DEI is doing about as well in New Zealand at the moment as it is in the United States — which is to say, not very.
And the natives, who have been benefiting from government subsidies on account of their race for years, are restless, as it were, with the recent developments.
Related: Barbados PM Demands $4.9 TRILLION for Slavery Reparations, British Crown Seemingly Agrees
Via The Guardian (emphasis added):
The conservative government’s position is that it doesn’t want to discriminate based on race anymore, especially on account of a fake treaty that’s actually an “agreement” signed over 200 years ago by the colonial British authorities before New Zealand gained independence — which, in a different context, might seem utterly commendable and reasonable if you’re going to try to have a functional multiracial society.Representatives of more than 80 Māori tribes have issued a rare plea to King Charles III requesting his intervention in New Zealand politics, amid growing tension over the government’s policies for Māori and a souring of the relationship between Indigenous people and ruling authorities.
The National Iwi Chairs Forum – a collective of tribal leaders – has sent an open letter to the King asking him “to ensure that the [New Zealand] government does not diminish the crown’s honour” over what they believe to be ongoing breaches of the crown’s promises made to Māori in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding document of New Zealand.
Since it took office last year, New Zealand’s rightwing coalition government’s policy direction for Māori has sparked the biggest ever protest over Māori rights, mass meetings of Māori leaders and condemnation from the Waitangi Tribunal, an institution that investigates breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The treaty is an agreement signed in 1840 between more than 500 Māori chiefs and the British Crown and is instrumental in upholding Māori rights.
Continuing via The Guardian:
The rationale behind many of the government’s proposals is to end “race-based” policies, tackle crime and reduce bureaucracy. The coalition has said it is committed to improving outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders.
But critics fear its policies, including rollbacks of the use of Māori language in public services, the dismantling of an institution designed to remedy inequities in health, and the introduction of a controversial bill that seeks to radically alter the way the treaty is interpreted are undermining Māori rights, igniting anti-Māori rhetoric and eroding the Māori relationship with the crown.
In a brave and stunning display of defiance, one Maori MP did what is ostensibly a kind of primal dance, ripping up the legislation on the floor of Parliament while looking legitimately psychotic, for which she received much praise and support from the Social Justice™ community.
Good for her, sure. Whatever.
Māori members of New Zealand’s parliament disrupted the passage of a bill that would reinterpret the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which uplifts Indigenous peoples. The MPs performed a haka—a traditional Māori dance and chant—causing the session to be suspended. pic.twitter.com/89VhB1aqAS
— red. (@redstreamnet) November 14, 2024
In summary, in order to remedy racism, we must be racist in perpetuity with no endpoint in sight by which time historical wrongs will be considered to have been righted, and we can all move on to a post-racial world that is ostensibly the end goal.
In fact, no one even talks about that ostensible end goal anymore — it’s all “let me get that cash, whitey.”
And, boy, are they quick on the draw to pull the “muh genocide” card.
Make it make sense, please.
I might be more amenable all of this “sacred connection to our ancestral lands” talk had I not had the relatively unique experience of sitting in on meetings between the BLM (Bureau of Land Management, not the race one) and indigenous tribes in New Mexico about a decade ago. The overriding concerns expressed on the tribal side were about how much cash they were getting from the entrance fees to the national monument that they shared with the BLM outside of Albuquerque (Kasha-Katuwe), but did nothing to maintain or govern — and no concerns were expressed at all about conservationism or land stewardship, much less their sacred indigenous spirituality or whatever.
It all came down to the cash money in the end, all the time.
Well, lo and behold, I did a little digging, only to discover that the Maori receive more than double their share of government welfare as a percentage of the population. Via Welfare Expert Advisory Group: “Māori are over-represented in the benefit system, making up 15% of the New Zealand population, but 36% of benefit recipients.”
The hilarious and bitter irony, of course, is that while these foot soldiers for Social Justice™ posture as the protectors of put-upon minorities, they are actually merely pawns for George Soros-type social engineers who have used divide-and-conquer tactics for centuries to balkanize and more easily exploit populations under their dominion — originally developed by the Romans, later perfected by the British, and now employed by the multinational technocrats hellbent on destroying any semblance of national identity as a means to demoralize the populations they seek to conquer.
Related: Uganda Passes 'Anti-Gay' Law, Western NGOs and Governments Threaten Sanctions
Via University of Aberdeen (emphasis added):
The ‘divide and rule’ strategy that has been an essential feature of imperial policies has not only divided territories and populations along racial, religious and linguistic lines but has also divided communities into a collaborating ruling elite and a resisting mass. By shifting the axis of analysis, this paper has argued that the classic ‘divide and rule’ policy was implemented in a horizontal and vertical dimension simultaneously. Theorising Georg Simmel’s classic triadic configurations, this paper has explored whether in the British imperial strategy a divisive mechanism was set up in which inter-communal problems would be exploited or an advantage would be gained simply by being a tertius gaudens, that is, that the benefits would only be the result of the actions of the two conflicting parties. This paper argues that the British Empire deliberately set up a ‘divide and rule’ structure in order to take advantage of existing or emerging hostilities between the communities of the native population.
It's a dirty game, folks. No lie.
