t address the fact that by 1950 New Zealand had the highest standard of living in the world. And the reason you didn’t address that was because it would be impossible to have a shameful history of oppression and the highest standard of living in the world in the same country. So gruesome depopulating national warfare by separate tribes, none known as Maori, pre-1840, was replaced by the highest standard of living in the world by 1950. It sort of blows your theory of oppression right out the window and explains why you brought up a load of irrelevant nonsense instead.
Bro are you trying to say that Te Whakaputanga didn't even happen? So are you saying that our Tūpuna are lying when they say that were there signing Te Whakaputanga?
No, I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying that it was not a bid by Maori to establish sovereignty. The reason for this is that there were no people in New Zealand at that time known as 'Maori", there was no pan Maori group and the noun 'Maori' did even not exist in the language at that time. So to say that this document established Maori sovereignty is factually incorrect. Actually, the document was penned by James Busby, a British man sent here to see if he could keep the peace, it's a British document. There is no evidence that the few Nga Puhi chiefs that signed it understood what they were signing. This fact was established when the Waitangi Tribunal told the world that the chiefs who signed The Tiriti, could not have understood what sovereignty meant. There was also no such thing as the group "The United Tribes of New Zealand", they never had a meeting either before or after Busby had them sign the document. They simply did not exist.
Sure, although not much of my presentation is my thoughts, all the evidence is there on the screen. I'd be more interested in the pols student showing clearly what is incorrect in my presentation.
@@andyoakley7372 Well that is what I intend to do! - Respectfully ofc. Only interested in a good proper debate. Coming from a student perspective, I feel there is a completely different way we are taught these concepts so I am interested to see how you have developed your argument further than this video :)
Now im guna stop you right at 30 minutes in bro. Ive already listened this far in with plenty thoughts flooding. Kiingitanga wasn't put there by only a few central Iwi. It was supported by many Iwi of Aotearoa and also it was a lie told by grey himself telling of the Kiingitanga coming to Attack auckland which his applauded reason to ask the crown for British back up. The grey and his army invaded the Waikato through their greed for our lands. Your bullshit talk stops right here and now. This will be shared by me to my people right now.
Thank you for taking the time to give me your interpretation of events. One of the sources often cited in discussions about the alleged threat to Auckland is a letter attributed to the Māori King, Tāwhiao, written in 1863. In the letter, there are mentions of Tāwhiao's disappointment with the actions of the colonial government and expressions of a desire to settle the issues peacefully. However, some say the language used in the letter is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. Historians debate whether this letter should be seen as a genuine threat to invade Auckland or as a negotiation tactic. Some argue that the concerns about a potential invasion were exaggerated by the colonial government to justify their military actions and gain support for the war effort. Others contend that the threat was real, but the Kingitanga's military capacity and intentions were unclear. However, as a result of the Queens promise to protect all the people of New Zealand in article three of the treaty, when a rival sovereignty movement, which in itself was a breach of the treaty, threatened the government, the government had to do something to protect the people of New Zealand. I know that my comment will not change your point of view and that is fine, you are allowed to have a different point of view. But writing that “This will be shared by me to my people right now.”, seems like a threat. Threatening people is not a good way to debate.
I agree, today the word Taonga is said to mean ‘treasure’. However, in the 1840’s when the Treaty was written we can see the meaning was, ‘Property, or anything highly prized. The entry in “A Dictionary of the Maori Language” first edition 1844. Taonga, n. Property, anything highly prized. Ko te whiwhi i te taurekareka, i te taonga, i te rawa ranei o te pa horo (M. Ixxxi). Ko to te tangata maori taonga nui tenei, te haka, mo te manuhiri (T. 145). Kihai i wareware ki tana mea i kitea ai hei taonga mona, ara hei whakakite mai ki ia tangata, ki ia tangata (T. 178). ‖ tao (iv). Whereas, one of the meanings of the word ‘Kahurangi’ in the same dictionary is, 7. Treasured possession, jewel, darling. Ka haere te wahine ki te whai i tana kahurangi (S. 35). So yes, today the word means treasure, but in the treaty, it meant ‘property, anything highly prized".
How much do you understand the language of Maori. There is so much written history you talk of. Where's your oral history. You've forgotten most Maori could not understand English. Where's your talk on confiscated land. If you're so factual Where's your talk of the treatment towards Maori. The king movement was a one tribe people. Your history on so called sales of the south island needs more research. Like pre ngai tahu. History. 'One people' which one people are you referring to. You talk of trading, Maori where trading to. which was force stopped. The white people have always been treated as second class citizens. Read government history documentation to see that.
I think you miss the point. This is a legal document that requires accurate interpretation if it's going to move into legislation and more importantly if it's going to be taught in our schools. As the intention was devised in english there's no need to argue over translation especially if there's a rosetta stone already existing. The current translation and it's political backing has not seemed to have advanced maori as well as intended as there is still 50% maori representation in our prison system and a large population in low income situations this given the amount of cultural immersion now mainstream and the countless benefits available for maori and pacific islanders. As the demands for change continue, it seems more like the goal is revenge and not unity which starts moving into the relms of maxism and critical race theory. Culture should be a feature of our country, not a power struggle. History should be understood and learnt from, not rewritten.
Thanks for your comment Anne. You are correct practically no one understood English in New Zealand before 1840. This is the very reason that the English version of the treaty that the government use in legislation is fraudulent. No chief signed that English worded document after hearing it read to them a) because it was never read to them and b) even if it was, they wouldn’t have understood a word of it. You have not mentioned that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s New Zealanders, all of us, had the highest standard of living in the world. Why don’t you acknowledge that instead of making out you’re a victim of oppression?
@@samuelsaunders155 actually when a treaty is mistranslated in law the precedent set overseas and across the world throughout history is that the legally binding version must be the one that favours the side of the non-translating party. In this case the English version is void and the maaori version is actually the only one the means anything - of course it’s not actually codified
It's funny you don't cover how those lands were exploited and purchased for a fraction of their real values. No mention of Waikato war and it's land confiscation which was never returned back to its original owners who are living in poverty now. So cynical.
The real value of something is what the willing seller and the willing buyer settle on. Not what you think it should have been 200 years later. I didn't cover the wars after the treaty because this video is not about those wars, it is about the Treaty Fraud.
@@andyoakley7372 "The real value of something is what the willing seller and the willing buyer settle on" lol. take some of your own advice and accept many nzders especially the younger generation are willing and open to settle on an inclusive history that includes a maori perspective, including dogdy land deals, manipulation and outright racism against maori. also you want to rave on about facts but conveniently ignore how maori were taken advantage of through many land theft deals. no dought your descendents will be embarassed by your take on history and will bury any knowledge of you in the metaphorical bottom of some suitcase in the attic
@@kanakamakapalua6097 Firstly, the term ‘owner’ is an English word that is derived from a legal system. In this instance, I think you are talking about “property rights”. Before legislation was introduced in New Zealand in 1841 there was no such thing as ‘owner" in any legal sense. Also, apart from ‘utu’, there were no consequences when one man or group of people took the property of another group or person. It happened all the time, for instance, I just heard Modilick Helmut, the CEO of Ngati Toa stating that as mana whenua (lords of the land) of Wellington, they wanted all the protestors gone from Parliament. However, Ngati Toa arrived in Kapiti and Porirua in the 1820s and killed and enslaved the original people Ngati Ira and others. Either you believe that it doesn’t matter how people obtain property, and so Ngati Toa can be mana whenua of Wellington, or you don’t, meaning whoever has legal title to the property today has all the rights. It seems that you want it both ways i,e., it is ok to kill and steal property and also it is NOT ok to kill and steal property. By the way, the land speculators and politicians bought the land before 1840. One of the reasons the chiefs signed the treaty was to quash many of those sales, and many were quashed, and the land returned. That process was known as the New Zealand Land Commission and was overseen by William Spain. After the Treaty, all land sales were recorded and those titles can be searched.
What a load of rubbish Te Tiriti signed on the 6th February and The Treaty signed 65 days later Ngapuhi did not cede their Sovereignty as told by The Crown in March 2010, as stated in The Waitangi Act 1975 schedule 1, The Maori version prevails Stop the hate of incorrect research
Then you had better erase the Ngapuhi Chief Hara's signature (mark) off of Treaty of Waitangi. nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/signatory/1-55#:~:text=Hara%20was%20a%20Ng%C4%81puhi%20chief,Kahungunu%20to%20sign%20the%20treaty.
Māori understood they still had ownership of their lands and rights and this knowledge has been passed down through from generation to generation - Whakapapa Māori. This is widely known in Te Ao Māori. Let's not forget the murders, brutal treatment and racist laws and policies that discriminated against Māori by the little englanders! The agenda was always to steal the land, dispossess and label Māori as savages and murder us - Parihaka!! The source of all racism comes from people like you who denigrate and devalue Māori and who purposely set out to discredit Māori and rewrite history to suit their narrative!! Disgraceful bullshit!!
In 1840 there was no such group as pan Maori, just separate tribes. You have no idea as to what each of the different chiefs thought they were signing in 1840, you are just making up stories or repeating rubbish you have heard from someone else, probably your school. History tells us that your story is incorrect though, many of the chiefs who signed the Treaty, about 200 all up pledged allegiance to the Queen's sovereignty at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference. This is on record. It is because there was no ‘pan-Maori’ group in 1840 that you will not find the word “Maori” with a capital letter in any of the 1840 documents used to gather signatures around New Zealand. So, to say that “Maori” understood that they still had ownership of their lands” cannot be correct. Maori are not mentioned in Te Tiriti “Ownership” is a legal term and property rights only came about after the treaty signing. You will note that property rights are mentioned in article two of te tiriti and legislation came about as a result of the Queens Letters Patent later in 1840 (May 1840 I think). As for land theft, racism, savages, Parihaka, denigration and devaluing Māori, these are concepts that have been taught to you in school and are not a true reflection of New Zealand’s history. Pre 1840 there was little or no infrastructure in New Zealand, just 600 or so separate tribes some related others not. These tribes arrived at different times and settled in different places. Included in these tribes or groups were Europeans who, like people in the other different groups were intermarrying. This concept that you have in your head that there was this separate group or race, who all thought the same about rivers and mountains, is rubbish In 1840 almost all of the chiefs of all these different groups decided to become one nation as a result of signing te tiriti. TOGETHER, along with further immigrants they built the infrastructure of New Zealand. By 1900 New Zealand was the most productive country's in the world (per capita) and by 1950 the combined effort of all these intermarrying groups had achieved the highest standard of living in the entire world. It stayed that way for a period of about 25 to 30 years. If we measure the standard of living in New Zealand pre-1840 and we compare it with say the mid-1960s, we can see that no one in New Zealand could possibly say that they had been oppressed. Homeownership was above 70%, crime was comparatively low, suicides were rare, poverty was almost unheard of, there were no homeless, no beggars in the streets, almost full employment and racism just didn’t exist. People who defined as Māori lived here between 1840 and 1965 too when the living standard was the highest in the world. You should have a think about why your school taught you to hate white people instead of why you should be proud of our nation and what we have achieved together. Don’t be a hater.
Firstly to our people my apologise for the way i have worded this but it must be made clear what our documents really mean the 1835 document was an imgration legislation that was entered into the house of lords by the king of England ratify by the house of commons as the founding document to this country that legislation was passed by our parliment members in 1840 at waitangi the talk of three house was then discussed in order to protect the 3 main stitches that make up the very fabrics of democracy from being miss used by future parlimant members the 3 houser were to contain the first house the power the secound house the function the third house the duty as long as those 3 entities remains in one house the New Zealand votes will not count there are legislation that prove our votes do not count and the rule of law is being miss used our fight has never been against the white man it has been against the ruling entities
you dont know anything about maori........ we know who we ware and where we come from we arrived here hundreds of years ago married the natives here and now you have us tangata whenua......... hotu roa was the son of hotu matua just go do some research on te pito o te whenua, explains why them and alot of tainui people and other iwi have blonde and red head genetics still in the dna here in aotearoa and over in easter island, and yall tried to erase our language and culture, so what gives you any right to give a lecture on tangata whenua................
We are all entitled to our opinions, however, unless you represent all of Maridom, you can not say "we know who we are". As you do not speak for all of Maoridom you are speaking for yourself, no one else.
That's correct I don't represent all Pakeha. In fact, I don't represent any Pakeha at all, because Pakeha means "white New Zealander" and I have never seen any New Zealander with white skin. Moreover, I do not go around catagorising any people using their skin colour as the basis, to do so would be racist. And the fact that you DO go around catagorising people using their skin colour tells me about how you think.
Silent Majority TEMPLATE 4 CHANGE A document Open for debate and general discussion 1. LAW & ORDER. The law courts will revert to the practice of Common Law only where all citizens are treated equally under the law and innocent until proven guilty. Admiralty Law and Sharia Law and the use of Legalese Language will not be permitted to be used in the courts. 2. REMUNERATION. Salaries for all government employees and politicians starts at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times the minimum wage. 3. GOVERNMENT SERVICES and UTILITIES. Government service contracts that have been outsourced to private companies, corporations, trusts and foundations will become null and void. The management of all government departments’ services and utilities will revert to internal administration. 4. REGISTERED CORPORATIONS. Individual members of parliament and political parties who are registered corporations will have their registration in the public arena become null and void and a bye election will be held. Also, any government departments civil or legal who are operating with a registered tax file number or are registered as a corporation will cease this practice immediately. 5. TAXATION. 5% with no tax deductibles. This tax applies to all citizens, private companies, public companies, corporations’ trusts, foundations and churches no one is exempt from this tax. 6. EDUCATION. Education will be free to all citizens including university. Private schools do not qualify for public funding. 7. HEALTH. Universal health care for all citizens. 8. SUPERANNUATION & RETIREMENT FUND. Minimum wage. All retirement payments currently being paid out of the public purse will revert to this payment. Any free travel internal or international or other tax funded payments will cease immediately. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING. Is the responsibility of the government who have an obligation to make sure all citizens have affordable housing. 10. FREEDOM of the PRESS. The right for the public to know is paramount to a healthy and democratic process. 11. SOCIAL MEDIA. All comments made on social media are the responsibility of the person making them. Any subject where the language used does not threaten life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness then the right to FREE SPEACH shall remain. 12. FOREIGN OWNERSHIP. Foreign citizens cannot own rural or residential property those who do will have three months to sell otherwise those properties will go up for auction proceeds to be paid to the owner. 13. GENETICALLY MODIFIED TECHNOLOGY. The use of GM in the food chain will not be permitted. E.g., Wheat Grain Corn all Livestock. 14. WATER. All management contracts that have been granted to private companies and corporations will become null and void and revert to internal government administration. Water is not to be traded as a commodity on any exchange all contracts in place will be terminated immediately. 15. RESERVE BANK. The printing of money and government financial services that have been out sourced to private companies or corporations those contracts will become null and void and revert to a government managed RESERVE BANK. A ten-year audit will be conducted on the accounts of the companies who have been responsible for this service. 16. COVID 19 No government, health professional or politicians has the power to mandate any medical procedure. This LAW was brought into existence after the Second World War at the Geneva Convention in response to War Crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jewish population. Those in political office, civil servants, medical health professionals, health service providers, law and order and other persons who have been part of the decisions made regarding covid19 pandemic shutdowns will have their accounts and bank statements audited. 17. CASH. A cashless society is not an option. Electronic payments system ONLY would allow banks, politicians and big business the option to dictate the final outcome of any economic future. Merchants cannot refuse to be paid in cash. 18. POST OFFICE. Government post office network shall be issued a banking license where banks have closed their operations. DEMOCRACY is a GLOBAL CURRENCY you can add value. This template can be used as the basis for a political campaign. Any other social, political, economic concerns that may be relevant to a particular constituency can be added as they arise.
Thanks Robin, sorry it took so long to reply, the way this was posted meant I could not see that there was a full list of ideas. Some of which a very good and others need further exploring. One point I would raise is that most people, including our politicians and their economists, do not understand the economy. Here is a newer video where I cover that misunderstanding. th-cam.com/video/odhfvxXZ9YE/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for your video, this is knowledge known to the general public, however there's another level operating the unseen level of the Royals. Queen Victoria operating at Sovereign level put in place a mechanism that can be activated today if one knows the process, it is carried on today by Queen Elizabeth 11 and it protects all people in Aotearoa nz. Our government is unlawful, facts known to many people in this country. Also Nga Puhi chiefs have juristiction because the paramount chief are closely related. There are Maori of the nobility, families who hold the highest standards 4 the whole Maori kingdom, they are not known to the average person because they are very humble, kind compassionate gentle people. We love them, and most of us have Maori blood in our viens. I know what they've been through, the lying, land grabbing that went on was horrific. 😔This abuse by politians is on a global scale today. ☹️
I agree that on a global scale, politicians have been captured by corporations and global organisations seeking control.
One of the reasons I have researched our history so thoroughly is that I have realised it is those people who have rewritten our history to make sure that the people of New Zealand remain divided.
Look, all of the different tribes and entities that arrived in New Zealand, despite the wars, and despite what other countries they came from have been loving each other and having babies pretty much from the time the second group arrived here thousands of years ago, that's how humanity works.
The fact there is a growing amount of people who really do believe that there is a different kind of human that exists in New Zealand, Maori, and that somehow they deserve more rights than others, just goes to show how successful the captured politicians and media are.
We are better than that, wake up, or we will all lose everything.
I've been waiting for years for a prime minister to end this once and for all but of course none of them will
Because it's illegal
It is not illegal to repeal very bad and divisive legislation, bad legislation is repealed all the time.
The gdp chart is very blurry
Could you post a clear one. Be great to share around.
Hi Brian
The book of Maddison's is here www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/world_economy.pdf
The chart I used was from here : eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-new-zealand-in-the-nineteenth-and-twentieth-centuries/
I added the 2016 result myself.
remembering all of your data is estimated, with regard to census. Maori oratory history puts famous Ngapuhi chief in the south island long before Ngati Tama came that way.
One dimensional with lots of flaws...
I'd be interested in what flaws you see and evidence of the flaw.
Do you know anything about the first NZ flag flown by the confederated Chiefs?
Yes, The flag was based in part on the St George's Cross that was already used by the Church Missionary Society, with a canton featuring a smaller red cross on a blue background fimbriated in black, and with a white eight-pointed star in each quarter of the canton.
It was originally used so that unregistered ships from New Zealand could anchor in Sydney harbour.
In March 1833 James Busby and Captain Williams offered three designs to 25 Nga Puhi chiefs and they voted on it. So you might say it was a Nga Puhi flag, but it was adopted as the National Flag of New Zealand.
The association between the flag and the United Tribes of New Zealand happened later in 1835. James Busby attempted to stop the French annexing New Zealand by trying to establish a united group of chiefs (all but one Nga Puhi) to state that they were the sovereign chiefs of Nu Tirani. He got 25 of them to sign a document saying as much, not telling the rest of the 600 or so chiefs of New Zealand what they were doing.
As it turned out it came to nothing anyway. There were never any meetings, the chiefs weren't united as they were constantly at war, and besides all of those chiefs signed Te Tiriti five years later, superseding whatever the united chiefs may or may not have achieved.
@@andyoakley7372 Gees why don't you tell the truth instead of feeding your trolls bs. You are one hateful little pakeha who has built a reputation on lies and manufactured excuses to diminish Maori! Shame on you!
If there is anything incorrect in what I have written, just post a link to the evidence that proves I have it incorrect.
I don't mind admitting if I get something wrong.
The fact that you don't do that, and instead, throw around insults, is an indication that you have no argument.
@@andyoakley7372 Huh??? What was insulting about My inquiry chap? 🤨
@@Freedom4NME2025 sorry mate, the comment was not directed at you. Either a comment has been deleted, or I’ve clicked on the wrong comment.
A Hobson's Pledge supporter calling yourself a Tiriti o Waitangi expert?? How so when clearly you have no real understanding of Te Ao Maori, Tino Rangatiratanga or He Whakaputanga and you write from a perspective designed purely to discredit Maori claims by not providing a truthful account of the events around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and by suggesting Maori ceded sovereignty?? This suggests you know what Maori were understanding and agreeing to when clearly you don't!! Give me a break!!
Let's take a step back and examine your myths about Maori in general and Te Tiriti o Waitangi:
When Sir William Gallagher called the copy of the Treaty of Waitangi a “fraud” in a speech he gave at a function for business people in Kirikiriroa (that's Hamilton in case you don't know this), he was repeating the same claims made by the advocates of the Littlewood document.
Hobson's Pledge conspiracy theorists run amuck infecting the minds of it's supporters as Chuck Bird, a disillusioned member of Brash’s group points out. Bird read a report written about the racist material - odes to apartheid in southern Africa, derogatory jokes about Māori appearing on the Facebook page of Hobson’s Pledge. Bird said that he had been banned from the group’s Facebook page because he had stated that Allan Titford was a convicted rapist. He pointed out that two of the twelve official spokespeople of Hobson’s Pledge, Mike Butler and YOU Andy Oakley stated that you think Titford was the innocent victim of a conspiracy?? Good grief!! Are you freaking serious???
According to Skeleton's in the Closet's Martin Doutre and Ross Baker, Allan Titford’s downfall only showed the scope and power of the conspiracy to rewrite New Zealand history and One New Zealand's website calls Titfordt a “political prisoner” 😂 Also in 2013 the Northland District Court found Titford guilty of rape, arson, perjury, and child abuse. Titford’s wife gave evidence in court that Titford burned down his own home, then blamed it on Maori. He had kept her captive for years, raped her repeatedly, and beaten his children. Titford was sentenced to 24 years in prison. Titford’s lawyers appealed against his conviction. Titford, they explained, suffers from a “querulous paranoia” that makes him imagine sinister conspiracies. Titford had been too paranoid, his lawyers argued, to stand trial. The appeal was rejected, and Titford sits in Rimutaka prison. End of story!!
In Doutre's production of SITC he relies heavily on the manufactured research of so called historians, academics and science persons by referring to their evidence in support of his video and he makes some of the most ridiculous claims despite no evidence of peer reviewed evidence or facts instead focussing on a litany of lies and conjecture We all know what Doutre was trying to achieve here and it backfired big time on his sorry arse 😂
Let's go even further by examining the 'evidence' your associate Doutre lays out and let's see how his credibility stacks up by unpacking his 'evidence' a little further shall we?
Doutre's Claims from Skeleton's in the Closet:
1. Barry Fell, a zoologist, made the claim that Maui was an Egyptian explorer who discovered New Zealand.
Response: He never sourced his claims so nobody else could explore or verify them. That's fact so that's the end of that.
2. Noel Hilliam, an amateur historian, claimed a pathologist from the University of Edinburgh carbon-dated skulls in Northland and found them to be 3,500 years old and of Welsh origin.
Response: The University of Edinburgh have responded that they have no records of this person Hilliam ever existing, AND THEN Hilliam confessed to digging up skulls from Maori grave sites yet Hilliam's lies are still proclaimed as fact by the little englander Brash and your mates at Hobson's Sludge!
3. Peter Marsh, the director (SITK), claimed a digger driver uncovered skulls north of Auckland but was told by Auckland Museum to just ignore them because the local iwi wasn’t interested in anything that pre-dated its arrival.
Response: Marsh admitted he never interviewed nor verified this with any of the three parties.
4. Martin Doutre and Kerry Bolton claimed that Polynesia was occupied by a Europoid race since ancient times.
Response: Not only can they not source their claims but Doutre and Bolton have been linked as proud members of a far-right neo-Nazi group - did you mention their links to neo-nazi's? No? Thought not!!
Doutre doesn't hide his anti-Maori views or his support of a disgruntled bunch of mostly ex pat little englanders, white South Afrikaans and generally people who detest Maori and Maori rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi so whatever!!!
Hobson's Sludge are nothing more then posturing hateful little racists and I for one would prefer they piss off back to England or Uranus and stop attempting to rewrite Aotearoa's history to suit their nice little colonialist narrative. Like you Andy Oakley, those people are renown for twisting Maori historical facts with manufactured misinformation and interpreting Maori history in an effort to negate and disprove Tino Rangatiratanga and the meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi!!
5. Research mentioned in the video from Professors Richard Holdaway and Lisa Matisoo-Smith showed that rats may have arrived to New Zealand earlier than Maori and that they probably arrived with people.
Response: Matisoo-Smith and Holdaway publicly stated they were never interviewed?
Matisoo Smith told Mediawatch the documentaries had misused her data. "I have communicated with these people and have pointed out the errors in their interpretations but they do not want to hear the truth. She said it wasn't a good look for TVNZ to feature Skeleton's in the closet on its website. "It is a piece of fiction and misuse of real data. But sadly, conspiracy theories attract viewers."
Further to this Matisoo-Smith stated she is angry about the misinterpretation of her data to push a false narrative.
Holdaway said the claims were rubbish, and that there's only evidence of the Lapita people passing by prior to Maori arrival.
6. Dr Siân Halcrow, a bioarchaeologist at the University of Otago, said there's zero scientific evidence of a 'pre-Maori' race. Furthermore, that it would be ludicrous to try and interpret a blue-eyed, blonde Welsh woman by skeletal features.
7. Dr Ngarino Gabriel Ellis, senior lecturer at Auckland University, said it would be highly unlikely for the University of Edinburgh to allow someone to study the skulls without extensive checks, as the study and distribution of ancestral bones has strict guidelines under the Human Tissues Act UK, and sending ancient human remains overseas is illegal. HELLO!!!
Your failed attempts to minimise Maori are an attestation to your racially motivated ignorance. One has to wonder why people like you run with these lies and rubbish and state them as truth yet when challenged about your interpretation and evidence have said very little about the responses calling out and discrediting information provided and supported by you and those vermin associates Hobson's Sludge. This is a shameful account which omits important vital information and dismisses Maori history passed down to all Māori from generation to generation and now you expect people to believe your version which by all accounts is just rubbish??
I hardly think your claims as tauiwi, a non-Maori stack up when it's clearly obvious you do not not understand, acknowledge or appreciate Te Ao Maori nor do you have any right to interpret this document from such a racially biased lens and particularly when one has been associated with liars, conspiracy theorists and racists!!
Shame on you!!
Thank you for your comments
You aren’t really addressing the historical evidence that I have presented in the video though.
Instead, you are bringing up things that I was supposed to have said about Alan Titford. When really you are just repeating what other people said that I said, this is pretty childish. If I actually said something then find where I said it and post it, otherwise, you are just spreading childish lies.
Why are you are going on about Martin Doutre, when I don’t think that I mentioned Martin Doutre at all.
I never mentioned Noel Hilliam or Kerry Bolton either, so why is most of your response to my presentation about people and events that I never mentioned in my presentation?
How about you comment on the following from the video.
You didn’t address the 633 battles where up to a third of the population were killed prior to 1840.
You didn’t address that these groups who were fighting to the death were separate groups, many whom arrived at separate times, lived separately, looked different to each other and that none were called Maori pre 1840.
You didn’t address the letter sent by Nga Puhi chiefs asking King William to protect them.
You haven’t commented on the fact that the DoI was written by Busby and was an attempt to stop the French Annexing New Zealand.
You didn’t address the fact that Busby simply made up the United Tribes of New Zealand in the DoI.
You didn’t address the fact that if anything the DoI was an attempt by Nga Puhi to gain sovereignty over the whole country. When the other 600 or so tribes would not, and never have, agreed to such nonsense.
You didn’t address the draft of the treaty matches te tiriti perfectly word for word, is dated correctly, is written on the correct paper from Clendon’s house and is in the handwriting of James Busby who wrote the treaty.
You didn’t address that no chief had the treaty read to him in English and subsequently signed it. Meaning the English treaty is irrelevant.
You didn’t address the fact in the 1840 treaty documents none of them have the word Maori with a capital M. The word used in all the 1840 documents is maori, meaning normal as opposed to something higher. Maori are not even mentioned in te tiriti.
You didn’t address the fact that in the 60 years after the treaty New Zealand became the most productive country in the world per capita.
You didn’t address the fact that by 1950 New Zealand had the highest standard of living in the world. And the reason you didn’t address that was because it would be impossible to have a shameful history of oppression and the highest standard of living in the world in the same country.
So gruesome depopulating national warfare by separate tribes, none known as Maori, pre-1840, was replaced by the highest standard of living in the world by 1950. It sort of blows your theory of oppression right out the window and explains why you brought up a load of irrelevant nonsense instead.
Bro are you trying to say that Te Whakaputanga didn't even happen? So are you saying that our Tūpuna are lying when they say that were there signing Te Whakaputanga?
No, I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying that it was not a bid by Maori to establish sovereignty.
The reason for this is that there were no people in New Zealand at that time known as 'Maori", there was no pan Maori group and the noun 'Maori' did even not exist in the language at that time. So to say that this document established Maori sovereignty is factually incorrect.
Actually, the document was penned by James Busby, a British man sent here to see if he could keep the peace, it's a British document. There is no evidence that the few Nga Puhi chiefs that signed it understood what they were signing. This fact was established when the Waitangi Tribunal told the world that the chiefs who signed The Tiriti, could not have understood what sovereignty meant.
There was also no such thing as the group "The United Tribes of New Zealand", they never had a meeting either before or after Busby had them sign the document. They simply did not exist.
Are you open to being interviewed on your thoughts with a pols student?
Sure, although not much of my presentation is my thoughts, all the evidence is there on the screen. I'd be more interested in the pols student showing clearly what is incorrect in my presentation.
@@andyoakley7372 Well that is what I intend to do! - Respectfully ofc. Only interested in a good proper debate. Coming from a student perspective, I feel there is a completely different way we are taught these concepts so I am interested to see how you have developed your argument further than this video :)
Now im guna stop you right at 30 minutes in bro. Ive already listened this far in with plenty thoughts flooding. Kiingitanga wasn't put there by only a few central Iwi. It was supported by many Iwi of Aotearoa and also it was a lie told by grey himself telling of the Kiingitanga coming to Attack auckland which his applauded reason to ask the crown for British back up. The grey and his army invaded the Waikato through their greed for our lands. Your bullshit talk stops right here and now. This will be shared by me to my people right now.
Thank you for your very good comments.
Thank you for taking the time to give me your interpretation of events.
One of the sources often cited in discussions about the alleged threat to Auckland is a letter attributed to the Māori King, Tāwhiao, written in 1863. In the letter, there are mentions of Tāwhiao's disappointment with the actions of the colonial government and expressions of a desire to settle the issues peacefully. However, some say the language used in the letter is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways.
Historians debate whether this letter should be seen as a genuine threat to invade Auckland or as a negotiation tactic. Some argue that the concerns about a potential invasion were exaggerated by the colonial government to justify their military actions and gain support for the war effort. Others contend that the threat was real, but the Kingitanga's military capacity and intentions were unclear.
However, as a result of the Queens promise to protect all the people of New Zealand in article three of the treaty, when a rival sovereignty movement, which in itself was a breach of the treaty, threatened the government, the government had to do something to protect the people of New Zealand.
I know that my comment will not change your point of view and that is fine, you are allowed to have a different point of view. But writing that “This will be shared by me to my people right now.”, seems like a threat.
Threatening people is not a good way to debate.
Tāonga is Treasure
I agree, today the word Taonga is said to mean ‘treasure’. However, in the 1840’s when the Treaty was written we can see the meaning was, ‘Property, or anything highly prized.
The entry in “A Dictionary of the Maori Language” first edition 1844.
Taonga, n. Property, anything highly prized. Ko te whiwhi i te taurekareka, i te taonga, i te rawa ranei o te pa horo (M. Ixxxi). Ko to te tangata maori taonga nui tenei, te haka, mo te manuhiri (T. 145). Kihai i wareware ki tana mea i kitea ai hei taonga mona, ara hei whakakite mai ki ia tangata, ki ia tangata (T. 178). ‖ tao (iv).
Whereas, one of the meanings of the word ‘Kahurangi’ in the same dictionary is, 7. Treasured possession, jewel, darling. Ka haere te wahine ki te whai i tana kahurangi (S. 35).
So yes, today the word means treasure, but in the treaty, it meant ‘property, anything highly prized".
How much do you understand the language of Maori. There is so much written history you talk of. Where's your oral history. You've forgotten most Maori could not understand English. Where's your talk on confiscated land. If you're so factual Where's your talk of the treatment towards Maori. The king movement was a one tribe people. Your history on so called sales of the south island needs more research. Like pre ngai tahu. History. 'One people' which one people are you referring to. You talk of trading, Maori where trading to. which was force stopped. The white people have always been treated as second class citizens. Read government history documentation to see that.
I think you miss the point. This is a legal document that requires accurate interpretation if it's going to move into legislation and more importantly if it's going to be taught in our schools. As the intention was devised in english there's no need to argue over translation especially if there's a rosetta stone already existing. The current translation and it's political backing has not seemed to have advanced maori as well as intended as there is still 50% maori representation in our prison system and a large population in low income situations this given the amount of cultural immersion now mainstream and the countless benefits available for maori and pacific islanders. As the demands for change continue, it seems more like the goal is revenge and not unity which starts moving into the relms of maxism and critical race theory. Culture should be a feature of our country, not a power struggle. History should be understood and learnt from, not rewritten.
Thanks for your comment Anne.
You are correct practically no one understood English in New Zealand before 1840. This is the very reason that the English version of the treaty that the government use in legislation is fraudulent. No chief signed that English worded document after hearing it read to them a) because it was never read to them and b) even if it was, they wouldn’t have understood a word of it.
You have not mentioned that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s New Zealanders, all of us, had the highest standard of living in the world.
Why don’t you acknowledge that instead of making out you’re a victim of oppression?
@@samuelsaunders155 actually when a treaty is mistranslated in law the precedent set overseas and across the world throughout history is that the legally binding version must be the one that favours the side of the non-translating party. In this case the English version is void and the maaori version is actually the only one the means anything - of course it’s not actually codified
It's funny you don't cover how those lands were exploited and purchased for a fraction of their real values. No mention of Waikato war and it's land confiscation which was never returned back to its original owners who are living in poverty now. So cynical.
The real value of something is what the willing seller and the willing buyer settle on. Not what you think it should have been 200 years later. I didn't cover the wars after the treaty because this video is not about those wars, it is about the Treaty Fraud.
@@andyoakley7372 The owners were murdered and the land stolen by the Crown & Australian businessmen/ politicians.
Under International law that shit is illegal.....
@@andyoakley7372 "The real value of something is what the willing seller and the willing buyer settle on" lol. take some of your own advice and accept many nzders especially the younger generation are willing and open to settle on an inclusive history that includes a maori perspective, including dogdy land deals, manipulation and outright racism against maori. also you want to rave on about facts but conveniently ignore how maori were taken advantage of through many land theft deals. no dought your descendents will be embarassed by your take on history and will bury any knowledge of you in the metaphorical bottom of some suitcase in the attic
@@kanakamakapalua6097 Firstly, the term ‘owner’ is an English word that is derived from a legal system. In this instance, I think you are talking about “property rights”. Before legislation was introduced in New Zealand in 1841 there was no such thing as ‘owner" in any legal sense.
Also, apart from ‘utu’, there were no consequences when one man or group of people took the property of another group or person. It happened all the time, for instance, I just heard Modilick Helmut, the CEO of Ngati Toa stating that as mana whenua (lords of the land) of Wellington, they wanted all the protestors gone from Parliament.
However, Ngati Toa arrived in Kapiti and Porirua in the 1820s and killed and enslaved the original people Ngati Ira and others.
Either you believe that it doesn’t matter how people obtain property, and so Ngati Toa can be mana whenua of Wellington, or you don’t, meaning whoever has legal title to the property today has all the rights.
It seems that you want it both ways i,e., it is ok to kill and steal property and also it is NOT ok to kill and steal property.
By the way, the land speculators and politicians bought the land before 1840. One of the reasons the chiefs signed the treaty was to quash many of those sales, and many were quashed, and the land returned. That process was known as the New Zealand Land Commission and was overseen by William Spain.
After the Treaty, all land sales were recorded and those titles can be searched.
Great presentation - Wouldn't it be great if this present parliament could listen to the Facts! - Truth is stranger than fiction!
I agree.
Thanks for your comments.
What a load of rubbish
Te Tiriti signed on the 6th February and The Treaty signed 65 days later
Ngapuhi did not cede their Sovereignty as told by The Crown in March 2010, as stated in The Waitangi Act 1975 schedule 1, The Maori version prevails
Stop the hate of incorrect research
Tautoko!
Then you had better erase the Ngapuhi Chief Hara's signature (mark) off of Treaty of Waitangi.
nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/signatory/1-55#:~:text=Hara%20was%20a%20Ng%C4%81puhi%20chief,Kahungunu%20to%20sign%20the%20treaty.
Solid argument. Solid evidence. Fluid interpretations 🙄
Buhahaha 😂
Māori understood they still had ownership of their lands and rights and this knowledge has been passed down through from generation to generation - Whakapapa Māori. This is widely known in Te Ao Māori. Let's not forget the murders, brutal treatment and racist laws and policies that discriminated against Māori by the little englanders! The agenda was always to steal the land, dispossess and label Māori as savages and murder us - Parihaka!! The source of all racism comes from people like you who denigrate and devalue Māori and who purposely set out to discredit Māori and rewrite history to suit their narrative!! Disgraceful bullshit!!
In 1840 there was no such group as pan Maori, just separate tribes. You have no idea as to what each of the different chiefs thought they were signing in 1840, you are just making up stories or repeating rubbish you have heard from someone else, probably your school.
History tells us that your story is incorrect though, many of the chiefs who signed the Treaty, about 200 all up pledged allegiance to the Queen's sovereignty at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference. This is on record.
It is because there was no ‘pan-Maori’ group in 1840 that you will not find the word “Maori” with a capital letter in any of the 1840 documents used to gather signatures around New Zealand. So, to say that “Maori” understood that they still had ownership of their lands” cannot be correct. Maori are not mentioned in Te Tiriti
“Ownership” is a legal term and property rights only came about after the treaty signing. You will note that property rights are mentioned in article two of te tiriti and legislation came about as a result of the Queens Letters Patent later in 1840 (May 1840 I think).
As for land theft, racism, savages, Parihaka, denigration and devaluing Māori, these are concepts that have been taught to you in school and are not a true reflection of New Zealand’s history.
Pre 1840 there was little or no infrastructure in New Zealand, just 600 or so separate tribes some related others not. These tribes arrived at different times and settled in different places. Included in these tribes or groups were Europeans who, like people in the other different groups were intermarrying. This concept that you have in your head that there was this separate group or race, who all thought the same about rivers and mountains, is rubbish
In 1840 almost all of the chiefs of all these different groups decided to become one nation as a result of signing te tiriti. TOGETHER, along with further immigrants they built the infrastructure of New Zealand. By 1900 New Zealand was the most productive country's in the world (per capita) and by 1950 the combined effort of all these intermarrying groups had achieved the highest standard of living in the entire world. It stayed that way for a period of about 25 to 30 years.
If we measure the standard of living in New Zealand pre-1840 and we compare it with say the mid-1960s, we can see that no one in New Zealand could possibly say that they had been oppressed.
Homeownership was above 70%, crime was comparatively low, suicides were rare, poverty was almost unheard of, there were no homeless, no beggars in the streets, almost full employment and racism just didn’t exist.
People who defined as Māori lived here between 1840 and 1965 too when the living standard was the highest in the world. You should have a think about why your school taught you to hate white people instead of why you should be proud of our nation and what we have achieved together.
Don’t be a hater.
Nz maori are imposters and like their european counterparts do not legally own anything concerning Aokealoa.
Honour the treaty
Firstly to our people my apologise for the way i have worded this but it must be made clear what our documents really mean the 1835 document was an imgration legislation that was entered into the house of lords by the king of England ratify by the house of commons as the founding document to this country that legislation was passed by our parliment members in 1840 at waitangi the talk of three house was then discussed in order to protect the 3 main stitches that make up the very fabrics of democracy from being miss used by future parlimant members the 3 houser were to contain the first house the power the secound house the function the third house the duty as long as those 3 entities remains in one house the New Zealand votes will not count there are legislation that prove our votes do not count and the rule of law is being miss used our fight has never been against the white man it has been against the ruling entities
Firstly, there is no such thing as "the white man", that's all in your head, and secondly, there was no parliament in New Zealand in 1840.
@@andyoakley7372 hahahaha really?
Bullshit, fraudulent....toilet paper.
you dont know anything about maori........ we know who we ware and where we come from we arrived here hundreds of years ago married the natives here and now you have us tangata whenua......... hotu roa was the son of hotu matua just go do some research on te pito o te whenua, explains why them and alot of tainui people and other iwi have blonde and red head genetics still in the dna here in aotearoa and over in easter island, and yall tried to erase our language and culture, so what gives you any right to give a lecture on tangata whenua................
We are all entitled to our opinions, however, unless you represent all of Maridom, you can not say "we know who we are". As you do not speak for all of Maoridom you are speaking for yourself, no one else.
@@andyoakley7372 And you Andy don’t represent all Pakeha either. That’s the oldest trick you Pakeha use.
That's correct I don't represent all Pakeha. In fact, I don't represent any Pakeha at all, because Pakeha means "white New Zealander" and I have never seen any New Zealander with white skin.
Moreover, I do not go around catagorising any people using their skin colour as the basis, to do so would be racist. And the fact that you DO go around catagorising people using their skin colour tells me about how you think.
Stop it Oakley, , ,2 treaties with 2 meaning, , ,
1 by busby, , ,the fraudulent treaty n the other by tangata whenua the true treaty
Silent Majority
TEMPLATE 4 CHANGE
A document Open for debate and general discussion
1. LAW & ORDER. The law courts will revert to the practice of Common Law only where all citizens are treated equally under the law and innocent until proven guilty. Admiralty Law and Sharia Law and the use of Legalese Language will not be permitted to be used in the courts.
2. REMUNERATION. Salaries for all government employees and politicians starts at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times the minimum wage.
3. GOVERNMENT SERVICES and UTILITIES. Government service contracts that have been outsourced to private companies, corporations, trusts and foundations will become null and void. The management of all government departments’ services and utilities will revert to internal administration.
4. REGISTERED CORPORATIONS. Individual members of parliament and political parties who are registered corporations will have their registration in the public arena become null and void and a bye election will be held. Also, any government departments civil or legal who are operating with a registered tax file number or are registered as a corporation will cease this practice immediately.
5. TAXATION. 5% with no tax deductibles. This tax applies to all citizens, private companies, public companies, corporations’ trusts, foundations and churches no one is exempt from this tax.
6. EDUCATION. Education will be free to all citizens including university. Private schools do not qualify for public funding.
7. HEALTH. Universal health care for all citizens.
8. SUPERANNUATION & RETIREMENT FUND. Minimum wage. All retirement payments currently being paid out of the public purse will revert to this payment. Any free travel internal or international or other tax funded payments will cease immediately.
9. PUBLIC HOUSING. Is the responsibility of the government who have an obligation to make sure all citizens have affordable housing.
10. FREEDOM of the PRESS. The right for the public to know is paramount to a healthy and democratic process.
11. SOCIAL MEDIA. All comments made on social media are the responsibility of the person making them. Any subject where the language used does not threaten life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness then the right to FREE SPEACH shall remain.
12. FOREIGN OWNERSHIP. Foreign citizens cannot own rural or residential property those who do will have three months to sell otherwise those properties will go up for auction proceeds to be paid to the owner.
13. GENETICALLY MODIFIED TECHNOLOGY. The use of GM in the food chain will not be permitted. E.g., Wheat Grain Corn all Livestock.
14. WATER. All management contracts that have been granted to private companies and corporations will become null and void and revert to internal government administration. Water is not to be traded as a commodity on any exchange all contracts in place will be terminated immediately.
15. RESERVE BANK. The printing of money and government financial services that have been out sourced to private companies or corporations those contracts will become null and void and revert to a government managed RESERVE BANK. A ten-year audit will be conducted on the accounts of the companies who have been responsible for this service.
16. COVID 19 No government, health professional or politicians has the power to mandate any medical procedure. This LAW was brought into existence after the Second World War at the Geneva Convention in response to War Crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jewish population. Those in political office, civil servants, medical health professionals, health service providers, law and order and other persons who have been part of the decisions made regarding covid19 pandemic shutdowns will have their accounts and bank statements audited.
17. CASH. A cashless society is not an option. Electronic payments system ONLY would allow banks, politicians and big business the option to dictate the final outcome of any economic future. Merchants cannot refuse to be paid in cash.
18. POST OFFICE. Government post office network shall be issued a banking license where banks have closed their operations.
DEMOCRACY is a GLOBAL CURRENCY you can add value.
This template can be used as the basis for a political campaign. Any other social, political, economic concerns that may be relevant to a particular constituency can be added as they arise.
Thanks Robin, sorry it took so long to reply, the way this was posted meant I could not see that there was a full list of ideas.
Some of which a very good and others need further exploring.
One point I would raise is that most people, including our politicians and their economists, do not understand the economy.
Here is a newer video where I cover that misunderstanding.
th-cam.com/video/odhfvxXZ9YE/w-d-xo.html
@@andyoakley7372 Hi Andy thank you for the link looking at it now Cheers !!!
Brilliant research Andy! Spot on
Thanks Bari
Complete bullshit actually Bari
😆😆😅 what a load of distorted shite.
@@lukemaker8618 Why not debate what you think I have presented as wrong?
At least we can learn something that way.
@@kiricampbell8947 please debate what you think is distorted.